Yesterday we witnessed the historic inauguration of Barack Obama. His election, and the new administration he brings with him, represents the changing political ideals of American voters. Voters felt strongly about issues such as economic stability and international policy, and they asked for change. Alongside these issues are important others — our attitudes toward the most effective ways to educate young people about sex and how much freedom people should have in deciding whether or not to have children, ranging from ease of access to birth control to the more highly charged issue of whether abortion is permissible.
At face value, sex and family planning seem like issues that could be left to families. But it is clear that we feel differently about how the issues should be handled because we accept that the government has a say in how we may create and structure our families, and we attempt to abide by the rule of law. No matter which position you take on the sex-ed issue or the abortion issue, many of us do not discourage our politicians from passing legislation on how we may conduct our sexual lives. And our politicians, whether conservative or liberal, seem willing to take up the issue.
Especially as far as abortion is concerned, the problem is that the discussion itself is so polarized that we haven’t yet been able to work out any sort of acceptable compromise. We tend to frame the issue in terms of pro-life versus pro-choice, where the fundamental assumptions on either side of the argument are so different that the debaters end up just talking past each other. The two camps disagree about the point at which life begins. They argue about whose life matters more — that of the mother, or that of the fetus? Finally, they argue over whether the state is qualified to make that judgment. Passions run high, and it’s not a pretty picture. There seems to be a lack of common ground upon which to base a solution.
In these debates it seems that we lose sight of what should be our first priority: those people we are trying to help. By quarreling endlessly, each new administration passes a flurry of laws that accord with its own ideals. The government has wide leverage and vast resources, yet it sometimes misses the opportunity to help people. Who can argue that women would be helped by a government focused on more long-term solutions, such as eliminating the need for abortions by working to remove the stigma surrounding pregnancy and adoption? The government could work to improve foster care services, as well as to open young people’s access to accurate and comprehensive sexual health information.
An even more serious aspect of this debate stems from the fact that our decisions concerning sexual conduct and education can extend beyond our borders. For example, many have praised former President George W. Bush for being so attentive and proactive toward the worldwide spread of AIDS. This is admirable. On the other side of the same coin, however, the policy has meant that clinics in Africa, for instance, lost their funding when they did not teach the exact abstinence-only curriculum the Bush administration promoted. If these clinics lose their funding, then they cannot provide condoms — one of the simplest and most cost-effective ways to prevent the spread of HIV — to their patients.
The point of this is not to criticize the Bush administration’s attitude toward sex education, nor to prescribe the policies I think are right. The point is to highlight problems that such disagreements can create for those who have few means by which to participate in our political process. Because our nation struggles to find a consistently neutral definition of harm — as evidenced by the debate concerning abortion — we should focus on moving away from legislation that focuses on short-term bandages. Rather, we should formulate a definition of help and harm that we can all agree upon and then ask that our politicians create long-term strategies that address underlying problems.
The question of how best to address our sexual health is exceedingly difficult to answer. What is more, it will only become an even greater challenge in a world increasingly connected by commerce and travel, because diseases and their consequences do not respect international borders. This is yet another reason why our (inter-)national discourse on sexual politics needs to be realigned, so that we may form a basis upon which to create lasting change.
Andrenne is a fourth-year College student. She can be reached at a.alsum@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
Advancement Committee discusses Honor the Future campaign, alumni engagement
By Nina Broderick | 1 hours agoLuellen announced that since July 1, there has been a total of $475 million in commitments to the Honor the Future campaign.
Academic programs allow students and staff to spend spring break abroad
By Bertie Azqueta | 4 hours agoThe Alternative Spring Break program will also facilitate community service trips for students.
Clay Dickerson wins Student Council presidential race with 53.8 percent of votes
By Cecilia Mould and Ford McCracken | 5 hours agoOf the five referenda present on the ballot, four passed, while one failed to earn the two-thirds support required for it to pass.
