Posted by 10derHeart on November 1, 2006, at 19:13:58
In reply to Re: Federal government urges abstinence » madeline, posted by zeugma on November 1, 2006, at 10:53:43
>>The main results of government abstinence programs are major increases in STD's and unplanned pregnancies.
I think I might recall what you're referring to, but I'm confused. How could the government programs themselves result in more disease [transmission] and unplanned pregnancies? I mean, unless the government was/is forcing people to have sex, and further to do so without protection?
Being 100% fool proof, I'd agree with maddy that from a public health standpoint abstinence seems a reasonable thing for a government to urge. Of course, that's without me knowing *how* they are "urging abstinence" right now (do you have a link?)Aren't the problems you mentioned the consequence of two people ultimately *making a choice* to have sex?
Among unmarried people I know, [ages 15-? 65+] abstinence is a frequent choice. They choose it for health (emotional and physical) reasons, religious reasons, practical reasons, or some combination of those.
poster:10derHeart
thread:699389
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20061009/msgs/699664.html