1 in 4 teen girls have STD's

i did a research paper in college on abstinence only education and the correlation to teen pregnancy rates. the 5 states that posted the highest preg. rates, also used abstinence-only education in their public schools. one of them was texas, of which Bush was governor(ugh).

also, i am a survivor of cervical cancer. it was not caused by hpv, as i don't have the virus, but i am the biggest proponent of the vaccine for that very reason.

the vaccine shouldn't be required. and parents can encourage condoms or abstinence, in the end the government sucks but still can't be used as a scapegoat for all problems (though it is the cause of way too many).

But when the government says if you mention condoms or STD prevention in schools you lose funding, they are not doing there job. Abstinence only education, in many (most) cases teaches that condoms are useless. I heard the head of "Promise Keepers" say he'd rather his daughter not use a condom if she has sex, and that's what he teaches his stidents. The government should not be spending our tax dollars to decrease condoms use and discourage HPV vaccine.

I agree it is a parent's decision but if the government wants to stick it's nose in, it should do so for good, not to spread religious propoganda to the detriment (and possible death) of our kids.

And I'm a Christian.

IMO: abstinence only education is pointless in America
the government doesnt get it.. you can't tell people not to have sex when everything else about our society promotes it!

It's way too easy to point the finger(or give the finger) to the current administration but it's not really fair. When you expect an oversized federal government to educate all the estimate 80 million kids in American public schools you can't be surprised when the ball is dropped. When did we decide it's the federal governments job to educate kids on sex? That's the job of the communities and families. Anyway, it's not the US dept of education that decides what will be taught regarding sex ed in schools. Bush, at the behest of his wife, encouraged abstinence only but it's not mandatory.

I def. think there should be better sex education in schools but at the same time I think it is as much the parents responsibility to teach their children about condoms, stds, pregnancy, abstinence etc.....sometimes people just seem so clueless, this is def. one of my big issues, but you have to walk on eggshells around so many people about it and I just don't seem to understand what the big deal is...people would rather pass the job of an uncomfortable conversation to somone else than educate their children properly....

really now?

all joking aside, the govt should be doing those things. not everyone has the same god... and some have no god.

the govt should not be lying to kids about condom use or promoting abstinence over safe-sex measures. smooshing your head into the sand is not a realistic approach to this issue.

interesting thread - i saw this news article yesterday too - very disturbing. 1 in 4??? holy crap. i mean, not everyone that has sex is going to get a disease...probably most aren't. so when 50% or more of the kids are engaging in sexual activities, i can't comprehend a govt policy based on abstinence. the notion that they will simply stop because of a half assed in-school program is beyond crazy.

It is extremely irresponsible on the government's part to be teaching abstinence only and spreading false-information. Now, don't get me wrong, I do agree that it is ultimately the parents' responsibility to educate their children on the subject of sex. And I will also agree, and we all know it happens, that many parents avoid this difficult subject and leave it up to the school system to do this... unfortunately my parents did just that.

However, there is another situation that worries me. Lets say lil Johnny's parents did the right thing and sat him down and taught him about the birds and the bees and all that good stuff. They taught him that abstinence is definitely the best bet, but were also realistic and taught him about STD's, condoms, safe-sex, etc. Then, lil Johnny is enrolled in a sex-ed class in school. They teach abstinence only and tell him that condoms are useless... etc. Now, despite the fact that his parents did the responsible thing and took it upon themselves to teach lil Johnny in the most responsible way they could, he is now receiving mixed signals. Now he has to decide which party he thinks is correct. I know we would all like to think that our children would believe us over the school program in this subject, but that is not always the case. That is a tough decision for a child to make when he/she is first introduced with this subject matter.

I just think that schools should stick to science-based facts on the subject and leave the religious believes out of it.

you're right...it SHOULD be the parents. but the harsh reality is that most of them AREN'T teaching their kids about this stuff. hell, even the good parents are sometimes too afraid to talk about it.

and you're also right about kids not taking what they learn from school as gospel. they're getting it from their friends and mtv otherwise, which isn't really the greatest of ideas either.

i also assume with your point about theorems and basic social studies that you are implying that most kids who don't know what a condom is or how to use it are just the slower ones, or the ones don't care enough to learn in the first place. you're right...that's probably the case sometimes. but even the "smart" kids don't get taught the correct information about safe sex.

so in the end, when it comes down to the government(which includes bush) telling us what we can and can't do or teach in schools, yes, they most definitely without a doubt can be held responsible for issues like this.

seriously? i don't think one person here has said that its completely bush's fault. in fact, most of us have made the point that it IS the parent's responsibility as well.

but newsflash...not all parents are responsible. hell, not all parents are ADULTS yet. sorry if that's hard to take...

i'm fine with that. because the number of young girls getting this virus is shocking regardless of what perspective you're putting it in.

i guess i'm missing your point moby

It's not 20% of the infected, it was 20%(actually 18%) of all study participants. Which means that if you remove HPV, then you're looking at an 8% total infection rate versus infection rates of 26% with HPV included.