Replies

Well, sure abstinence is the only sure fire way to prevent the transmission of STDs. This is however, painfully unrealistic. Abstinence should be taught BY PARENTS, and I have absolutely no clue what the public and private schools are involved in this for - I thought the primary focus was teaching academic material. Nowadays that seems to be little more than an occasional afterthought.

Like it or not, people are going to continue to have unprotected sex, no matter what laws we pass or whatever the Vatican edicts. Self-destructive behavior is certainly nothing new under the sun. Ideally, these people who engage in such activities should ultimately be held accountable for their actions (unfortunately, leftists think that everyone else is responsible for the stupidity of others, and should therefore foot the bill). Yes, and unlike the left, I don't believe that the spread of AIDS is because of lack of federal funding.

A related phenomenon is that of prohibition. It didn't work in the 1930's and it certainly isn't working now. I would dare say that prohibition causes more problems than it solves. Given the estimated 117,000% profit margin (Cato Institute) in the drug trade, the character of people involved, and the insatiable demand for product, this is a no brainer. "Just Say No" was about as bright a response to the problem of drug use (which really was not so much a problem as it is today since prohibition and the emergence of the lucrative black market) as is the same ostrich approach to sexual abstinence. It is simply not rational and will create more problems than it ever attempted to solve.

The best method to addressing the issue is to remain rational. People are going to have sex, whether you or I like it or not (I personally don't care what they do, just as long as I don't get the bill for it). I am not particularly pleased at the idea of my teenage neice possibly being sexually active, but I am even more frightened of her contracting a deadly disease. Therefore, acknowledging that what is in theory logical but seldom practical, this 'abstinence only' may offer us some self-sense of 'moral riteousness' but given the nature of human behavior will end up as a failure entirely.

This is not to say that abstinence should not be taught as the primary defense against STDs, as it is the only sure-fire method to keep from contracting such. But reality is different. "Just Say No" has done little if anything to curb the appetite for illegal drugs, as I suspect it has done for the wave of STD's we now face. I really don't see educating our children about ways to protect themselves sexually is any "green light" to becomming sexually active, if explained that abstinence is the best method. However, should you screw up (no pun intended), at least take some degree of action to protect yourself from making the situation a life threatening disaster. It's not a comfortable position to be in, but at least it is somewhat practical.

I wished we lived in a perfect world, but sadly we do not. I do not see Utopia around the bend anytime soon, so perhaps it is better just to deal with reality as it presents itself as best we can. "Safety Nazis" as I refer to them, exist on both the right and the left. The safest place for anyone to be in the world is solitary confinement in a maximum security prison. That certainly would keep us all safe from ourselves and each other with a rather high degree of certainty - but is this a manner in which you would choose to "live"?