"We don't need a study, if I remember my biology correctly, to show us that those people who are sexually abstinent have a zero chance of becoming pregnant or getting someone pregnant or contracting a sexually transmitted disease," said Wade Horn, the assistant secretary of Health and Human Services.

Also, I think the pertinent question isn't "how many abstinent women get pregnant" but rather "how many children in abstinance programs get pregnant because they didn't understand the importance of birth control?"

I nearly pooped my pants when I read that quote.

Another good question is "how many people are getting STD's because they think they spread via oral or anal sex?"

There is a sign in the planned parenthood office in my neighborhood that says "birth control prevents abortion"

Maybe they could send a copy to our president and our senators and representatives.

I have some friends that really wished they had clued into reality and gotten on birth control instead of trying to abstain. Because they believed it was "bad" to have sex before marriage they didnt have any contraceptives handy when their humanity got the best of them. Now they have one and two children to show for it.

I think its really dangerous to make young people believe they need to abstain or "god will hate them" or whatever argument people are using. The fact of the matter is kids have sex. Actually, less kids are having sex young and more are waiting and doing so without excessive abstinance education.

I also dont understand the concept of abstinance education. Why do we need to spend millions of dollars telling kids "dont do it" ? Maybe if education hadnt gone down the toilet kids here might be brighter ;)

They just want those kids to make more babies for their evangelical armies, duh ;)

I have never understood the purpose of abstinence-only education, besides to ensure that young adults have no idea how to prevent pregnancy or STDs. It seems like a bunch of people who argue for gun safety training programs should be doing the same when it comes to sex. Except sex is "bad".

"Birth Control Prevents Abortion", haha, that's great.

Also, Emily, I'm not sure if you are joking but I do think that at least one of the reasons the Catholic virus imparts on its victims the meme that they should have as many offspring as possible (and do nothing to prevent that) is so that there can be more victims. :) And I guess from their its perspective it's a good thing. But why should they care if us heathens want to have less children? They should be encouraging that!

Why are we even talking about the Church here? 1) Bush isn't Catholic and 2) The Catholic Church isn't handing $113M of tax dollars to abstinence-only programs.

You guys jump at any chance you can to insult people and institutions of faith, but that isn't where your problem is.

I'm sure that at the root of this $113M decision is a religious opinion, but again, that isn't Christianity's fault. It is the fault of our elected officials who making predjudiced decisions on the side of religious views.

'You guys jump at any chance you can to insult people and institutions of faith, but that isn't where your problem is."

Great quote Ryan. Some of you are so bigoted and nasty when it comes to religion, it's truly sickening.

I wish this President were actually putting his weight behind this stuff, instead of throwing bones to the social conservatives. It's such a waste that it pisses all you guys off, yet nothing changes.

Abstinence should never teach that "sex is bad". it should (and does) teach that it's a wonderful gift intended for two individuals who have made a lifelong committment. Another example of complete and total ignorance of the other point of view. You guys don't understand it because you don't want to. It's much easier for you to ridicule it because the thought seems so unrealistic to you. The bottom line is, we have more sex education, condom and birth control accesibility than we've ever had before...yet there are more STD's than ever before. Is it worth it at all to try and reverse that cultural trend and steer children toward the ideal?

I've got an even better idea, how about letting parents teach their children about these private, moral matters, instead of having our communist schools forcibly indoctrinating one opinion or the other (whether it be abstinence OR your prefered route). This is and should always be a family matter. When I have children I'll be damned if I will allow anyone to forcibly sexualize them with these warped ideas.

One more thing for Ryan. While I appreciate you pointing out the anti-religious bias some of your friends have, I very much resent the notion that an opinion that is partially or wholly derived from a religious point of view makes it somehow a less valid (or even prohibited) opinion in the public square. I wish you would rethink that logic...it's very dangerous.

I used the example of "god will hate you" because that is the form of persuasion that my parents attempted with me. They happened to be fundamentalist Christians. To be honest they didnt literally say "hate" but made it clear that they and God would be very dissapointed & i would suffer should i engage in premarital sex.

It is also the reasoning used on my friends that i spoke of, they too are fundamentalists.

The church may not be at fault for the spending on abstinance programs, but from my first hand experience parts of the church are very bad about educating young people about sex at all in the name of promoting abstinance. Sure I dont feel its the church's job to educate kids about sex, but if they are going to preach to kids about abstinance being the only acceptable method then they better take responsibility for what happens if kids, out of fear, try to abstain and fail producing 16 yr old moms.

I wasnt meaning to be insulting, just pointing out a problem that I have witnessed first hand. Besides, I have a lot of experience with the church, ive earned to right to make fun of it ;)

I very much resent the notion that an opinion that is partially or wholly derived from a religious point of view makes it somehow a less valid

I agree with you. However, I believe an *abstinence-only* program goes too far in promoting a religious ideal by giving only a single point of view and witholding vital information and education on the topics of safe sexual practice.

Why are we talking about the Church here? Because we're talking about abstinence and birth control. Are you saying that religious groups have nothing to do with these topics? Do the rules say we have to stick to only what was said in the original posting or article? Apparently it is at least an interesting topic. :)

Am I not allowed to be critical of some aspect of some religion? Is it always an insult to point out something in a critical way? No, but you can feel personally insulted anyways.

If I feel like there is a big problem in certain aspects of religion in this country I'm certainly not going to be intimidated into not speaking my full mind or be afraid of sounding "bigoted and nasty" to anyone who is may only be offended because of their own bigotry.

The transmission and prevention of social diseases is not just a family matter but a public health matter. So should it not be discussed at all in school? Should nothing that is controversial or nothing that is contradictory to one group's religious views be allowed to enter our "communist" school textbooks?

I'm all for being critical of things and open discussion of topics. But comments like "the Catholic virus" have nothing to do with being critical and everything to do with being insulting.

This article is about public policy and public tax dollars. What the Church says and what the Church does with *its* money are an entirely seperate matter and should not be confused with public/government issues.

Speaking of concepts and ideas as viral is getting to be pretty commonplace. It's called memetics. You missed what I said to about memes so you could get all offended and shit. I stand by my point that the Church is a virus.

No, I didn't miss what you said. Regardless of how the word virus is used in memetics, it is insulting to carry that over to my religion and call members of that religion victims. I am not a victim.

I stand by my point: the terminology you used was belittling.

"I'm certainly not going to be intimidated into not speaking my full mind or be afraid of sounding "bigoted and nasty" to anyone who is may only be offended because of their own bigotry."

You know what...you are totally right. You shouldn't be intimidated and I didn't mean to do that. It's just that liberals are the ones who are supposedly so open-minded and tolerant, and always want to paint conservatives like me as "bigoted" or "insensetive"...so I like to point out when I see the same attitude toward people of faith. I suppose to properly illustrate the double standard, I would have to catch you personally accusing me of being bigoted and intolerant, which I have not.

I stand corrected in part, since your quote above is something that could almost come out of my mouth verbatim. After all, it is America...and your opinions shouldn't be forced into the "closet".

Personally, I think the Muslim religion is a virus.

Hey Ryan...am I to assume you are Catholic?

Wasn't there a thread a few months ago where you were in awe of people who still believe in creation? I'm confused...but maybe this can of worms is too large, so don't feel that compelled to explain.

Maybe we should have a thread where we all share exactly what we believe about God (if anything). I think that would be interesting.

I just want to put my two cents in and say that I agree with agent1073, we do need to talk about public health issues in public health classes – i.e. health class in high school. I think the line should be drawn with straightforward, honest, facts. Neither side should be allowed to include any other information or misinformation in health class.

I would like to also point out that not all religions are anti-sex, anti-contraception, or homophobic. In the religious school classes that I attended and in the ones I taught, we discussed that sex is an act of love that has both positive and negative physical and emotional consequences.

Dude: Yes, I am Catholic. I'm not sure what was said and when, but let me try to clarify my views on creation real quick. I definately can't comprehend taking the biblical creation story literally. I believe in evolution, but I don't think I am at odds with the Church with my beliefs. I still believe God got this whole thing going, and it is possible to take Genesis as a metaphor for the development of the Earth: a metaphor that ties in with the evolution of life on this planet.

In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking talked briefly about a meeting he had with the Pope:

"He [the pope] told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God."

so, do you concider yourself a deist?

Brette: No, not at all. I just don't take the biblical story of creation literally. I definately don't believe God just let us loose after creation. I don't see how one could call themselves Christian, Jewish or Muslim if they believed that. To believe God was never involved with us after creation would be to reject pretty much the rest of scripture.

I don't know about Christian or Muslim theology, but one can definitely call themselves Jewish as an agnostic, atheist, deist or theist. The word Israel literally means "to struggle with god." Thus, faith is neither a necessary or sufficient condition to being Jewish.

Many quite devout Jews consider the scripture literature written by humans who had the best interest of their people in mind. Traditionally, the Torah is supposed to be read on six levels, five of which are not literal. So, even those who think that the torah was dictated by god, acknowledge other interpretations.

Admittedly, I am speaking from a position of relative ignorance when it comes to Jewish and Muslim faith. Both are something I have been increasingly more interested in learning about though, so I am thankful for the insights.

When I made my statement about deism it was an initial gut reaction about deism being at odds with what I considered to be a common history of God's interaction with humankind that Christians, Jews and Muslims all share.

To call yourself a Christian I don't think you have the kind of margin of freedom for your concept of who God is as you describe for those who consider themselves Jewish. At the very least, to say you are Christian is to accept Christ which immediately precludes deist beliefs.

This freedom for exploring God that you described raises a lot of questions in my head about the differences between Judaism as a religion and Judaism as a culture/community.

The word 'Judaism' is confusing because it is both a label for a religion and a label for an ethnicity. I happen to be both religiously and ethnically Jewish, but there are people who describe themselves as Jewish when they only mean religiously or ethnically so. However, in my earlier post, I was clarifying that people who are religiously Jewish (unlike people who are Christian) as being able to have a wide range of concepts of god. Obviously, those who are ethically Jewish can have a wide range of concepts of god.

That's all very interesting to me, too. I have always been a little confused about the difference between being Jewish and "ethnically Jewish". Thanks for the insight.

"No, not at all. I just don't take the biblical story of creation literally. I definately don't believe God just let us loose after creation. I don't see how one could call themselves Christian, Jewish or Muslim if they believed that. To believe God was never involved with us after creation would be to reject pretty much the rest of scripture."

Ryan...I don't get it. How is accepting the creation story as literal automatically assuming God was never involved with us after creation?

Dude: I wasn't clear with that statement. When I said, "I don't see how one could call themselves Christian, Jewish or Muslim if they believed that." I was speaking about believing in deism, not creation.

Waxman report: abstinance courses flawed

That's the misinformation I was refering to. My brother researches abstinace education and he stoped be able to tell the difference between fact and fiction. For example, he didn't belive that HPV caused cervical cancer, because he kept reading stuff that he knew was wrong, so he assumed that was incorrect as well.

It's interesting that you should mention HPV, since there is no condom that offers significant protection from it.

So much for "safe sex".

There's a vaccine in test trials.