What's not to agree on? Of course you should use protection if you don't want a child. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Of course you can only reduce abortion by so much. Condoms break (been there), the pill isn't 100% effective, so on. So there'll always be occasions when abortion is necessary.

A question that's been on my mind is: is 24 too young to get your tubes tied?

Joking. Sort of.

Hey Spendocrat. I disagree with your interpretation of the phrase. The language is explicit “Too many abortions”. Otherwise they would say “Too many pregnancies” or the softer “too many unplanned pregnancies” or the most accurate “there is not enough education about safe sex practices”. Rex is in that it the extremists setting the agenda. The problem the religious zealots have with the alternative language is that it implies; A) that there could be a single pregnancy too many, (they believe that every conception is sacred under any and all circumstance), or; B) the suggestion that pregnancies may be planned, (as to them this implies the use of contraception to avoid the natural punishment for having sex outside of marriage – a shot gun wedding or an STI or single parenthood).

I have no problem with anyone holding these personal beliefs and exercising the choices that flow from these over their own bodies. I do, however, have a very big problem when they seek to enforce there personal choices on the rest of us. What we all do and decide regarding the health of our own bodies and lives is our own business and nobody else’s.

Country Gal –I say there is precisely the right amount of abortions. That is the number requested. It surely it is none of yours or my business what somebody else decides is right for them and their bodies. How do these decisions affect you? However, if you meant to say that there is not enough education about contraception and this has lead to a number of unplanned pregnancies that has, in turn, meant that those people are being placed in situations of having to make difficult decisions that may have been avoided with this education – I would have agreed with you. I think you have fallen right into Abbots trap of judgemental language that is implicitly judgemental and particularly judgemental of women as it takes two to conceive but only women are able to have abortions. He never says that “too many men are not exercising their sexuality responsibly”.

I read a true quote one day that said 'only animals, prostitutes and moral deginerates could 'sleep around, bed hop or practice free love' without feeling guilty about it in past generations. Now we have the god rejecting humanist who create the problems by ignoring any kind of morality and blame others for not fixing it. Why don't we tell the truth to our kids that sexual immorality leads to misery. Just because the last generation lived a life of self gratification does not mean that we should be stupid enough to encourage it to the next generation.

No one teaches the viruses and lurgies about morality runner. Get real! Tell a teenager not to funk and they will do it in spite of you. That is their job. Have you ever had teenagers?

Some with the best Christian up-bringing funk it up the best (or worst).

Show them the evidence scientifically and it will make them think again.

--ah, I heard that, smarty pants, I didn't mean show them your own scabs...eeew...you know what I mean...science in books...(ambiguity is unkind).

The more poker faced and indifferent you are the better. It will frighten the mess out of them and really sit up straight.

We are talking viruses and bugs, dummy, not moral judgements.

Congratulations Rob Moodie on an excellent article.

I have been frequently horrified by the number of teenagers (and adults besides) who freely admit to regular incidents of unprotected sex with only a passing thought for the consequences.

And it's not just about unwanted pregnancies, it is also about STIs. I grew up in a generation prompted to action by the Grim Reaper advertising campaign, so I'm sad that these next generations haven't got a similar level of vigilance about protecting their sexual (and in the cases of serious STIs, general) health and well being.

There are several things that won't prevent STIs and pregnancies, and restricting the discussion to abstinence or "only sleeping with good girls/boys" leaves too much grey area for kids who are starved for information and inquisitive about their bodies.

It is worth pointing out to kids that oral sex (for example) has as much risk in terms of STIs as vaginal sex - if only because the rates of oral sex experience seem to be rising in tandem with the rising rates of unprotected sex.

While ignorance is no excuse before the law, it certainly isn't going to protect kids from STIs or unwanted pregnancies either - and if I can't be sure that my son won't have sex without telling me about it BEFOREHAND, I can be sure that he will do so with the full knowledge of the consequences and the best ways to make sure that he and his partner are safe.

"that'll teach you a lesson" is not the kind of thing I would ever want to have to say to my child when they came to me with an incurable sexual disease - particularly a fatal one.

Without a doubt, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Your logic is amazing Saintfletcher 'Tell a teenager not to funk and they will do it in spite of you. That is their job. Have you ever had teenagers?'
Well does it follow if we tell them to wear condoms they will do the opposite? For the record I have 3 grown ups who have had no problems accepting the fact casual sex is unhealthy and soul destroying.

The problem is not lack of education it is lack of morals. The kids today know far more than any other generation in history. Kids know condoms are available yet refuse to wear them because of lack of self control.