Talk:Abstinence, be faithful, use a condom
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
From the article: Advocating this ideal, whilst pragmatically dealing with the fact that abstinence only sex education is ineffective by itself, has made the ABC approach more palatable to many African governments and U.S. funding agencies who answer to a majority Christian voter base.
A citation is needed as the conservative group the Heritage Foundation does not find Absintance-plus palatable at all. See  Chops79 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion on harm reduction v. risk reduction seems to be an academic discussion of the differences in philosophy of the two approaches. Is it really germane to the ABC entry itself? It it is at issue then this should be stated. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems that "harm reduction" and "risk reduction" are often used interchangeably in the context of drug abuse strategies. What is the difference between both? That topic would certainly be irrelevant and academic here. But I do not see it mentioned in the article, so what are you referring to ? The goal of ABC is clear: reduction of HIV - infection rates. Why start philosophical discourses ? --22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The article, I think, should also mention conservative critics of this policy. Pope Benedict XVI has strongly criticized harm reduction policies with regards to HIV/AIDS, saying that "it is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems" . ADM (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, the ABC strategy in putting abstinence and fidelity first is the "conservative approach". The issue is just that many conservatives who favour abstinence-based approaches cannot quite bring themselves to take the extreme position of the Catholic Church, i.e. that condom use is inherently wrong. --Saforrest (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)