Ok, I found it in the article. Isn't that a rule on Slashdot? Only read the article if you have to. Wow. From the interview, linked from the original article:
Reporter: Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?
Mr. McCain: Well I think it's a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes â" and I was just reading the thing he wroteâ" that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn't succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I'm not very wise on it.
(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)
Mr. McCain: I haven't thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I donâ(TM)t know if I would use taxpayers' money for it.
Q: What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's policy, which is just abstinence?
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy.
Q: So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) You've stumped me.
"You've stumped me"? Unfortunately, this sounds like typical politician speak. At first he seemed fairly reasoned, and then had second thoughts. Almost like he wouldn't want to not support the President. The reporter indicated that Bush's policy is 'just abstinence'. Is it really? Really?
That presumption would have to be made hastily, and without much thought.
I'm no expert on the issue, but it ignores the societal differences between [wherever you are] and Africa. There are even significant differences between African nations that would preclude "it ought to be good enough for AIDS prevention efforts in Africa." Take Uganda as an example http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32108. The same ABC plan that worked well there did not have the same effect in other African countries. Once you start looking at the indicators for groups that are at highest risk of HIV/AIDS in different African countries and compare them to our K-12 population, you see that it is an entirely different set of circumstances. It is not the same issue, but we can disagree on that. Any HIV/AIDS reduction strategy is going to have to be tailored for the environment it targets.
And while I'm not a proponent of strict 'Abstinence-Only' Education, the ABC Plan emphasizing abstinence first, and contraceptives as a last resort, (hey, people are people), resounds strongly with me at least. Reading this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401458_pf.html
It seems to indicate that ABC is the "centerpiece of the Bush administration's $15 billion, five-year plan to fight AIDS in 15 target countries, most of them in Africa." The article goes on to reference various attempts to implement a similar plan domestically. While it emphasizes abstinence, it seems far from an 'abstinence-only' approach.
Perhaps the original quote mischaracterized McCain's sentiments? Does McCain support 'Absinence-Only' only, or the Bush Administration's ABC Plan? Anyone know?
Wouldn't fighting AIDS be easier if people where at least aware that Condoms can be used to prevent the spread of STDs like AIDS? Isn't prevention much less expensive than treatment? Wouldn't any real effort to fight AIDS include more than "abstinence only" education?
This is a classic straw man argument. The previous poster indicated McCain's position on Sex Education - presumably for _kids_ in school - and what McCain has said or done in support of fighting HIV/AIDS. They are related, but not really the same issue. There was no suggestion that McCain does not support prevention over treatment, or that the effort to fight AIDS wouldn't "include more than abstinence only" education". Your point that prevention is less expensive than treatment is, of course, true. But I think we all know that, including John McCain.
How many children get access to pronography is a concern, at least when they do so without parental permission, though...
IMO children getting access to porn is always a concern. And if they're getting access with parental permission (encouragement?), well, that might be something else entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
Reporter: Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?
Mr. McCain: Well I think it's a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes â" and I was just reading the thing he wroteâ" that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn't succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I'm not very wise on it.
(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)
Mr. McCain: I haven't thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I donâ(TM)t know if I would use taxpayers' money for it.
Q: What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's policy, which is just abstinence?
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy.
Q: So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) You've stumped me.
"You've stumped me"? Unfortunately, this sounds like typical politician speak. At first he seemed fairly reasoned, and then had second thoughts. Almost like he wouldn't want to not support the President. The reporter indicated that Bush's policy is 'just abstinence'. Is it really? Really?
I'm no expert on the issue, but it ignores the societal differences between [wherever you are] and Africa. There are even significant differences between African nations that would preclude "it ought to be good enough for AIDS prevention efforts in Africa." Take Uganda as an example http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32108. The same ABC plan that worked well there did not have the same effect in other African countries. Once you start looking at the indicators for groups that are at highest risk of HIV/AIDS in different African countries and compare them to our K-12 population, you see that it is an entirely different set of circumstances. It is not the same issue, but we can disagree on that. Any HIV/AIDS reduction strategy is going to have to be tailored for the environment it targets.
And while I'm not a proponent of strict 'Abstinence-Only' Education, the ABC Plan emphasizing abstinence first, and contraceptives as a last resort, (hey, people are people), resounds strongly with me at least. Reading this article from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401458_pf.html It seems to indicate that ABC is the "centerpiece of the Bush administration's $15 billion, five-year plan to fight AIDS in 15 target countries, most of them in Africa." The article goes on to reference various attempts to implement a similar plan domestically. While it emphasizes abstinence, it seems far from an 'abstinence-only' approach.
Perhaps the original quote mischaracterized McCain's sentiments? Does McCain support 'Absinence-Only' only, or the Bush Administration's ABC Plan? Anyone know?
Wouldn't fighting AIDS be easier if people where at least aware that Condoms can be used to prevent the spread of STDs like AIDS? Isn't prevention much less expensive than treatment? Wouldn't any real effort to fight AIDS include more than "abstinence only" education?
This is a classic straw man argument. The previous poster indicated McCain's position on Sex Education - presumably for _kids_ in school - and what McCain has said or done in support of fighting HIV/AIDS. They are related, but not really the same issue. There was no suggestion that McCain does not support prevention over treatment, or that the effort to fight AIDS wouldn't "include more than abstinence only" education". Your point that prevention is less expensive than treatment is, of course, true. But I think we all know that, including John McCain.