Saturday, January 5, 2019
Condoms vs Abstinence for Public School Children Essay
Rush Limbaughs article, Condoms The New Diploma, berates the common practice of distri only whening preventatives to civilise children. The iconic conservative talk come on host, who is blessed with talent on bring from God, social occasions forceful, colloquial arguments and analogies to warn against the messages and possible dread consequences that public inculcate pencil eraser scattering quite a little impart on the Statess children. He confidently and stridently argues that arctic distribution in the instructs is a dangerous, unrighteous constitution that tends to minimize or ignore the galore(postnominal) possible banish effects of stir.Whether a school-age child wears a galosh or not, Limbaugh states that the child is potentially exposing himself and his partner to acquired immune deficiency syndrome, other familiarly familial diseases, and maternalism. Rushs arguments ar well-grounded and persuasive but some of his analogies ar far-fetched and extreme , and his righteous tone and attitude may be annoying to those who disagree with him. Limbaugh passionately states his arguments using simple words, messages and analogies. His central premise, that fasting works every time it is tried, is an positively charged fact.That is, when a person contains in inner abstinence she is certain to avoid the banish possible consequences of sex which include pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases including the insanely 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 have easy introduction to caoutchoucs. Limbaugh attacks what he sees as the absurd insurance of using public tax dollars to get and distribute condoms in public schools.To discuss that absurdity, he uses some extreme analogies that are far-fetched and absurd themselves. These plain-spoken, simplistic analogies include providing safe, stainless drugs every morning in menage 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 written report halls to Safe Sex Centers, and that these schools should also rear disease-free hookers in these centers. These suggestions are obviously facetious, but Mr.Limbaugh employs them to harshly illuminate and expose what he sees as the injure-headed, immoral, dangerous policy of condom distribution within schools. He thinks that condom distribution serves to condone and legitimize sexual activity among minors just as providing free illicit drugs to children would legitimize that dangerous, immoral activity. Limbaugh hammers home his acme simply and starkly when he asks, Would you knowingly have sex with anyone who has AIDS with only a condom to protect you from getting the disease? He believes the policy of public school condom distribution, funded by taxpaye rs like him, promotes and legitimizes that possibly deadly scenario for young, get byless children who do not care about or comprehend the long consequences of their casual sexual activity. But, he fails to point out that these same careless children give be more at fortune of contracting AIDS or getting pregnant if they do not use a condom during sexual intercourse. His unquestioning views and arguments are persuasive, but his presentation is worried and he might be seen by some readers as pompous and arrogant.Whether you love carriage him or hate 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 crepuscle 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 erroneous analogies, Rush persuasively and emotionally advo cates that sexual abstinence is the right policy for school children and that condom distribution is simply wrong and immoral.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment