Yes, because I don't believe it has been shown that the 25% of teens with an STD were taught abstinence-only education. Not that this can actually been proven so it is most likely a moot point.
Are you quoting a non-belief of yours as a statistic?
You don't believe that 25% of teens are taught abstinence only education.
And again, you miss the point.
The point is not what percentage of those infected were taught what. But what group is more likely to have sex and what group is going to have a higher risk. And all statistics point to the abstinence-only group being inferior. They have sex just as much, if not more than safe sex educated teens and their risk of infection or pregnancy is higher because they haven't been properly educated on how to protect themselves.
What you believe is contradicted by the statistics, Joe. Let me repeat this again for you. Kids who are taught abstinence-only are just as likely, if not, more likely to have sex than those who are taught safe sex practices.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with "Hey, they are going to have sex anyways, so let's teach them how to do it safely." In fact, it's commendable. We're no longer sweeping the problem under the rug and pretending it isn't there. We're actually educating kids on how to prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy.
If kids choose to be abstinent, that's awesome for them. But not every teen will be. Inevitably, they WILL do it.
Your logic is akin to this:
"Alcohol should be banned in this country. And we shouldn't have detox facilities or AA because clearly if they just didn't drink in the first place, the problems of alcoholism wouldn't exist in society."
...Disregarding the fact that people are going to continue to drink and will still require help.
