Normally, I'd just stay quiet on all this, but something about today just
makes me want to play devil's advocate or something...
Lavin wrote:
"I was always under the impression that psychologists were neutral."
Black earlier wrote (Sorry Stephen but your earlier comment was the easiest
to get):
"I wonder how Bush et al view the harm reduction approach. I'd imagine they
welcome it as
much as they do sex education and the teaching of evolution in
schools, the use of
condoms to prevent AIDS, and stem-cell research. "
Yep, I can see how one might take that as a neutral political statement...
and actually, as I re-read it, is probably one of the more neutral comments
I've seen about Bush on this list :)
And in further response to Black's comments...
The real push of many on the right (and middle) is to include abstinence in
sex education courses, to teach students about the dangers of STDS, AIDS,
etc., and to discourage teen pregnancy. They feel it inappropriate to teach
6th graders how to have better sex and portray sex as having no
consequences and something they should all rush out and do. Admittedly some
want to go further and eliminate it completely, but they are not
necessarily representative of the whole.
As for the teaching of evolution in schools... well... uh... to quote Black
again, "It's understandable when someone goes off the deep end on one topic
to devalue their view on another, but not logical." So, I'll just have to
let evolution be Bush's deep end :) I don't think even I can help him out
on that one...
Bush, and the right, as far as I know have no opposition to the use of
condoms to prevent AIDS, but maybe I missed a policy statement somewhere.
They do take issue with giving condoms to 6th graders because "kids are
going to have sex anyway" as being the best approach, but it has nothing to
do directly with AIDS. Anyway, this is probably the closest in nature to
the harm reduction argument... they're going to do it anyway, so might as
well keep them safe while doing it. And, to agree with Satel's op-ed piece,
this does often ignore the issue of whether or not the behavior should be
viewed as acceptable and encouraged in either an explicit or implicit
manner. Are some kids going to have sex at very young ages? Yes, probably
so. Is it right? That's a moral call and I tend to say no when the kids are
as young as they too often are. Do the actions we take to "protect" those
who have sex at such a young age encourage others in the same age range to
have sex as well? Based on the portrayal of things in the media and
pop-culture today, yes... if you believe the media's portrayal, just about
every 14yr old girl is going to parties with the intent of engaging in
group sex... now, the accuracy of this portrayal of today's youth is
probably more questionable than many realize, but I do think it helps shed
light on why some people react as strongly as they do when combined with
the ideas of "harm reduction" which seem to encourage the behavior by
making it safe and free from damaging consequences. (Another example would
be parents who allow kids to drink at parties while at home because
"they're going to drink anyway, and at least this way I know they are
safe"... and make that decision not only for their own child, but for all
the other children at the party as well.)
And stem-cell research... Bush does not oppose stem-cell research, despite
media claims to the contrary. He has actually increased funding for
stem-cell research while in office. What he opposes is the harvesting of
stem-cells from aborted fetuses and embryos. He views life as beginning at
conception, and hence abortion, to him, is equivalent of murder. Just as
the pregnant mother who has a miscarriage has lost a "baby" and not just a
mass of cells, he views the embryo as a "child" that deserves federal
protection from harm caused by research.... or at least opposes the use of
federal tax dollars to support such research though it could be privately
funded. In some ways, to harvest the stem-cells from this research
participant, you have to kill the participant. I don't think any IRB would
go for that... but the question is whether or not the fetus counts as a
research participant. He encourages research into the use of adult
stem-cells, but is opposed to the creation of new lines of embryonic
stem-cells for research since creation of those lines requires an embryo to
be destroyed. Admittedly there is some inconsistency with regards to some
proposed legislation allowing the use of embryos which would otherwise be
discarded to create the new lines, but that's an issue which I think has
not fully been discussed and thought through yet by the administration
since it could give them an "out" if properly presented and not appear
inconsistent with prior statements. Also, when asked about stem-cell
research, people on the right often respond "There has been no success with
the use of embryonic stem-cells, but there have been promising results from
research using adult stem-cells. So, that is where research needs to
focus." People on the left tend to respond "If Bush would allow embryonic
stem-cell research, people like Christopher Reeve would be able to get up
out of the wheel chairs and walk again." Now, one of these sounds more
logical and rational, while one sounds much more like a blatant plea to
emotion... I'll leave it to you to decide which is which and why one might
be more convincing to the general public than another...
Okay... that's end of my devil's advocate mode for the day... and maybe
I've distracted people enough so that discussion about plain text/html
won't come back again today :)
=============================================
G. Marc Turner, PhD, MEd, Network+, MCP
Lecturer & Technology Coordinator
Department of Psychology
Texas State University-San Marcos
San Marcos, TX 78666
phone: (512)245-2526
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]