Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I have no problem with teaching it along with education on STD/STIs, birth controls, proper hygiene, etc, as part of comprehensive sex education in health classes. This information is educational and so long as it is presented that way I feel that benefits overall education and awareness.

The massive federal funding, however, on 'abstinence programmes' is ridiculous. "Just Say No" does not cost a dime to say or the few reasons why that could be advisable, never mind the megamillions spent on it. I am far more concerned why so many school children cannot read, write, add or point to their own home state on the map.

Simply put, the 'abstinence education' programme was nothing but a political gift by the Republicans to Religious Right supporters who sought it. It warrants a yellow card on separation of church and state and a red card on frugal and wise spending practices. IMHO, it is spending on things like this that helped remove the former standing of the Republican Party to speak for libertarianism and fiscal conservativism and morph into the current Big Brother/Big Spender of today, and sadly the tradeoff for sacrificing has been, IMO, nearly nil because the particular goals they have sought have little countermanding benefits to be gained on the pro/con sliding scale of implementing or foregoing them.

Originally Posted by Samantha

Wise words Donkey.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

What exactly is involved in "abstinence education"? It seems to me that saying "If you don't have sex, you have no chance of STD/pregnancy, but if you do have sex, then there is a chance." pretty much covers all of it. I have no issue with the twelve or thirteen seconds that it takes to explain that being included in a health curriculum. But, after that, what else is there to say?