Editorial: Abstinence or condoms?

“GODLESS” is the charge raised against the Department of Health’s (DOH) free condom distribution.

According to Sun.Star Cebu’s March 17 article by Gerome M. Dalipe, about a hundred pro-life advocates, led by the Human Life International Philippines, held a rally last March 16 to protest Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral’s directive to give condoms to the public.

The DOH says distributing the free condoms is intended to counter the spread of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (Aids), especially among the sexually active.

Click here for Election 2010 updates

Church leaders, on the other hand, contend that the condom giveaways “desensitize” the youth’s delicate conscience and weaken their moral fiber as future parents.

A matter of well-being

Debating on morality muddles what should be an open discussion about reproductive health choices and the informed decision-making that not only ensures the well-being of persons but also includes that of their loved ones.

A 2009 study conducted by Janet E. Rosenbaum of John Hopkins University yielded three results that should concern parents.

First, the virginity pledge, or the vow taken voluntarily to remain a virgin till marriage, was found to be an “ineffective deterrent” to premarital sex.

Second, taking the pledge did not prevent youths from indulging in premarital sex and having multiple partners.

Third, teens who took the virginity pledge were less likely to seek protection during intercourse.

According to an article by Dr. Michael Smith uploaded in www.associatedcontent.com, the “negative connotations about condom use in abstinence programs” predisposed teens who took the virginity pledge from using condoms and other forms of protection during intercourse.

A second insight is that parents should not turn over to the government, church or any institution their primary responsibility to teach their children about sexuality. When parents give up or ignore their children’s needs, the young turn to peers, media and the streets, where the information may be wrong or harmful.

Another lesson is that, confronted with the dilemma of teaching abstinence or birth control, parents “are being safe and teaching both.”

Instructions included

Merely distributing condoms, even for free, does not guarantee better protection against HIV and Aids. Only sex education can do that.

A few years ago, a nongovernment organization conducted a survey of sexual beliefs and practices of selected community youth in Cebu.

The findings confirmed that sexual activity combined with ignorance accounted for a number of unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections among the teens. For instance, putting on a condom or drinking birth-control pills after intercourse was thought by many youths to be the proper procedure for preventing pregnancy.

Another area that reproductive health educators must emphasize is the need for girls to be more proactive in opting for safe sex, observes Christine Cadena in her www.associatedcontent.com article.

Traditionally, males do not just often initiate sex, they decide if safe sex should be practiced. A girl’s health and future then rest on whether her partner will abstain or know how to use a condom (or even bring one).

To return to females their responsibility and power for self-protection, health advocates must also train girls and women in the use and placement of condoms.

Sexually active females may take the pro-active step to buy and bring condoms, as well as learn negotiation skills to convince or demand that their partner must always opt for protected sex.

Far from condoning immorality and irresponsibility, sex education upholds respect for one’s values and body, as well as that of one’s partner and one’s family.

Being able to choose one’s future is the best incentive to restrain desires and turn away from deviancy.