This has to be one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever heard. Check out this byline from Reuters…
A controversy erupted at a global AIDS conference on Monday over whether abstaining from sex or using condoms was more effective to prevent the disease.
How can there be a controversy when this is common sense? It’s a simple equation really. Condoms are NOT 100% effective. Therefore there is a slight risk of becoming infected. Conversely if you abstain from sex you don’t get a sexually transmitted disease. How is this a controversy?
Don’t answer yet because wait, there’s more…
U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress to attend the week-long meeting, accused the Bush administration of using ideology, not science, to dictate policy.
She said the U.S. AIDS initiative requires that one-third of prevention funding go to ‘abstinence until marriage’ programs.
Oh, I get it now. Since there might be hint of religious ideology behind the abstinence argument then it must be bad. God forbid…I mean heaven forbid….no that won’t work either….Hillary Clinton forbid that an idea with religious overtones to it actually contains the most amount of COMMON SENSE!!!!!
It gets better. Congresswoman Lee continues…
“In an age where five million people are newly infected each year and women and girls too often do not have the choice to abstain, an abstinence until marriage program is not only irresponsible, it’s really inhumane,” Lee said.
“Abstaining from sex is oftentimes not a choice, and therefore their only hope in preventing HIV infection is the use of condoms,” she added.
So abstinence is inhumane? Correct me if I’m wrong but if a woman does not have the choice to abstain isn’t that considered rape? A rapist isn’t usually going to take the time to put a condom on. So Miss Lee you’re statements make absolutely no sense whatsoever. The vibe you’re giving out is that abstinence is inhumane but rape is perfectly healthy. Think before you speak Miss Lee. Or you’ll commit yet another crime against common sense.
