Arjay, I did not say it is "the responsibility of the US to provide contraception to for the rest of the world". That is a complete non sequiteur, but since you want to go there...Here's a 2004 report from the United Nations Association:

"For the third consecutive year, the Bush administration has blocked the release of congressionally-appropriated funds for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)... UNFPA immediately denounced the administration's decision...to withhold $34 million in fiscal year 2004....

...UNFPA described as "baseless" the United States' stated reason for blocking financial support of the agency and observes that "the U.S. administration seems to have accepted false and discredited allegations about UNFPA's work in China." To support this claim, the release notes that a 2002 State Department investigation recommended the release of funds appropriated for UNFPA because it "found no evidence that the Fund supported…the management of a program or coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization - on the contrary, it reported that UNFPA had registered its strong opposition to such practices."

Characterizing the administration's decision as "shameful" and a "grievous mistake", Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) stated that the "United States, which should be a leader in protecting women's health, has instead let down millions of women worldwide for political gain." Similarly, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) decried, "Once again, it's the U.S. against the world - only the U.S. is withholding funds. Our country's credibility is lying on the floor."

UNFPA is the world's largest multilateral financier of population assistance, with projects in nearly 140 countries. The agency works to improve reproductive health services, promote safe childbirth, combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, and prevent unwanted pregnancies. In its release, UNFPA estimated that the $34 million U.S. contribution could have helped to prevent almost 800,000 abortions and up to 2 million unwanted pregnancies, as well as more than 77,000 infant and child deaths and 4,700 maternal deaths.

Grace the US spawned the United Nations which has become just as corrupt and political as any third world Govt.We need the US for our own security.I wish we didn't.The world population growth is out of control.Talking in thousands or a few million is just tinkering with the edges.By 2050 the world population will be 9 billion.We will know the true meaning of war when many more will be fighting over fewer resources.Perhaps we need diseases to keep our population under control and to save our planet as has happened in the past.If I die with millions of others and the planet gets a reprieve,so be it.We will either die of disease or fighting over limited resources.The end result for many humans will be the same.Population control in developing countries is being ignored.Some one said to me a long time ago,"If you breed like flies,expect to die like them."Very harsh but a reality.

Grace, you seem to have a remarkable ability to defeat logic and ignore facts. Uganda's successful ABC program was targeted. ie. the Abstinence message was targeted at young people. Being faithful was targeted at married/defacto couples and condom use was only targeted at high risk groups (eg. homosexuals, prostitutes) and those already with HIV/AIDS. Condom use was not encouraged among young people - abstinence was, and according to the official Ugandan stats the program was successful in all three target groups.

Compare their results with those of their neighbouring countries who employ the UN's condom only approach. All those countries have INCREASING rates of HIV/AIDS especially Zimbabwe and South Africa. IN other words, the condom only (or condom primarily) approach just doesn't work. The piles of dead people in southern Africa prove that.

And ARJAY, the world is not overpopulated and our resources are not few. The planet is capable of supporting many more billions and we dump masses of food every year. You have been paying too much attention to that ignoramus Bob Brown and his equally ignorant friends.

AK

As a member of the SEX ED empire I would like to invite Mr Harridine to The Dark Side. Here on the dark side, we shine a light on dark subjects...because the statistics speak for themselves. The more informed the kid - about ALL of their choices (including abstinence) the more likely the kid will delay penetrative sexual experimentation.

Ignorance is not bliss. How many pregnancies have been the result of the misguided notion that "you can't get pregnant the first time".

Happily married women have abortions too. Think about that.

The type of family structure can affect sexual activity of teenagers.

Several graphs at http://www.heritage.org/research/features/marriage/children.cfm show a range of teenage behaviour (from school performance to sexual activity) compared to family type. The data for these graphs was mostly obtained from longitudinal studies undertaken in the US. In each case shown, children living in traditional two-parent families fared best, including having a reduced rate of sexual activity (which would also mean a reduced likelihood of teenage pregnancy).

These findings have been repeated in many other studies.

EG. from an article in Psychology Today at http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030515-000003.html
“Girls whose fathers left either before they were born or up to age 5 were seven to eight times more at risk of becoming pregnant as an adolescent than girls living with their fathers. A father's departure between ages 6 to13 suggested a two to three times greater risk of becoming pregnant.”

“Ellis suggests that daughters with mothers who date may end up experiencing sexual behavior earlier in life. Or, a lack of a father may encourage unstable bonds with men, he says.”

In the Psychology Today article it mentions the “father's departure”, which of course is PC terminology for divorce, and that matter becomes more concerning with the high rates of divorce occurring in most western societies, together with the common removal of the father from his children.

Alsan,how many people per metre squared can the planet support?If we live cheek by jowl with no wilderness in between,we will be like rats in a cage.Human beings need their own identity and the world has limited resources.What is the hurry?We have been on this planet but a few years compared to the dinosaurs,we have to take responsibility for our fertility rates since nature no longer curtails our excesses through disease and natural selection.
Don't equate me with Bob Brown,his socialists views are contrary to the survival of the fittest.