Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
Abstinence Clearinghouse's blog claims that giving out rubbers is like passing out crack pipes. Meanwhile, June 7 is "Protest the Pill Day '08."
The letters thread is now closed.
  • one important difference

    It's difficult to smoke crack without a pipe. Not at all difficult to have sex without a condom.

  • aww nuts

    Nothing wrong with this post Price, I quite liked it - it's always good to keep up on the ramblings of the psychos.

    but whywhywhy did you have to go and ruin the fun I was having by seeing the word "Slutbucks" on the Salon homepage?

    Slutbucks.

    Slutbucks.

    ....yep, that's my new favourite word.

    cheers!

  • Whaaaaa? "Distribution of crack pipes"?

    OK, I haven't had time to delve deeply into this. But, I've heard of distributing hypodermic needles to slow the spread of blood-borne disease, but, is somebody distributing crack pipes? Or are these people just conflating different ideas?

  • Crazy ignorant people

    At least a visible" protest the pill day" shows voter how crazy por-ilfers really are. I guess they don't understannd contracpetion....it prevents conception thus no life involved.

    If ifnorant pro-lifers wre really interests in reducing abortions they would support contracpetion.

    The Abstinence Clearing House gets federal funds ..your tax dollars at work.

  • Here's what I don't get...

    It is illegal for minors to have sex, right? I know states have varying laws, but generally it is illegal, correct?

    So how is it legal for a school (or anyone for that matter) to pass out materials to a minor that will aid them in committing an illegal act?

    So using the crackpipe analogy:

    Would it be legal for me to give a minor an unused crackpipe and tell him that IF he is going to smoke crack, atleast use this?

  • As Far As I Know...

    ... it is not illegal for minors to have sex. It is illegal for adults to have sex with minors.

  • @ kuffir, and yes, it's true, the pill does kill babie

    It is illegal for minors to have sex, right? I know states have varying laws, but generally it is illegal, correct?

    Not quite.

    (1) Many high school seniors are 18 years old, and thus not minors.

    (2) many states have "romeo & juliet laws" which allow non-minors and minors to have sex, or minors and minors. For example, In Louisiana, the non-minor has to be within 18 months of age of the minor. And so on.

    re: the pill killing babies, it's true, y'all!

    From the Lybrel prescribing information:

    Mode of Action

    Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).

    Implantation of what? A fertilized egg.

    http://www.lybrel.com/prescribing_information/

    From the Ortho Tri Cyclen prescribing information:

    Oral Contraception

    Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).

    Implantation of what? A fertilized egg.

    http://www.orthotricyclen.com/about/pi.html

  • Here's why you don't get what you don't get.

    The analogy is fundamentally flawed and based on a lack of understanding of harm reduction.

    First, as someone pointed out, nobody gives out free crack pipes. Crack pipes don't spread disease. Hypodermic needles do.

    Second, what should be compared here is drug use with unsterilized needles (as a disease vector) and unprotected sex (as a disease vector). The items used to address the two are ancillary. To say that giving condoms to minors should be illegal because it's illegal for them to be having sex is like saying having an airbag in their parents' car is illegal because it's illegal for the kids to drive. If you're incapable of ethically physically controlling all of kids' behaviors, then those of us who actually care about other human beings would try make a world in which people will do what they do with the least probability of harm to themselves and others.

    Third, you're not just protecting the individual here. You're protecting society. If someone is determined to shoot up and they can't protect themselves from infectious diseases (especially HIV and Hepatitis C), they're more likely to spread it to someone, who'll spread it to someone, who'll spread it into the non-drug-using population. Likewise, of everyone pledging they're a virgin, some of them are lying--and introducing their "pure," disease-free partner to whatever. So even in starchy-starchy-Jesus land, by giving out condoms and clean hypos, you're not protecting lawbreakers, you're protecting people who didn't break any laws as well.

  • Obvious.

    If you using a condom to smoke crack, you may have a drug problem.

  • It all depends...

    ... whether you think sex is bad, per se. The purpose of distributing condoms is to prevent pregnancies that may hinder the intellectual and social development of the mother and to reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

    In my opinion there is nothing specifically wrong with teenagers having sex if they take care to avoid pregnancy and disease. It seems to me that they are more likely to grow up to be mature, responsible, unscrewed-up individuals than if they buy into false notions about sex, and then at some point down the road are manipulated into sex by some older person and end up pregnant by some married man, and literally holding the baby.

    So many single mothers have told me that they were "good" girls and then they fell in love with some jerk who had sex with them four times, got them pregnant, then disappeared. They would have been better off being bad girls, but taking precautions.

    There are worse things I could do,

    than go with a boy or two

    Even though the neighborhood thinks

    I'm trashy and no good I suppose it could be true,

    but there are worse things I could do I could flirt

    with all the guys, smile at them and bat my eyes.

    Press against them when we dance,

    make them think they stand a chance

    and then refuse to see it through,

    that's the thing I'd never do. I can stay home every night

    Wait around for Mr. Right, take cold showers everyday,

    and throw my life away, on a dream that won't come true...

    [Grease]

  • Where do I get a crack pipe

    I live in a Canadian city. Where can I find one of these for free?

    Seriously, though. If she was referring to a real occurence (safe injection sites), the comparison may have a level of validity. In both cases, it's accepting that something you may not approve of is going to happen either way, and that the best you can hope for is harm reduction.

    The main difference is that sex in and of itself isn't harmful. At least trying to stop drug use has the fundamentally good goal of protecting people from themselves, even if the methods are usually fucked up. Trying to stop people who want to have sex from going out and having some fun is not only futile, but kind of pointless. If people, teenagers or otherwise, are properly educated about risks and precautions, it's a harmless activity. Sure they might regret it later, but it'll hardly be the only moment in their teenage years they regret.