2007-10-18 05:02:47 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, they should spend 200 million on comprehensive sex education that teaches abstinence as one method of many to deal with sex.
Like it or not our kids are having sex, let's teach them accurately about it.
2007-10-18 05:06:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
Spending the money to teach a COMPREHENSIVE Sex Education class would do more good. Abstinence may be 100% effective, but impossible to achieve. Why do you think there are so many priests in trouble for having relations with choir boys?
Girls who are having their periods are able to get pregnant. That is happening earlier now than it used to. Which means we have to protect them.
In olden times, 13 yr olds were already married. My grandmother had her first child at 14. We are asking kids to stay celibate longer than we used to. It's hard.
2007-10-18 05:24:47 · answer #2 · answered by slykitty62 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. It has been proven that abstinence programs don't work. Personally I think it's a bad idea even if they DID work -- sex is a part of life and suppressing it leads to insanity and uncontrolled violence, not to mention a plain, unhappy life.
But that's neither here nor there because abstinence programs don't work.
The government chooses to waste this money in order to pander to conservative anti-sex fanatics, usually (but not always) religious. It would be better spent on birth control and sex education.
2007-10-18 05:13:40 · answer #3 · answered by Dont Call Me Dude 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They should spend 200 million dollars on and nation health service and improving the other areas of education rather then pushing an out-of-date dogmatic belief.
2007-10-18 05:08:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
They should spend 100 on abstinence and the other on safe sex.parents aren't talking to their children about sex because they feel if they ignore it it will go away,but it want.So if we want to decrease sexually transmitted diseases and pregnacies then spend more money.But they also need to cut the salaries of the congressmen and other higher official who don't mind spending our tax dollars
2007-10-18 05:06:57 · answer #5 · answered by Shawntae S 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
How much should we spend in the future on health care for unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, parenting counseling, and psychological counseling? But in Maine it's o.k. to hand out contraception to 11 yr. old girls whose body hasn't even developed yet, how sick and twisted is that? All we need to do is step up for our kids and talk to them as a family should. Most may listen, and some will not, but it's better than giving them permission to have sex with impunity endangering their health and welfare later in life of which nothing gets accomplished and they do the same to their children and it goes 'round and 'round. Will we ever learn?
2007-10-18 06:00:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Teaching Abstinence as only alternative to kids with hormones raging like wildfire is idiotic.
2007-10-18 05:12:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
That is like in driver's education having the instructor adamantly telling students to always, always obey the posted speed limits. If the politicos would only remember their teen years and then set a blueprint to have curriculum to talk real to teens (and listen to them), then - and only then - will "sex" education mean something tangible in the education process.
2007-10-18 05:09:29 · answer #8 · answered by Zombie Birdhouse 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
In a word, no. The US is heavily in debt and should end spending money on programs of dubious value. It's obvious abstinence programs don't work.
2007-10-18 05:06:41 · answer #9 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
This is a purely political move, and studies have shown that it has zero impact on the number of kids having sex. It's a waste of money.
2007-10-18 05:07:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋