Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (25888)	1/23/2004 1:31:35 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793755

John, It is the "one size fits all" (so to speak) abstinence program that I and the people I know on "the left," as we are so absurdly called, object to. I have been married and monogamous for quite a few years now, but I certainly wasn't so in my late teens and 20s. That was before AIDs was an issue, to be sure, but I rather stupidly played pregnancy roulette games (not to mention unthinking STD games) more than once (without consequence, VERY fortunately for me). I was not alone in this. When you're young many of us do idiotic things like that. This was true even before the 60s and 70s, though it mushroomed and became far more public then. It is clearly even more true in many other cultures (though some like to pretend this is not so). For the Bush admin to push "abstinence only" at home without recognizing human behavioral realities and wihtout incorporating it with at least reasonably intelligent alternatives is, IMO, had enough, but to attempt to impose it on cultures where it has absolutely zero resonance is typical of an administration that is tone deaf to every POV other than a certain patriotic, conservative American POV; and that is why this admin has generated more mistrust and resentment abroad and at home than any other in history.

To: aladin who wrote (25888)	1/23/2004 1:38:43 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793755

If we treated this disease like any other potentially fatal STD - then we would take politics out of it. Wouldn't that be nice. Too bad it won't happen. Do you promote having 'safe sex' with other potentially fatal STD's? One of the ways that politics plays in this issue, as in others, is the use of language and slogans. "Safe sex" is unfortunate shorthand. As you say, it is safer, not safe. I should think the folks who use that language know that, but maybe not. "Promote," is another unfortunate choice. The usage lacks, dare I say, nuance. It makes it seem like the condom advocates are AIDS advocates. I should think the folks who use that language know that, but maybe not. It could be that, in their zeal, the folks on both sides are thinking sloppily or it could be political hype. Whichever it is, shame on them. No one in the medical establishment does, so why do we treat AIDS different? The medical establishment includes family doctors and public health officials. Their objectives are not always compatible. The doctor has a responsibility regarding the health of his individual patient. Public health officials are concerned with epidemics. If there's an ebola case discovered in your building, the public health folks will call for a quarantine to contain the outbreak and expect you to stay. Anyone concerned solely with your health will tell you to run for your life so that you don't get infected if you already aren't, and if you're infected already, well, too bad for the safety of others. Cross purposes. The condom advocates are dealing with this from a public health perspective, correctly, I think. Were they to tell an individual that a condom would provide safety, that would be criminal, IMO. Likewise, IMO, it's criminal to withhold condoms from a populace where AIDS is rampant and sex is inevitable. The concept of 'safe sex' with condoms is ridiculous. I agree with you. But the situation in Africa is that women are getting AIDS from their husbands and passing it along to their children. If I were HIV positive there's no way I would risk sex with anyone. I'd feel like a murderer. If the anti-condom folk think they have some way to get these men, who most likely got their infection from prostitutes, to stop having sex with their wives, then they should take their program over there and implement it. In the meantime, give them condoms. that condoms are only 90 to 92% effective in practical terms If you can save a good many of them rather than none of them, is that not a good thing? Karen@thisconservativeideakillsmore.gov Karen@publichealth.edu