Brian Harradine accuses me of double standards by taking different approaches to sexuality and to cigarette smoking.

I wonder if the Senator has heard of the expression "horses for courses"? There is no safe level of smoking, but sex can be, and is,
practiced safely by the majority of people.

Senator Harradine says that "our children deserve a better understanding of relationships, love and sex". I couldn't agree more, but it's the methods where our disagreements would lie. I have absolutely no problem with abstinence, but not when it is imposed, as the only choice available to young people.

And I imagine he doesn't really mean abstinence, but is really talking about delayed onset of sexual activity so that it can be a rewarding,
meaningful and pleasurable experience that is consensual and wanted by both partners.

The Senator looks admiringly to the US. The US has a much higher abortion rate and teenage pregnancy rate than Australia, and we in turn have much higher rates than northern Europe where success is attributed to widespread provision of confidential and accessible contraceptive services for adolescents. The Netherlands, for example where sexuality education begins in preschool and is integrated into all levels and subjects of schooling, boasts the lowest teen birth rate in the world - 6.9 per 1,000 women aged 15-19 - a rate almost eight times lower than that of the U. S. Likewise, the Dutch teenage abortion rate is more than three times lower than that of the U.S., and its overall AIDS case rate is more than eight times lower.

So shouldn't we be looking northwest rather than northeast?

Rob Moodie
CEO VicHealth (Posted by Franco at his request)

Three new rules for Brian Harradine:

1.If you don't like abortion - don't have one.
2.If you dont like sex - don't have it.
3.If your faith's most celebrated woman never actually gets laid...
steer clear about comments on sex education!

Cheers ;)

Essentially, teens the world over need to be educated about sex.

They will find abstinence one...one...of the many choices to be offered in comprehensive sex education.

Sex is meant both for reproduction and pleasure and it is essential that, in hand with sexual education, there is a comprehensive education about the various diseases that can be associated with sex.

So, first of all, let's dump the word SAFE. There's no such animal.

Go instead for the realistic replacement...the word SAFER.

The world is presently being swept by the tsunami that is HIV which will infect 5 million men, women and children this year alone and kill a further 3 million.The prediction for next year, and the one after that, is the same.

Knowledge and ecucation are the keys to safety...and anyone talking seriously about global sex education needs to understand and grasp that HIV is making its presence felt most in the 15 - 24 year age group.

We invite readers to visit our website at www.aids.net.au

It's a superb HIV/AIDS resource..Melbourne based....but neither funded by State nor church.,

It also showcases a number of key Australian initiatives in the area of HIV/AIDS; points to the threat on our geographic doorstep and offers some avenues where you may choose to help us in our work.

Regards,
Brian Haill,
President,
The Australian AIDS Fund Inc.,
Melbourne.
Email: bhaill@bigpond.net.au
Website: http://www.aids.net.au

So Brian Harradine relies on notions such as: “Teens who participate in virginity pledge programs and respond affirmatively to the messages in the program are far less likely to engage in risky behaviours and will have far better life outcomes than those who do not.”

That's about as logical as saying "people who promise to stop smoking and respond positively to anti smoking propaganda are far less likely to smoke." Well yes, for a while anyway. And what about all the people who don't make a pledge?

The US abstain-from-having-sex and "purelove" campaigns are notorious for their rates of failure as measured by the spikes in unplanned teen pregnancies that accompany these campaigns wherever they emerge.

Anyone seriously interested in minimising the need for women to have abortions, and with an intelligent eye on sound public health policy, would want to look around to find which countries have both:

1. freely available abortion that women an access without duress; and
2. a comparatively low rate of abortions.

then look at see the extent and calibre of sex education available to young people in those countries. It won't be Mr Harradine's head-in-the-sand approach that keeps young women and men helpless supplicants of media pressure. It will be the kind of education that helps young women and men THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

Stop playing God, Mr Harradine.

In late 2002, Human Rights Watch published the first detailed examination of how the Bush administration's federal abstinence-only policy has played out on the ground. The report, "Ignorance Only", comprises interviews with teachers and students in the state of Texas, which at the pace of $3-5 million a year, is one of the biggest recipients of federal abstinence dollars in the US. The health data describe a total failure: in 2001, six years after Texas mandated abstinence, teen pregnancy rates were one and a half times the national average. Teen birth rates in Dallas became some of the highest in the nation. Sexually transmitted diseases climbed steadily, eventually soaring above the national average, while the state's total AIDS cases grew to fourth in the nation. With this track record, Bush came to Washington, and nearly doubled federal abstinence spending in three years.

(Esther Kaplan, "With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy and Democracy in George W Bush's Whitehouse", New Press 2004, p 204)

Why is it that we teach students chemistry, maths and english because we think there's a very good chance they might USE that knowledge throughout their whole life. Why do we get so worked up about using the same logic when it comes to sex education. If they don't learn at school where exactly will they learn? Or perhaps Senator Harridine would prefer another generation of scared, continually pregnant young women "discovering" sex on their wedding night.

There's no reason that we can't give teenagers all the knowledge they need and still encourage them to wait. But there's no point sticking our heads in the sand and thinking if we don't tell them they won't do it.

The comparison between smoking and sex. Gee lets see. One is the practice of inhaling toxic chemicals released from burning tobacco inhaled through the delicate lung membrane to enter the bloodstream It is addictive, unhealthy, dangerous and cancerous and without being to judgemental... disgusting. Smokers look, feel and smell bad. That is not morals its just science.

Sexual drive on the other hand is a natural response to ingrained instincts to procreate the species. Its healthy, it feels good, it is emotionally fullfilling and properly done, pain free. Yes there are risks, so you should be aware of them. Simple. Its called sex education.

Amongst developed nations, sex education is most prevalent in Northern European societies that have correspondingly lower rates of STD tranmission and teenage pregnancy. Sex Education is least prevalent in the southern states of the U.S. which have a correspondingly higher rate of STD tranmnsmission and teenage pregnancy. (Leaving out for now the problems of the third world and the guilt of the catholic church.)

What am I missing here? No fool like an old fool.

Maybe we should teach kids the art of mastubation?

I know what I would have said to Mr. Harradine about abstinance when I was 16!

Perhaps memories of his youthful yearnings have been lost in the mists of time.

Surely hundreds of years of over-packed orphanages, teenage girls who 'went to visit Aunty' for a few months - or worse died at the hands of a backyard butcher/abortionist - prove just as vociferously that abstinence did not actually work all that well either before sex-ed came in, whether 'best-practice' or not.

Having taught in (Catholic) secondary schools I know that whatever message teens hear from parents or teachers, whether abstinence or safer-sex, it oftens matters little when too much grog, a bit of dope, raging hormones and the indestructability of youth combine with opportunity and a willing partner

We have to be careful because many religions in the past have used sexual abstinence as a tool of power over people.The result was institutionalised paedophilia and many with screwed up sexuality.Your sexuality is not owned by any organisation.So long as we don't hurt others,it is no ones business.

Having read this article I was very angry. Having read the comments I’m not, thank you everyone.
Thank goodness that senator Harradine will be Mr Harradine very soon.

I didn't read this article, I skimmed it and found his term sexperts amusing. I suggest that none of you should read articles like this, maybe just skim them and for goodness sake do not comment about the man or his arguments. TheOtherSilentMajority this applies particularly to you, don't give these people the power of voice, just post comments which are nothing to do with him. Silence is golden, shower.

thankyou and goodnight.

Brian Harradines tales of wonderful results of abstinance based programmes in the US are not born out buy the facts. Despite the dominance of the Christian right in US public policy over many years it has the highest rate of HIV infection, the highest rate of teen pregnancy, the highest abortion rate, the highest rate of drug related deaths and the highest murder rate in the developed world. Ex Seator Harradine should look to real world, real time, result orientated programmes, rather than the prosletising hypocrites that dominate US social policy,if he is serious about creating a better world.

Some facts for Mr Moodie (and others):

Teen sexual activity has the potential to kill or maim - just like drugs! Even using condoms, one still has a 1 in 6 chance of contracting AIDS. Russian roulette anyone?

In USA, births to teenagers under 20 fell to 479,067 in 2000, 50,000 below the 1990 number (Center for Disease Control, National Vital Statistics Report, 2001). In California, from 1990 to 1998, teen birth rates (ages 15-19) declined 42.3% among White/Other, 37.4% among African Americans, 30.5% among Asian/Pacific Islanders and 12.5% among Hispanics (Maternal & Child Health Branch, California Department of Health Services, 2002).

A recently published comprehensive review of research on programs to prevent teen pregnancy found that "more programs to prevent teen pregnancy are making a real difference in encouraging teens to remain abstinent or use contraception when they have sex." (Center for Disease Control, National Vital Statistics Report, 2001)

National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health, a large-scale, survey of highschool students, has suggested that enhancing the connections of teenagers to their family, home, school, and community protects teenagers from array of risky behaviors, including sexual activity (Center for Disease Control, National Vital Statistics Report, 2001).

Moodie says we should look to The Netherlands since they have lowest teen rates. But what Moodie doesn't say is that in the past seven years, Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has been moving up at strikingly high rate of 2% per year. It is extremely rare for a Western country's out-of-wedlock birthrate to sustain a 2%-per-year increase for seven consecutive years! In the '90s, only two European countries — Finland and Ireland — approached such a rise (without achieving it).

While it is true that Netherlands had low teen pregnancy rates, this appears to be result of attitudes lingering from Holland's strongly religious past. For all the changes in the Dutch family since the 60s, they still believed that couples ought to marry before having children.

And no, the Dutch govt's registered partnerships laws (1998) cannot explain the increase. The number of registered heterosexual partnerships is too small to explain the surging birthrate.

AK

Dear Mr Haill,

Yes, abstinence is ONE option but it is NOT taught! The SHine SA sex education course used by govt schools in SA did not mention abstinence once! - although it talked quite a lot about homosexual 'sex' (if you can call it that). After much protestation from parents, students, family groups and the opposition, the course was substantially rewritten and included teaching on abstinence.

Yes, I guess having 1 bullet in your 6-shooter when you put it to your head and pull the trigger, is 'safer' than having 6 bullets - but if you keep doing it you will inevitably blow your brains out.

We can't force students to not have sex, but they do need to know that the only 'safe sex' is abstinence before marriage and monogamy thereafter.

AK

Hi Aslan,

Education is a wonderful thing but it's important to get the whole picture into perspective or else key pieces can be omitted.

You are right that abstinence is not taught in some places, but, equally, it is taught to the exclusion of all other options in some countries. Indeed, the US government makes a lot of its HIV/AIDS prevention funding contingent on the abstinence message alone as a qualifier. That's to be condemned.

If we are agreed that education is vital, lifesaving even, then all of the options and all of the information must be put on the table.
Too many, especially women and girls, are denied a comprehensive sex education let alone the facts on HIV transmission.

You can read more about this on our HIV/AIDS resource website at http://www.aids.net.au. Click onto the Home page icon titled HIV/AIDS & sEX INFO.A drop down menu will show you a host of information areas.

What troubles me are the contradictions in the picture.

I object strongly to the inclusion of a Catholic priest, Jesuit Fr Michael Kelly having a place on Health Minister Abbott's HIV/AIDS Advisory Subcommittee given that Fr Kelly is a vocal opponent of condoms while the government itself underscores their usage as a key plank in its HIV/AIDS prevention strategy.

We've called on Fr kelly to step down because of this contradiction...and we've also lobbied Health Minister Abbott to stand him down because of the risk of mixed signals being sent out into the community. Mr Abbott says Fr Kelly's views are private...but we've had to tell him that they're not...they're very public indeed. He's the CEO of Church Resources, which publishes the eforum daily newsletter, CathNews.com.au which proclaim his views on condoms very clearly.

If you too feel as strongly as us perhaps you could visit the Catholic AIDS Ministry page of our website and read the material there (That page is found in the About Us area)and then send your objections to Mr Tony Abbott, the Federal Health Minister, at Parliament House, Canberra.

With regards,
Brian Haill,
President,
The Australian AIDS Fund Inc.,
Melbourne.

Further to my previous post, Esther Kaplan comments, "While providers of comprehensive sex education and promoters of safe sex are in the business of saving lives, abstinence educators are primarily in the business of saving souls."

In the USA, a May 2002 legal suit by the ACLU in the State of Louisiana revealed the degree to which federally funded abstinence programs were deeply permeated with Christian evangelical messages.

One grant recipient, the Rapides Station Community Ministries, wrote, "December was an excellent month for our program. We were able to focus on the virgin birth and make it apparent that God desires sexual purity as a way of life."

Another, the Just Say "Whoa" abstinence theatre troupe, used a character called "Bible Guy" and told students sex outside of marriage is "offensive to God". A third group, Passion 4 Purity, reported teaching abstinence through "scriptural concepts".

In July 2002, a federal judge finally ordered the state of Louisiana to stop giving money to groups such as these that "convey religious messages or otherwise advance religion" with tax dollars.

It was amusing to read the usual stat-warping Christian-hating nonsense by the knee-jerk minority who froth at the mouth when they hear the "a" word (abstinence).

I just emerged from a public high school where I was taught that "everyone else is doing it, you should too, and here's how to do it safely."

Little did I know that almost no-one else was doing it (although they were too scared to admit this). Little did I know that condoms frequently failed and didn't protect against HPV which causes cervical cancer. Little did I know that abortion, the offered solution when contraception fails (and it will fail), can psychologically scar girls for life. But teenagers will move with the (fictional) crowd because they want to be in the majority.

On the basis of this sex-ed and a hyper-sexed culture, teenage boys called girls "frigid" if they didn't "give out", and teased those confessing to be virgins.

On the same basis my generation will have STDs leading to infertility, "crisis" pregnancies ending in abortion, messed-up relationships, cervical cancer, and probably other stuff.

But I get the feeling that the knee-jerkers love the theory that teenagers are animals with no self-control, because it justifies their own behaviour. Those who think sex is about as meaningful and special as plunging a toilet, only safer, might have spent their best years in shallow relationships. "everyone else is doing it" probably makes them feel a bit better.

Luckily there are still some who know, and dare to say, that it's always better to wait - abstinence is not just one of many good options (the nerdy one). Wish I'd heard it sooner.

And of course to Brian Haill - remember that the ABC campaign in Uganda is the only success story in the AIDS epidemic. Also the WHO's conclusions that condoms are only 80% effective at BEST to protect against HIV.

I dont have any trouble with Harradine. But abstinence has its place if that's what you like. I am concerned though when people get unduly worried about a conservative approach to sex.

The rather vitriolic responses amongst some of the more measured replies reminded me of the war of war of words that was washed up on the shore of public discourse after they announced that, "Surfs Up!" to our North.

Soon after the tsunami religious leaders urged people not to lose faith - not a great measure of confidence in ones flock I would have thought - no sooner had the ink dried on those opinion pieces - than the responses came flowing from the other side. We were told that prayer was a waste of time and resources. Those opppsed to a theist approach to reconciling this tragedy told people that they should get on with the job and stop all this prayer.The speed of response was as if those opposed to religion and any role it may play in the aftermath of the big wet were laying in wait for some hapless theist to stick his or her head over the parapets and get hammered.

The whole discussion was waste of time. The bothersome priests seemed a bit defensive and those opposing them seemed too upset over bugger all.

Harradines comments like that. He'd probably like abstinence to be compulsory - He will not come out and say that though. BUT! If someone approached for advice on sex, abstinence would be jokeying for a position in the stable of ideas along with use of condoms, minimising your exposure to high risk situations, awareness of disease transmission, responsibiltiy to wards partners - then the lucky punter makes a choice.

All too often we've seen a conservative orthodoxy over thrown only to be replaced by a new more radical dogma - equally oppressive, equally demeaning and equally dangerous - let them abstain, let people recommend abstinence. Let's not fall about in some civil libertarian panic because some ageieg fading political icon has a view that is a bit silly

For abstinence to really work you would have to advocate abstaining from sex after marriage. I can't imagine Brian Harradine doing this but it is really the only way to prevent STD transmission. After all, you cannot really know if your spouse was a virgin prior to marriage unless you have psychic abilities. And many people would dearly love to refrain from sexual activity but unfortunately in some situations it is all but compulsory. I am thinking of countries where women particularly are in no position to refuse their husbands sexual favours or in the sex industry where if they don't work they starve.

Also, it is the type of sex rather sex per se which risks STD transmission. Penetrative homosexual and heterosexual sex are both risks re: HIV and other STDs. But non-penetrative sexual practices avoid such risks. This is something both the gay community and wider society hasn't quite taken in. We eulogise penetrative sex as "sex". Every other sexual practice is considered second rate.

If you are serious about preventing HIV transmission you are going to have to be serious about changing the second class status of women in society - especially in regard to both prostitution and marriage. And think outside the square vis a vis sexual technique.

Doncha just love statistics.

Aslan's "Even using condoms, one still has a 1 in 6 chance of contracting AIDS. Russian roulette anyone?", followed closely by "Yes, I guess having 1 bullet in your 6-shooter when you put it to your head and pull the trigger" had me in stitches.

On this basis, I am a statistical miracle, having "put the gun to my head" on many thousands of occasions over the years. Not even the tiniest hint of an STD, let alone the big A.

If that wasn't bad enough, he prefaced the remarks with "Some facts for Mr Moodie (and others):"

Facts? You call those facts?

Pericles said
"On this basis, I am a statistical miracle, having "put the gun to my head" on many thousands of occasions over the years. Not even the tiniest hint of an STD, let alone the big A."

Wow...You have had sex with thousands of different people who all had std's like aids?

Or perhaps you may have missed the point.

"Facts? You call those facts?"
I would. Whether they are accurate or not I don't know yet, but at least Aslan has provided references to back up what he said. What have you provided?

For Grace, the research you cited only interviewed people, it did not actually determine success rates..

For all others, there is significant research out there that shows abstinence only education working. Strangely enough, Senator Harradine mentioned all this, and linked to a few resources. Yet people here don't seem to care whether that is true or not, they just want to conitnue living in their own little world

Biran Haill seems to want only people who agree with his views on the HIV/AIDS Advisory Subcommittee. Very balanced indeed...

For Bob and Rob, there is significant research out there that shows premarital sex is hazardous to you health, whether you use condoms or not. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm615.cfm discusses some of the increased risks of suicide involved. I would say the comparison of Sex and Smoking education is quite valid.

I'm hoping to address some of the points made earlier here by Ruby, who pointed out, correctly, that condoms do fail. They do fail...in the same way that cars crash and kill in the hands of inexperienced drivers. Condoms will fail if they are not fitted correctly.(And, let's be reasonable..production standards in impovershed countries don't match those in developed nations..and whose fault is that?)

Sexual disease..and the hand in hand threat to infertility..is rampant across Australia because of the lack of uniform, comprehensive programs.

If you are able to embrace abstinence then that's to your credit and no it's not a "nerdy" option..it's just that not everyone can do it.

Some may well assert that condoms provide 80% cover at best...surely that beats risking your life and someone else's

What angers me..and please ponder this..are those situations in marriage where one spouse is HIV infected and churchmen stand by and allow the uninfected to remain at risk of infection by allowing them to think that the use of condoms would prove an obstacle to winning a place in heaven. We've publicly condemned Uganda's Cardinal Wamala for that attitude and urged Australia's Cardinal Pell to speak up in meaningful terms. In most lands, it's the women IN MARRIAGE who are the most at risk of being infected by their husbands!

Ruby, you mentioned that Uganda's abstinence record made it the solitary stand-out nation in regard to battling HIV/AIDS. Sadly, just today, that's come under question. The 12th Conference on Retroviruses in the US has been told that abstinence and sexual fidelity have played virtually no role in the much decline of AIDS rates in Uganda.
It's been the deaths of previously infected people, not a dramatic change in human behaviour that reduced the prevalence of AIDS in southern Uganda over the past decade. But Uganda's President played a key awareness role when he was first warned by Cuba's President Castro that Uganda's soldiers were HIV infected so many years ago!

Visit our website at www.aids.net.au for more info.

Regards,
Brian Haill,
The Australian AIDS Fund Inc., Melbourne.

From BBC 24-Feb.
Iran girl gets 100 lashes for sex

A teenage girl and two young men in Iran have been sentenced to lashes for having sex.

The court dismissed the girl's claim that we was raped. It said she had sex of her own free will, the official Iran Daily newspaper reported.

The girl was sentenced to 100 lashes because her accusations of rape and kidnap could have landed her partners a death penalty, the Tehran judge said.

Sex outside marriage is illegal in Iran and capital punishment can be imposed.

The young men in the case were sentenced to 30 and 40 lashes each.

Rob Moodie, CEO of VicHealth said
"The Senator looks admiringly to the US. The US has a much higher abortion rate and teenage pregnancy rate than Australia"

I find it astonishing, that the CEO of VicHealth could make such a horribly wrong claim such as this. Clearly, he need to get better information passed to his office.
Considering that Australia has almost exactly the same rate of Abortions and the US, to claim that the US has a 'much higher' rate is somewhat bewildering coming from a qualified professional.

Please Rob, if you are going to make a statement, make sure it is accurate.
(Reference International Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 25(Supplement):S30–S38)

It's 20 years since I was at high school but I can relate to everything Ruby said! Unfortunately I was one of the ones who succumbed to the lies and pressure about sex and have regretted it ever since. I can relate to the low self-esteem, turning to alcohol and, yes, cigarettes (also considered pretty harmless back then) and the meaninglessness of shallow demeaning sexual encounters with temporary boyfriends. The side effects of trying all the different forms of contraception. The pregnancy tests (and the waiting)... The AIDs test... I was one of the lucky 1's... The STD clinic at the hospital.

I wish I could have it all back again to make a different, better choice - to wait for marriage, where my experience is that sex is great and 100% safe and loving and deep and committed and worth waiting for and exciting even after many years with the same person (I feel so sorry for David JS who has such shallow relationships that he can't trust his partners even to tell him the truth!)

But even though I can't have my time again I've shared the lesson I learned with my four kids - there's a better path to choose. Abstinence was a path chosen by a few of my friends who have no regrets. I wish I was one of them - and fortunately, my kids and many of their friends are some of the ones seeing through the lies and making the BEST choice. To say No to premature sex, to hear about sex within strong healthy marriage relationships instead. They need all the support they can get - thanks Brian!

The late 1900s was a reality research project in sexual promiscuity - I and many others were victims/subjects. This generation deserves some better, more truthful messages from society.

Maybe Brian Harradine can get a job as a judge in Iran when he leaves the Senate :P

As reported in the SMH yesterday in an article entitled, "Condoms the big winner against AIDS, study finds": In Uganda, officials fighting the advance of the HIV virus embraced the "ABC" program, that represents Abstinence, Being faithful to one partner, and using Condoms. The Ugandan program has been much lauded in the past for its success in in battling the virus, and the reasons for this success rate have now become available.

The results of a 10 year study of 10,000 adults in the Rakai district of Uganda, or about 85% of the population in 44 villages, where the ABC approach has been adopted, were reported this week, and demonstrate that the success rate has little to do with the policies pushed by the Bush administration.

Maria Wawer of Columbia University, who helped lead the team, which includes experts from Johns Hopkins University and Uganda's Makerere University, said, "We think it is condoms keeping the rate from going up". In Rakai the rate of HIV infection has dropped by 30%. But among all age groups and in both sexes, only condom use has increased (not abstinence or monogamy).

The Bush administration has slashed funding for the United Nations Population Fund, which distributes condoms in Africa, where only four condoms a year are available for every man between 15 and 59 years old.

Grace ,why is it the responsibility of the US to provide contraception for the rest of the world?The US trying to be the "World's Policeman"and they can't be responsible for all humanity.There are millions of US citizens living in poverty.Economically the US is in serious trouble because they have spent too much money on weapons for too long.Self interest is part of the motivation,but when a large section of your population is abused in the name of world peace,the wheels begin to fall off.

Arjay, I did not say it is "the responsibility of the US to provide contraception to for the rest of the world". That is a complete non sequiteur, but since you want to go there...Here's a 2004 report from the United Nations Association:

"For the third consecutive year, the Bush administration has blocked the release of congressionally-appropriated funds for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)... UNFPA immediately denounced the administration's decision...to withhold $34 million in fiscal year 2004....

...UNFPA described as "baseless" the United States' stated reason for blocking financial support of the agency and observes that "the U.S. administration seems to have accepted false and discredited allegations about UNFPA's work in China." To support this claim, the release notes that a 2002 State Department investigation recommended the release of funds appropriated for UNFPA because it "found no evidence that the Fund supported…the management of a program or coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization - on the contrary, it reported that UNFPA had registered its strong opposition to such practices."

Characterizing the administration's decision as "shameful" and a "grievous mistake", Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) stated that the "United States, which should be a leader in protecting women's health, has instead let down millions of women worldwide for political gain." Similarly, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) decried, "Once again, it's the U.S. against the world - only the U.S. is withholding funds. Our country's credibility is lying on the floor."

UNFPA is the world's largest multilateral financier of population assistance, with projects in nearly 140 countries. The agency works to improve reproductive health services, promote safe childbirth, combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, and prevent unwanted pregnancies. In its release, UNFPA estimated that the $34 million U.S. contribution could have helped to prevent almost 800,000 abortions and up to 2 million unwanted pregnancies, as well as more than 77,000 infant and child deaths and 4,700 maternal deaths.

Grace the US spawned the United Nations which has become just as corrupt and political as any third world Govt.We need the US for our own security.I wish we didn't.The world population growth is out of control.Talking in thousands or a few million is just tinkering with the edges.By 2050 the world population will be 9 billion.We will know the true meaning of war when many more will be fighting over fewer resources.Perhaps we need diseases to keep our population under control and to save our planet as has happened in the past.If I die with millions of others and the planet gets a reprieve,so be it.We will either die of disease or fighting over limited resources.The end result for many humans will be the same.Population control in developing countries is being ignored.Some one said to me a long time ago,"If you breed like flies,expect to die like them."Very harsh but a reality.

Grace, you seem to have a remarkable ability to defeat logic and ignore facts. Uganda's successful ABC program was targeted. ie. the Abstinence message was targeted at young people. Being faithful was targeted at married/defacto couples and condom use was only targeted at high risk groups (eg. homosexuals, prostitutes) and those already with HIV/AIDS. Condom use was not encouraged among young people - abstinence was, and according to the official Ugandan stats the program was successful in all three target groups.

Compare their results with those of their neighbouring countries who employ the UN's condom only approach. All those countries have INCREASING rates of HIV/AIDS especially Zimbabwe and South Africa. IN other words, the condom only (or condom primarily) approach just doesn't work. The piles of dead people in southern Africa prove that.

And ARJAY, the world is not overpopulated and our resources are not few. The planet is capable of supporting many more billions and we dump masses of food every year. You have been paying too much attention to that ignoramus Bob Brown and his equally ignorant friends.

AK

As a member of the SEX ED empire I would like to invite Mr Harridine to The Dark Side. Here on the dark side, we shine a light on dark subjects...because the statistics speak for themselves. The more informed the kid - about ALL of their choices (including abstinence) the more likely the kid will delay penetrative sexual experimentation.

Ignorance is not bliss. How many pregnancies have been the result of the misguided notion that "you can't get pregnant the first time".

Happily married women have abortions too. Think about that.

The type of family structure can affect sexual activity of teenagers.

Several graphs at http://www.heritage.org/research/features/marriage/children.cfm show a range of teenage behaviour (from school performance to sexual activity) compared to family type. The data for these graphs was mostly obtained from longitudinal studies undertaken in the US. In each case shown, children living in traditional two-parent families fared best, including having a reduced rate of sexual activity (which would also mean a reduced likelihood of teenage pregnancy).

These findings have been repeated in many other studies.

EG. from an article in Psychology Today at http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030515-000003.html
“Girls whose fathers left either before they were born or up to age 5 were seven to eight times more at risk of becoming pregnant as an adolescent than girls living with their fathers. A father's departure between ages 6 to13 suggested a two to three times greater risk of becoming pregnant.”

“Ellis suggests that daughters with mothers who date may end up experiencing sexual behavior earlier in life. Or, a lack of a father may encourage unstable bonds with men, he says.”

In the Psychology Today article it mentions the “father's departure”, which of course is PC terminology for divorce, and that matter becomes more concerning with the high rates of divorce occurring in most western societies, together with the common removal of the father from his children.

Alsan,how many people per metre squared can the planet support?If we live cheek by jowl with no wilderness in between,we will be like rats in a cage.Human beings need their own identity and the world has limited resources.What is the hurry?We have been on this planet but a few years compared to the dinosaurs,we have to take responsibility for our fertility rates since nature no longer curtails our excesses through disease and natural selection.
Don't equate me with Bob Brown,his socialists views are contrary to the survival of the fittest.

I commend everyone to read the posts of Ruby and Pearl. They are the real outcomes of sex eduction based on the false mindset :"kids have no will power and are all going to do it anyway". Maybe kids are better than they think.

I recall a doctor sent to address soldiers in camp in my home town reported as ending his lecture with the words: "My advice to you is to keep your pay in your pocket and your penis in your pants".

There were references in previous posts to an article (Sydney Morning Herald?), "Condoms the big winner against AIDS, study finds", as well as something that may have been said or postered (not published) in the 12th Conference on Retroviruses. There's a recent Washington Post article by David Brown, entitled "Uganda's AIDS Decline Attributed to Deaths," that seems to cite the same people from Columbia University:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48464-2005Feb23.html

But I note that the findings are __unpublished__ from a study that __isn't over yet__:

http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/dept/sph/popfam/rp/uganda.html

There are, however, other reports that speaks well of the ABC program in Uganda. For example, a report entitled "What Happened in Uganda?" by Dr. Edward C. Green et al, from Harvard University:

http://www.usaid.gov/pop_health/aids/Countries/africa/uganda_report.pdf

which maintains the following:

- Behavior change communication (BCC) reached both general populations and key target groups.
- "Condom social marketing has played a key but evidently not the major role."
- "The most important determinant of the reduction in HIV incidence in Uganda appears to be a decrease in multiple sexual partnerships and networks."
- "the experience there and in other countries that have achieved some success suggests that a comprehensive behavior change-based strategy, ideally involving high level political commitment and a diverse spectrum of community-based participation, may be the most effective prevention approach."

Can't ignore that.

Aslan's last post, in a funny way, completes the circle. S/he disputes the fact that the world is overpopulated. Other posters say that it is. Brian Harradine's article promotes abstinence amongst young people. But dramatic population growth occurs where young people are reproducing at the rate of knots - usually in developing countries. Advanced industrial countries such as Germany, Italy and Australia see reproduction either stagnating or going backwards.

If young people today uniformly took up Harradine's ideas, population growth in this country would slow up even further. If they uniformly rejected his ideas then STDs would increase. He and his supporters are in a no-win situation.

Perhaps the moral of the story is not to base sexual health policy on unbending morals but to be more sensible about it - such as Australia's AIDS policy which, though not as successful as one would like, at least spared us some of the horrors affecting other countries.

DavidJS,

You have clearly misunderstood what I and Harradine are saying. We are not saying that teenagers should abstain from sex for eternity. We are saying that they should abstain from sex before they enter into a committed stable relationship (preferably marriage), then they can go for it hammer and tongs and have as many kids as they like with the knowledge that they are providing the best possible environment for those children.

And the notion that STDs will/has increased is not merely Harradine's idea - it is a demonstrable fact - despite almost 30 years of 'modern' sex 'education'.

AK

THE REALLY BIG QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN LEFT UNANSWERED.
DOES ABSTINENCE MAKE THE HEART GROW FONDER?
CAN WE BE FOUND GUILITY IN ABSTINENTIA?

Well no one told me about her....
It's too late to say I'm sorry
How should I know
Why should I care?

But she's not there!

NAME THE GROUP AND FILL IN THE MISSING LYRICS

I stayed out of this bun fight for the simple reason is to advocate the obvious is really to simple for words.

However, as an ex-teenager whose parents promoted the idea of abstinence (oh mum - hate to tell you - your words fell on the deaf ears (which flanked a healthy, lustful mind))
I might have been in a dilemna when my own daughters arrived at that moment in time when urges tend to overcome common sense. Rightly or wrongly - hypocritically for sure - I did the Dad thing. They probably anticipated my response and reasoning and went and got contraceptives anyway. Ultimately my words fell on ears similar to mine own at their age - deaf to the warnings (oh our children are out parents revenge on us).

Advocate all we want - the important thing in a parent-child relationship is for the parent to be an inextinguishable source of unending love to their children. Ultimately, it is far more important that we teach our children to be proud of who they are and any abstinence to be exercised to be from a sense of self esteem (waiting for the (or a) right person) rather than seeking solace and acceptance in the compromise of personal values.

That my daughters have the strength of character to decide for themselves is greater value to me and will be to them as they go through life than some misplaced sense of denial, guilt, shame or other negative hangup dumped on them by unwarranted criticism for their choices (be they good or bad).

I read in today's Press that Senator Brian Harradine is in Royal Hobart Hospital suffering from a suspected mild stroke.

I feel sure that all correspondents, friend and foe alike, will wish Brian a swift and complete recovery.

We certainly do Big Al 30.Brian Harridine has his heart in the right place and we would agree with many of his objectives.To disagee does not mean disrespect.No one has the monopoly one wisdom.

Sounds good chlamydia. I applaud those who have arranged this and hope it will be successfully used in all sex education classes, and be fully funded by Education authorities.

Put simply and succinctly:
Sex is a natural instinct, smoking cigarettes isn't.