1. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. The Republican party sold it's soul long ago to the religious right...as 2008 approaches, Bush will promise an increase in funding for abstinence education as he and others are nervous about losing elections next year. This is just Bush playing to the religious conservatives..prop up the base of the party because, hey, let's face it, Bush and his party have alienated everyone else.

David S. at 3:58PM on Oct 10th 2007

2. so, are we supposed to tell our kids its ok to have sex if you're not married?what then, it's ok to kill someone if you wear flip flops? please, we have enough of a problem with underage and unwed pregnancies in this world. what's wrong with telling your kids to wait until you're married to have sex?

todd at 4:12PM on Oct 10th 2007

3. Todd, that is THE most inane comparison I've ever heard in my entire life. No, it's not wrong to encourage your children to wait until marriage to have sex, but the fact is they are probably going to engage in such activities anyhow. There's no harm in at least presenting protective measures (do some research--this route actually IS effective against pregnancy and STDs). When your daughter swells up and has a kid at age sixteen maybe you'll wish she'd learned how to use that condom she bought in that gas station bathroom. Being uniformed does not an innocent person make.

Rosalyn at 4:26PM on Oct 10th 2007

4. When Bill Clinton was president we had the lowest rate of teen pregnancies in recent history. What's the difference--HONESTY! Children and teens are smart. If you don't give them correct, accurate information, they will draw their own erroneous conclusions. Study after study shows that teens wait longer to have sex when they have had a comprehensive sex education. With that education comes a set of rights and responsibilities and an understanding of consequences. That is why my church has started providing this type of sex education for our youth. Hope all you opponents wake up, come out of the middle ages and for the sake of your children provide a real, fact-based education for your kids.

Tiff at 4:26PM on Oct 10th 2007

5. Gee, I wonder if President Shrub is getting any?

Kevin Taylor at 4:41PM on Oct 10th 2007

6. Perhaps everyone should watch Boston Legal's episode from last night. They would have more information on both sides of the issue. Of course you would teach your children to abstain but we were all there and no how unrealistic that can be for some. And Todd, I don't know where your comparison came from but get your head out of the sand and the flip flops on your feet and walk around in the real world!

Patti at 4:57PM on Oct 10th 2007

7. If kids are going to practice abstinense, it's probably going to be because that was the way their parents raised them to do. Two weeks (at best) of any type of sex ed isn't going to make anywhere the same impact as 16 years of parenting. Abstinence-only education likely only cements what abstince-advocating parents instilled in them. Schools should present this approach, but having it be the focal-point is not only irresponsible but likely a waste of time and resourses.

Emily at 5:19PM on Oct 10th 2007

8. Do you really have to ask this question? It's obvious.... Bush is an idiot!

Jennifer at 5:22PM on Oct 10th 2007

9. "Abstinence Only" sex education is not education at all. It's just another attempt by so-called conservatives to force their religious views down everybody's throats. By making sex something dirty and insinuating that to engage in it for any other purpose than to create a baby (within a marriage, of course), is sinful, accomplishes two negatives: first, it makes it more attractive to teens (the proverbial forbidden fruit), not less, and secondly, it witholds information about birth control and disease prevention, information that can and does save lives.

Having stated the above, though,does not address the real, hidden agenda: sex without consequences or guilt, if not frowned upon by those in positions of authority, might mean fewer consumers, and fewer opportunities for the rich to exploit the poor. We need more babies to keep this corrupted economy going. This is the same, underlying agenda regarding abortion rights: we need to do everything possible to encourage procreation. Never mind that making abortion illegal does not cause fewer abortions to take place, just more dangerous ones; the main problem is a falling birth rate, which alarms those whose entire lives and careers revolve around the bottom line -- the next quarter must be bigger than the last -- every time. To insure this equation, population must keep growing, too...

If you think this writer is cynical, just ask yourself a question: Why are so many "right-to-life" types also supporters of war and of the death penalty? I've actually heard some of them say that "every human life is sacred!" Really? Is that why it's okay to declare an illegal war and then send young men into it to die and to kill other human beings? Is that why it's okay to make every girl who gets pregant become a mom, even if she's not ready for that important responsibilty? It's just amazing to me how little thought goes through the brain of a moralizer, before he or she runs off at the mouth.

Beyond my objections to brainless, knee-jerk blogging about sex education and abortion, no one seems to want to talk about overpopulation or its triplet concerns, poverty and pollution, even though all three are intimately entwined.

But to get back to the main point, "abstinence only" has a lot to do with religious morality (whatever that actually is), and very little to do with teen pregnancy, abortion or sexually transmitted diseases. If anything, suppressing vital information about sex and its consequences has caused and will continue to cause more problems than it would if the full spectrum of sexual knowledge were made readily available to highschool and young college kids. Ignorance may be bliss to a worried, conservative parent, but it could be deadly for their cherished offspring.

Let's keep religion out of government and put it back where it belongs: with each individual's family. The government has no business in people's bedrooms, but it SHOULD have the authority to protect public health. This can be done without preaching or moralizing.

I could go on and on, and I will be instantly accused of being a godless liberal, but you know what? "Liberal" is not a dirty word. Look it up in Webster's Dictionary: You'll find a substantial list of many positive connotations, and only one negative one - having to do with "loose morals:" that single meaning has become, for conservatives, the ONLY meaning. I prefer the more positive connotations, which make the name "Liberal" a label I am proud to wear.

Mark D. Prouse

Dustyart at 5:24PM on Oct 10th 2007

10.

1) It's unrealistic. Sex ed belongs in the real world. It's not for sissies who love to tell other people how to live.

2) Did you wait until you were married?

3) Do you think that any of the Republican leadership waited until they were married? Ron and Nancy didn't. Fred Thompson didn't. Newt doesn't even wait until one marriage is over before he starts pre-marital sex with the next Mrs. Gingrich. Get a grip!!!! These people have no business telling others how to conduct their private sex lives. Their job, as government officials, is to provide facts about responsible reproduction and avoiding disease. Beyond that, it's none of their damned business.

Amelie at 5:52PM on Oct 10th 2007

11. Be sure to watch the Penn and Teller Episode on Why Abstinence Education is Bullshit

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/09/abstinence-advertising/#cont

LongLiveTheWest at 5:57PM on Oct 10th 2007

12. The President increasing financial support to schools preferencing a lifestyle choice comes close to being a violation of the Bill of Rights... Monies for insurance for low income families and children which potentially saves lives is cut, but we continue to invest in spending that gives little return on our investment. Most children and adults,like Eve, want something once it is made curious to them. Demystification thru education takes the bite out of the apple. Eistein beleived that if school gave students the knowlwedges and facts to make good decisions for themselves, then the school has more than accomplished its goal.

Cosmoe at 6:07PM on Oct 10th 2007

13. "please, we have enough of a problem with underage and unwed pregnancies in this world. what's wrong with telling your kids to wait until you're married to have sex?"

Todd -- what people object to about "abstinence only" is not the "abstinence" part, per se, but the "only" part. Anybody with any sense can explain that abstinence will certainly guarantee not getting anybody pregnant and not catching any STDs, but when you teach kids that this is the only way to ensure those two things, the kids who are having sex (or wind up having sex) feel there is no need to use protection, thus ensuring more pregnancies and STD transmission. This has been proven by so many studies by now that supporting "abstinence only" is akin to supporting a flat earth.

Sean at 6:09PM on Oct 10th 2007

14. On the one hand, kids should be taught about safe sex, since a lot of parents either won't talk about it or find it awkward and uncomfortable.

On the other, abstinence works 100% of the time, and you never felt like you were used.

Kent at 6:21PM on Oct 10th 2007

15. I grew up in the south and went to parochial school my whole life. I had sex in high school, just like all of my friends, despite having close to 10 years' worth of abstinence-based sex ed. When the time came, I knew I should use birth control but wasn't sure how to go about getting it - I sure as hell couldn't ask my parents, or any adults that I knew at the time, for that matter. I went to my family physician and asked to go on the pill. She went to my church at the time and actually lectured me about how I should really wait until I was married to have sex. I looked her right in the eye and told her that I didn't ask for her opinion...now was she going to put me on the pill, or not? I was pretty ballsy then, and I still am (I grew up into a litigator) but I know a lot of girls who weren't and who were having kids at 17 and 18 because they either honestly didn't know how to properly prevent STD's/pregnancy and/or were too ashamed to ask someone for help.

Wake up people. We should be encouraging kids to wait but we should be doing it based on facts (ever known someone with herpes or repeated cases of cervical dysplasia and subsequent treatment due to HPV?), and we should also be giving them some way to protect themselves should they decide NOT to wait. Just a thought from someone who has been there.

southernfriedfreak at 6:33PM on Oct 10th 2007