The Bush administration has pushed through a funding increase for abstinence education. The idea is to focus on abstinence and to skip other topics related to sex education and safe-sex.
Wade Horn, the administration’s front man on abstinence programs, explains that it really doesn’t matter if these programs work:
“We don’t need a study, if I remember my biology correctly, to show us that those people who are sexually abstinent have a zero chance of becoming pregnant or getting someone pregnant or contracting a sexually transmitted disease.”
Of course we also don’t need a study to tell us that young people really, really want to get it on.
Pay attention here. The “moral” position is that we should teach abstitence and not the sex ed courses that supposedly promote promiscuity. Right? Wrong.
The moral position is to realize that a whole lot of young people have always had sex and we should take steps that make it more likely that an increaed number of them will be protected from disease and/or unwanted pregnancies.
This should be especially obvious to those who consider themselves to be pro-life. Here are three things that cannot logically co-exist: A pro-life ideology, an opposition to safe sex education, and the ability to reason.
When the president of South Africa refuses to acknowledge AIDS and the need to educate his citizens about condoms, we call him crazy and cruel. When we look in the mirror, we call that kind of anti-common sense hogwash morality.
Step one on the road to recovery: Reclaim the meaning of moral leadership.
Be the frame.