Condoms vs Abstinence for Public School Children Essay

rushing Limbaughs article, Condoms The New Diploma, berates the common practice of distributing galoshs to naturalize children. The iconic conservative talk show host, who is blessed with talent on loan from God, uses forceful, colloquial arguments and analogies to warn against the messages and assertable dire consequences that human beings teach condom distribution can impart on Americas children. He confidently and stridently argues that condom distribution in the schools is a dangerous, flagitious policy that tends to minimize or ignore the many possible negative effects of sex.Whether a school-age child wears a condom or not, Limbaugh states that the child is potentially exposing himself and his partner to AIDS, other intimately transmitted diseases, and gestation period. Rushs arguments argon sound and persuasive but few of his analogies are far-fetched and intense, and his righteous tone and attitude may be annoying to those who differ with him. Limbaugh passionately states his arguments using simple words, messages and analogies. His central premise, that abstemiousness works both time it is tried, is an irrefutable fact.That is, when a person engages in sexual abstention she is certain to avoid the negative possible consequences of sex which include pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases including the deadly AIDS virus. On the other hand, Limbaugh minimizes the fact that many school children are going to engage in sexual activities regardless of what they are taught and regardless of whether they wee-wee easy access to condoms. Limbaugh attacks what he sees as the absurd policy of using public tax dollars to barter for and distribute condoms in public schools.To demonstrate that absurdity, he uses some extreme analogies that are far-fetched and absurd themselves. These plain-spoken, simplistic analogies include providing safe, untainted drugs every good morning in home room, and packs of low-tar cigarettes to the students for their after-sex smoke. He goes farther to the extreme as he advocates that public schools should convert study halls to Safe Sex Centers, and that these schools should also effectuate disease-free hookers in these centers. These suggestions are obviously facetious, but Mr.Limbaugh employs them to harshly illuminate and chance on what he sees as the vituperate-headed, immoral, dangerous policy of condom distribution at heart schools. He thinks that condom distribution serves to condone and legitimize sexual action at law among minors just as providing free illicit drugs to children would legitimize that dangerous, immoral activity. Limbaugh hammers home his point simply and starkly when he asks, Would you knowingly have sex with anyone who has AIDS with only a condom to protect you from acquiring the disease? He believes the policy of public school condom distribution, funded by taxpayers like him, promotes and legitimizes that possibly deadly scenario for young, maintenanceless chi ldren who do not care about or comprehend the long-term consequences of their casual sexual activity. But, he fails to point out that these same careless children will be much at risk of contracting AIDS or getting with child(predicate) if they do not use a condom during sexual intercourse. His despotic views and arguments are persuasive, but his presentation is unbalanced and he might be seen by some readers as pompous and arrogant.Whether you love him or dislike him, Rush Limbaugh confidently and unapologetically conveys his conservative, moral opinions on the dangers of public school condom distribution programs. He believes that this policy is symptomatic of the larger moral right in our societal values, and that free condom distribution in public schools can be a matter of life and death. Despite some of his extreme and ridiculous analogies, Rush persuasively and emotionally advocates that sexual abstinence is the right policy for school children and that condom distribut ion is simply wrong and immoral.