>>Oh yes - this is another subject that really ticks me off. For some reason these conservative bible thumpers here in the USA are under the impression that vaccinating a woman against a deadly disease will turn her into a whore.
>>
>>Here's what Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council says:
>>"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex."
>>
>>Leslie Unruh, of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, says: "If you don't want to suffer these diseases, you need to abstain ... I personally object to vaccinating children against a disease that is 100% percent preventable with proper sexual behaviour."
>>
>>According to these folks and other bible tumping idiots - vacinate your daugther and you'll turn her into a tramp! So much for the so called "Christian compassion".
>
>I just read a book that helped me to understand (not agree with, just understand) the abstinence-only POV. It's worth a read. "When Sex Goes to School: Warring Views on Sex--And Sex Education--Since the Sixties" by Kristin Luker. The author is a sociologist who's research the topic for about 20 years.
>
>Tamar

IMHO, there is nothing at all wrong with the abstinence only pov. The problem is in trying to make it everybody's way of life by law. That is so impractical as to be absolutely useless. I once saw a program on TV in which they were interviewing teenage boys and girls. One girl was asked if she wasn't worried about getting pregnant, and she answered, "No, because I only do it once in a while." Any guesses how much sex education she's been getting at home? At least she didn't say she thought babies were brought by the stork.

There is no excuse for the abstinence only pov being forced on the rest of society. People are people, and unless we want to take the pov that getting sick and dying is their 'just deserts', then there is no other course left open to society than to try to mitigate the consequences.