condomolatry again

By Peter Mirus (bio - articles ) | Aug 16, 2006

This from Maggie Fox, Reuters health and science correspondent:
That said, [President] Clinton joined the majority of experts who say abstinence-only programs do not work. Better, he said, are programs that include abstinence counseling as part of a range of options.

Other experts have noted that abstinence-only programs have little meaning in societies where young girls and women are forced into early marriage, forced to have sex [forced prostitution], or raped.

Programs featuring abstinence and marital fidelity as primary methods do work, as experience in Africa shows. That is, these programs succeed in curbing the spread of AIDS. To date they have not succeeded in gaining the attention of the mainstream media, which remains obsessed with condoms. Some additional points:
  • Condoms are not foolproof. What’s foolproof is not having sex before you get married, not marrying someone with AIDS, and then being faithful to that person throughout your marriage.
  • Condoms have little effect in societies where young girls and women are forced into early marriage or raped.
  • Abstinence is always possible for those who are not being sexually coerced or assaulted. So what is the proposed audience for the condom campaign? Pederasts, pimps, sexual deviants, and rapists are not likely to listen to any such appeal
The United States wants to help those forced into prostitution:
A US law [requires] HIV/AIDS organizations that want PEPFAR funding to pledge to oppose commercial sex work.
This-- and a separate requirement that recipient organizations spend 33% of taxpayer funds on abstinence programs-- is viewed by critics as evidence of overweening moralism.
"I wish they would just amend the law and say 'we disapprove of prostitution but here's the money -- go save lives'," Clinton said.
Right. And then we're back to the question of how one can save lives more effectively: by encouraging abstinence, or by handing out condoms to clients at brothels.
Peter Mirus is a business, marketing and technology consultant who serves as a guiding member of the Trinity Communications Board of Directors. He has served as director of design and/or application development for many key Catholic projects since 1993, assisting such organizations as EWTN, the Knights of Columbus, and the March for Life. A specialist in non-profit organizations, he continues to work regularly on the design mission of
Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 13 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Aug. 21, 2006 10:48 PM ET USA

    What a surprise! Our former satyr President taking a stand against morality! The saddest part of this piece is that this repulsive but charasmatic man was elected President, not once, but twice. The chances are, if he were permitted to run again, he would win again. That statement doesn't tell us much about him. But it tells us everything we need to know about the state of our growing sicker by the moment, society. How long, oh Lord, how long?

  • Posted by: ladybird - Aug. 18, 2006 10:18 AM ET USA

    It's been a long time since I did it but back in the swingin' sixties you still had to have a blood test for std's before you could obtain a marriage license. Is it not so anymore? Wasn't the purpose to screen for transmittable std's and prevent spread? We thought it smart, not intrusive. It kept some abstinent who might have been tempted - they knew they'd be found out if they finally decided to settle down and went down to get the license! Nevermind the moralizing, it just makes sense.

  • Posted by: - Aug. 17, 2006 7:21 PM ET USA

    Humpty, consider what such a marriage would entail. An HIV person who marries a non-HIV person must know that he/she risks infecting his/her spouse. Does that conform to justice or charity? If the non-HIV person goes into marriage knowing that, does not he/she take immoral risks (knowing that we are merely stewards of our lives)? I would think the answer to your last question is yes, but remember God determines what is fair.

  • Posted by: - Aug. 17, 2006 4:55 PM ET USA

    Where does Church Law or teaching forbid one from marrying someone with HIV/AIDS: "not marrying someone with AIDS"? Are you suggesting that babies who were infected with HIV/AIDS are condemned to mandatory lifelong celebacy? Advocate/Procurator.

  • Posted by: - Aug. 17, 2006 12:07 PM ET USA

    Another additional point is that abstinance programs do not make money for condom manufacturers. Follow the money ...

  • Posted by: - Aug. 16, 2006 11:14 PM ET USA

    Bill Clinton: "Well, I tell you I've tried abstinence, even when the sex is free, and it doesn't work." Unidentified: "Other experts have noted that abstinence-only programs have little meaning in societies where young girls and women are forced into early runs for the Senate and US Presidency."

  • Posted by: - Aug. 16, 2006 11:12 PM ET USA

    "As we rode, Clinton recalled that the Catholic Church hadn't always taught that human life begins at conception, and I responded with what I remembered from my theological studies. The morning crisis faded as we discussed Augustine and Aquinas, and their debates over when the body was "quickened" by being joined to a soul. "Garry Wills wrote a good article on this in the New York Review," I said." p.213, All Too Human, George Stephanopolous

  • Posted by: - Aug. 16, 2006 8:08 PM ET USA

    Clinton is a perfect example of a Democrat. Prostitution is fine, condoms are great and let's keep slaughtering babies. Naturally all the "Good Democrat Catholics", Kennedy, Biden, Leahy, Reid, Kerry, Dodd etc. will fall in line and second Clinton's absurdity.

  • Posted by: depeccatoradvitam - Aug. 16, 2006 5:05 PM ET USA

    Way to go Bill... Just make an end around about the way the laws are now and throw money at it. Yes,, this was the leader of the (misdefined) "free" world. Wrapping it up in a neat package and allowing the bad is NOT an answer. Abstinence is the answer. A little self control directed to God's will and everything is possible.

  • Posted by: parochus - Aug. 16, 2006 4:29 PM ET USA

    Clinton teaching on this subject is like "the fox teaching the carpenter how to make a hen house!"

  • Posted by: - Aug. 16, 2006 1:52 PM ET USA

    Would Pres. Clinton's promote "programs that include abstinence counseling as part of a range of options" if the subject were cigarette smoking? Yea, lets pass out low tar cigarettes in middle schools while encouraging kids not to smoke. That would really work.

  • Posted by: - Aug. 16, 2006 1:43 PM ET USA

    Clinton is a recognized expert on the ineffectiveness of abstinence.

  • Posted by: - Aug. 16, 2006 1:39 PM ET USA

    Bill Clinton can hand out cigars while he's at it. Not that Bill Clinton has tried abstinence and found it wanting or anything.