Quantcast
Victory Briefs | Victory Briefs Institute | Victory Briefs Store |  Subscribe to VBD | Subscribe VBD by Email
   

Do Not Cut HIV Education

posted by Tim Averill on August 24th, 2004

As a teacher of teenagers for thirty-five years, I am well aware that abstinence-only education does a disservice to sexually active teenagers, by ignoring their reality. We need to continue to fund good-quality HIV education, that informs teenagers and adults about risk reduction.

While abstinence may be the best option for many people, it is not the only option. Furthermore, many people think that abstinence does not include oral sex, in which condoms should be used to prevent disease. If we stop funding all education that mentions birth control, we are putting our political agendas ahead of public safety, and we are closing our eyes to the realities of most of the teenagers in the United States of America.

I am encouraging everyone in the debate community to contact the CDC now, before the end of the day, to make our voices heard. Cutting funding for HIV education in the name of abstinence-only rhetoric is a dangerous idea, with dire consequences for the future of our country.

–
Tim Averill is the long-serving head coach at Manchester-Essex Regional High School in Massachusetts.

Victory Briefs Daily accepts guest opinion pieces from members of the debate community. As with any news media that prints or posts opinion pieces, reviewed and posted submissions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Victory Briefs, LLC. If you are interested in having a piece published, you can submit your draft to Jon Cruz.

Popularity: 1%

test

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 24th, 2004 at 9:55 am and is filed under Guest Opinion Pieces. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.



10 Responses to “Do Not Cut HIV Education”

  1. Alex
    Posted from: 207.172.84.59

    August 24th, 2004 11:15
    1

    I agree. I blame the President.

  2. Ryan Hamilton
    Posted from: 68.104.39.225

    August 24th, 2004 17:06
    2

    The President has a perfectly rational standpoint on this issue — and while I disagree with parts of the administrative position on HIV education, I think that a policy which has at it’s focus abstinence is the best way to produce a nation of sexually responsible people.

  3. Alex
    Posted from: 207.172.84.59

    August 24th, 2004 18:29
    3

    Well, they can teach abstinence all they want, but telling all kids that sex is evil is only going to encourage them to have more sex… and none of them is gonna know how to use a condom.

  4. misty may
    Posted from: 24.193.206.55

    August 24th, 2004 18:37
    4

    Anyone who is advocating sexual responsibility yet cannot distinguish between “its” and “it’s” is about as trustworthy as Wesley Willis would be if he gave him opinion on whether Althusser’s conception of the subject was politically problematic.

  5. Blurred Mongoose
    Posted from: 205.188.116.212

    August 24th, 2004 18:46
    5

    Condoms are really hard to use…..

  6. Kleiner
    Posted from: 24.221.155.169

    August 25th, 2004 00:44
    6

    way to go misty- surely by insulting ryan’s grammar in his quickly typed up post you are refuting his arguement. oh wait: no.

    ryan brings up a reasonable point for discussion. perhaps the best solution is to emphasize abstinence as the best option and that no sex is ever totally safe but then teaching kids how to use a condom in the case that they do choose to be sexually active.

  7. misty
    Posted from: 24.193.206.55

    August 25th, 2004 06:30
    7

    2 lines does not an “arguement” make.

  8. michelin massey
    Posted from: 24.8.11.227

    August 25th, 2004 10:59
    8

    after reading some of the other comments, i have a few questions and a brief comment to clarify:

    1. when is a person “sexually responsible?” what does that phrase mean?
    2. is it the government’s job to instruct young people about the morality of certain modes of sexuality? for instance, does the government have the right to tell homosexual students that their affinity orientation is morally incorrect?

    mr. averill’s post was actually really carefully worded and a lot more specific than people are giving him credit. in no way does he advocate that schools should indoctrinate kids to be sexual heathens. his argument is that many teenagers are sexually active. the best way to cope with this reality and stem the spread of sexually transmitted infections is to give them information about safer sex.

  9. michelin massey
    Posted from: 24.8.11.227

    August 25th, 2004 10:59
    9

    after reading some of the other comments, i have a few questions and a brief comment to clarify:

    1. when is a person “sexually responsible?” what does that phrase mean?
    2. is it the government’s job to instruct young people about the morality of certain modes of sexuality? for instance, does the government have the right to tell homosexual students that their affinity orientation is morally incorrect?

    mr. averill’s post was actually really carefully worded and a lot more specific than people are giving him credit. in no way does he advocate that schools should indoctrinate kids to be sexual heathens. his argument is that many teenagers are sexually active. the best way to cope with this reality and stem the spread of sexually transmitted infections is to give them information about safer sex.

  10. Alex
    Posted from: 207.172.84.59

    August 25th, 2004 12:04
    10

    Well, sure, abstinence should be the focus of sexual education… but ignoring that sex might happen is a huge mistake, as Mr. Averill wrote.

Leave a Reply

Most Popular Posts










Via BuzzFeed