abstinece-only sex education

Ok, does anyone disagree with that?STD's can be spread (by definition) by careless sex. No one is disagreeing.What you are ignoring is the topic. Abstinence only sex education is NOT a good way to deal with STD's (or any other bad side effect of sex).If sexual promiscuity is bad and saying it is a violation of God's moral law (even to believing Christians) doesn't stop it from happening what is the best way to stop bad things like STD's and prenancy?If you are saying that diseases are punishment from God then I'm sure you would never (for fear of your mortal soul) take any anti-biotics, right?You aren't actually, as a Christian, saying you want people to suffer for their transgressions are you? Are you?( please say you are. Us atheists just love it when Christians show their true nature and how abborant they can really be. )Edited by NosyNed, : Dumb spelling

Moralizing has never in history worked. It isn't now and it isn't going to in the future. If you go back to stoning adulterers it still will not stop it. (might have some affect on repeat offenses of course).Now that we have (or should have) learned that. Let's move on and do something that has been shown to actually be effective.

This is precisely NOT what is being suggested. We are not "at the mercy" of our biological forces.We are, however, heavily influenced by them. We had better understand that and understand to what degree.Then, if we wish to prevent undesirable outcomes, we should understand how best to deal with those biological forces.We have conducted, over the centuries, a number of rather careless uncontroled experiments in how best to influence people's behaviour for the better.We have, more recently, conducted somewhat better understood experiments (different places, different approaches,different times) and have some ideas of what works and doesn't.Abstinence only does NOT work. However, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't point out how safe abstinence is and how picking your time and partner carefully can have significant emotional value as well. It is just clear that trying to give ONLY that message is a failure.

The topic is abstinence only. If you agreed that abstinence only was not a good idea then you should have said so in the first place.A moral principle is one of individual choice. That, I'm sure,you would object to being taught in schools. However there are perfectly reasonable, less subjective things to be said about abstinence that make sense to teach along with everything else about sexuality that is appropriate at any level.ABE It has been tried. Over and over. It has failed.Edited by NosyNed, : Read more of the post.

http://www.pbs.org/...v2005/shelbyknox/special_overview.htmlIt appears that about 1/2 of US population supports "abstinence-plus" education, 1/3 supports comprehensive education and about 15% support abstinence only. That's good news.The study concludes that aspects of A-+ and CE do have a beneficial effect but that it is too soon to arrive at any conclusions about AO.