jillian
Princess
THAT'S what I was waiting for!
Suppose the ones with the "backward Puritannical attitudes" have it right after all. Suppose the best way to minimize the risk is to practice abstinence-monogamy - particularly during the age span of the highest prevalence. I haven't seen any hard proof to the contrary - have you? Suppose young girls are given good, sensible information, by parents who love them, and have not been stripped of their right to raise them as they see fit. The old "they're going to do it anyway" copout might not be such a foregone conclusion, then.
It's not about whether they "have it right" or not. It's about the fact that you don't deprive someone of a vaccine that can prevent cancer in an effort to "discourage" sex. Or should we just make sure the harlots are punished for their indiscretions if they have sex anyway? Cancer works, right? It's up their with boils, pestilence, killing of the first born... all that kind of thing.
But thanks for not denying that it's all about the abstinence-only thing. I appreciate that. At least it's honest.