"Conservatives Interfere With Health and Research"

Sofia wrote:

Craven--

You are waaay off task.

Bullshit. You simply keep redefining the topic to exclude the examples of conservatives wreaking havok on health for your own arbitrary reasons.

Quote:

I don't think I've ever seen you step so far away from the topic at hand.

The topic at hand is conservative interference in health and I have not once strayed from this topic.

Quote:

We're not talking about what Bush did in Texas, or what he said then...

It's very understandable that YOU do not wish to speak about Bush's interference in health in Texas and how it was a total failure.

But I do, it is directly pertinent to the issue of conservatives interfering in health (see the title of the thread) for their religious reasons and replacing science with their quackery.

Quote:

We are talking about his AIDS policy. NOW. The morning after pill is not pertinent, nor is abortion.

"We"?

Sofia, you do not get to decide what the topic is all by yourself and exclude examples that do not bode well for your position.

Quote:

From my paste jobs--sorry about length of them--but they were on issue.

I don't dipsute that.

Unlike yourself, I do not try to simply exclude anything that reflects badly on my position from the discussion.

As to your repost of your copy and paste I hope your arguments will not center on repeating your copy and paste demonstrations.

0 Replies

I think Uganda's success, and dispensing possible ideologically driven programs for realistic ones, led to the change. A person's opinions and beliefs can evolve. I'm glad that he shows on this issue, his opinions have changed.

He's taking a lot of heat for his condoms...

I've very hopeful that, not only will this save lives, but the addition of abstinence (aside from being a help to 'some')--has opened wider US pockets. To me--a win-win.

Looking forward to the results of the program's evaluation.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I think Uganda's success, and dispensing possible ideologically driven programs for realistic ones, led to the change. A person's opinions and beliefs can evolve. I'm glad that he shows on this issue, his opinions have changed.

If his position has changed, I applaud it. He has shown inclinations that it might have or at least that he'll withdraw his personal positions from the arena.

Either way, that will be a good thing for the future and hopefully a break with his long history of personifying the title of this thread.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In the U.S. the focus is primarily 'don't do drugs' period. Most of the methadone treatment, free needle exchange, etc. is handled by private agencies though some government grant money is available.

There is always the larger question. Is it more compassionate to make it easy and safer for people to destroy their lives or be ready to rescue them and thereby encourage more to experiment and take the risk? Or is it more compassionate to require people to face the consequences of the choices they make? You will find very good people standing on both sides of that.

Indeed.

Here, we have taken the stance that some folk will use drugs no matter what - and it is best that they have very accurate information in making that choice, which they cannot poo-poo and laugh at as they do at the "drugs are bad" (South Park) kind of program.

I can recall having one of those program folk brought into my school as a weelowan.

My class were very sophisticated li'l smeggers- and the poor speakers were factually and philosophically ripped apart at the speed of light. (I was totally ignorant of drugs meself at the time, so I just sat back and gasped).

Of course, these were more innocent days - hardly any heroin was available then - and most of the party drugs were yet to be invented.

Teehee - we also thought herpes was a nightmare, back then.

Fox said: "thereby encourage more to experiment and take the risk"

You'd be going to demonstrate that education and harm minimization strategies do that, Fox.

I would like to see you try.

0 Replies

You're right.

I had become so entrenched in the focused discussion of the Bush/AIDS/condoms issue over the past two pages, I had actually morphed into thinking it was the sole issue.

Although, I thought the thread title was tied to Bush and condoms...nevertheless...Prematurely senior moment.

It seems those who were denying the validity of my claims exited, as you entered and widened the discussion to other aspects. I was still focused on the validity of the previous conversations...

My bad. An innocent error. I apologize.

0 Replies

Morning after pill not topical to a thread on interference with optimal reproductive and STD health care????

It most certainly is!

It is, of course, a non-optimal contraceptive - (and means there has likely been unsafe sex) but it is a damned fine solution for a kid who might otherwise have a child, or an abortion!

Edit:

Acknowledge Sofia has now withdrawn point.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I had become so entrenched in the focused discussion of the Bush/AIDS/condoms issue over the past two pages, I had actually morphed into thinking it was the sole issue.

I'd actually typed and posted the Bush examples prior to your posts on the AIDS funding but accidentally deleted it and reposted it.

No biggie.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Portal Star wrote:

For example, all those anti-drug ads our tax dollars have been paying for (And yesteryear's DARE campaigns which have now been abandoned) have both shown to increase drug use in teens.

Show me. I read the link while on the phone, and think you are overstating this significantly.

You didn't hear that about the dare program? I don't have a link but let me see what five minutes searching on the internet can do.

Didn't find any articles, I'm sorry. I know that they pulled it out of schools a couple years ago. The information was honest and straightforward, which I think is the way to go, but being that many drugs aren't as harmful as the government sanctioned punishments that say they are - I think the truth and the recognition of those drugs (we had a poster filled with every kind of drug, what they did, what they looked like) made kids very aware of the drugs and what they did. I heard that this led to increased drug use and that is why they pulled the program (if you check the official dare website they will tell you they changed the program, but not why.) If I come across a source I will post it here.

And in response to stonehenge up there, yes passing out condoms increases sexual activity. But that's probably because the people were too chickenshit to go buy their own.

0 Replies

I'm talking about your claim that the drug ads have been "shown to increase drug use in teens".

This is a patent falsehood. Some make this claim and have good reason to do so, but no, it has not been shown to do what you said it was scientifically at all.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I'm talking about your claim that the drug ads have been "shown to increase drug use in teens".

This is a patent falsehood. Some make this claim and have good reason to do so, but no, it has not been shown to do what you said it was scientifically at all.

I was quoting the article about the UT study on that one. Could you elaborate on what you consider a falsehood?

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
I'm talking about your claim that the drug ads have been "shown to increase drug use in teens".

This is a patent falsehood. Some make this claim and have good reason to do so, but no, it has not been shown to do what you said it was scientifically at all.

I was quoting the article about the UT study on that one. Could you elaborate on what you consider a falsehood?

Sure, read the last thing I posted. I indicate exactly what is a falsehood.

In case this can help:

Claiming and showing are different things in science.

0 Replies

New Scientist on some of the issues raised here:

US abortion policy: A healthy strategy for whom?

Full article here: http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/uselection/article.jsp?id=ns99996485

A hard-line policy on abortion is undermining America's entire global strategy on health

In 1984, at a population conference in Mexico City, President Ronald Reagan dropped a bombshell. He announced that thereafter, any non-governmental organisation that provided abortions, counselled about abortion, advocated abortion in any way, or was affiliated with other organisations that did any of these, would be barred from receiving US money, supplies, training or technical support.

It was not enough that 11 years earlier the US had decided that not a single penny from its taxpayers could be used to pay for abortions overseas. Now it wanted to punish proximity to the deed as well.

What has become known as the Mexico City policy - or the "global gag rule" by opponents - sent aid organisations into turmoil. NGOs had to quickly decide whether they would stand on principle and forgo American largesse or sever their ties with anything even faintly to do with the termination of a pregnancy.

The London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) decided to do the former, and immediately lost more than 20% of its funding. Likewise, leading reproductive health organisations such as the Family Planning Association of Kenya, the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia and the Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia, to name a few, refused to bow to the American ultimatum. Romanian and Colombian NGOs, on the other hand, were among those that decided they could not give up US aid, and gave up all association with abortion instead.....

0 Replies

"Conservatives Interfere With Health and Research"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know