http://www.takepill.com/?product=viagra

Buy Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) is the most popular medication used in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Order generic Viagra online now.

Only $1.27 per pill.

***********

Buy Generic Cialis(Tadalafil)

http://www.takepill.com/?product=cialis

Tadalafil relaxes muscles and increases blood flow to particular areas of the body.

Tadalafil is used to treat erectile dysfunction (impotence).

Tadalafil may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.

Only $1.61 per pill.

***********

Buy Generic Levitra (Vardenafil)

http://www.takepill.com/?product=levitra

Vardenafil relaxes muscles and increases blood flow to particular areas of the body.

Vardenafil may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.

Only $ 1.67 per pill.

***********

Our benefits: No prescription Needed. Worldwide shipping.

Best Price. Multilingual. Confidential.

http://www.takepill.com/viagra.htm

Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) is the most popular medication used in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Order generic Viagra online now.

Only $1.27 per pill.

***********

Generic Cialis(Tadalafil)

Buy http://www.takepill.com/cialis.htm

Tadalafil relaxes muscles and increases blood flow to particular areas of the body.

Tadalafil is used to treat erectile dysfunction (impotence).

Tadalafil may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.

Only $1.61 per pill.

***********

Generic Levitra (Vardenafil)

Buy on http://www.takepill.com/levitra.htm

Vardenafil relaxes muscles and increases blood flow to particular areas of the body.

Vardenafil may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.

Only $ 1.67 per pill.

***********

Our benefits: No prescription Needed. Worldwide shipping.

Best Price. Multilingual. Confidential.

This must be due to lack of funding.

along with

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/tables/table21b.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/tables/table33b.htm

Not at all true. If a man nails 8 women and they produce 14 kids but 5 die from a bad disease that still leaves a net of 9 kids passing on his genes. Well above average. The woman prefers a thug to donate their genes and then wants a nice guy to then form a monogamus relationship so she can secure the entire resources of one man to provide for herself and another mans child.

With this idea you can create another new religion.

"If (health care) providers think young women in their practice don't have chlamydia, they should think again," said Dr. Stuart Berman, a CDC epidemiologist.

The gonorrhea story is somewhat different."

Damnit, where is Ron Mexico?! This is his fault!

Yup, as abstinence sex "education" (the word education is used loosely here)has spread and became more prevalent, while comprehensive sex education has been used less, the incidences of sexually transmitted diseases has gone up, I'm shocked. how could the religious (wrong) right be wrong again?

So many issues that should be apolitical, freedom, democracy, healthcare, children, torture,.... it is a huge list. I long for the days when they can be apolitical again.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/tableschlamydia.htm

The percentage of unfaithfulness, infidelity and divorce among Fundamentalist Christians is slightly higher than the general population...

No moral high ground there...

A greedy, vile, heartless, Fundamentalist Christian Neocon is running the show...

Thank you Jesus...

They are the ones fighting condom use and education.

This crowd has really been bashing not abstinence, but "abstinence based" sex ed, which is a different thing altogether.

Death is 100% effective against sexual transmission and equally ludicrous.

I would think that plan in Maine would have the potential to actually increase the STD rate

If there were a long standing debate about whether or not seatbelts saved lives and there were vocal proponents on both sides of the issue, one side suggesting that it violates the personal rights of people to insist upon them wearing seatbelts and another group insisting just as vociferously that society must protect people by insisting they wear seatbelts and then the Federal government mandated that states that did not have seatbelt laws would lose their Federal funding there would be further discussion about the topic.

Now, an article that came out saying that traffic deaths had declined since the introduction of that Federal mandate would have bearing on the issue, would it not? That is the reason why abstinence only has come up based on this article.

You crack me up. I love it when someone who doesn't "get it" accuses someone else of not "getting it."

As for the comment you made "screw you" I did see the irony of it, but don't know you well enough to see it as humor. Of course, you may not have seen the humor yourself until after you posted it...I don't know. Doesn't really matter. I could have come back with some childish remarks, but why lower myself?

And, now that you've decided to go off on another tangent, I don't worry about the New World Order, I'm just aware of the geopolitical moves being made that could bring such a scenario about. So, play your little game and distract from the fact that you are out of your class when it comes to talking about anything that isn't proving Democrats inferior to Republicans.

Although, I do enjoy your alternate world look at life. It definitely has some threads of truth to it once in awhile. Of course, real life is different than your limiting view.

And like I've said before, of course teach your children morals and include your thoughts about pre marital sex ect..those are things your children should be taught from the time you can communicate with them. But I also believe a responsible realistic parent should also discuss how to protect. I mean you just don't tell your kids to not play with matches and expect them to listen, you also say, if you ever do start a fire,(I hope you don't-BUT just in case here are ways to protect yourself from being burnt or from causing damage to others.

My point here on this thread is that a whole bunch of people with political axes to grind are using this dubious record as fodder to perpetuate an argument against the usefulness of abstinence programs as tools to curtail teen sex. And there's nothing in the article to support that argument. Nothing at all.

Those schools made condoms available in 2000

If they are having a problem with pregnancy, the condom program obviously was not effective

With a birth control pill program, the kids will see even less need for condoms

What is really troublesome - the birth control pills will be given out without the girls having a pelvic exam

Wonder if anyone has thought about doing a before and after STD rate study?

If 'it' means you, then you're right!

Be realistic, living in this world as it is today, what do you think proper parenting is? home schooling, no TV, no dating, keeping the kids under lock and key? hey maybe a chastity belt? :-)

NO proper parenting is offering your children as much education as posible to protect themselves in life-you can't and shouldn't be doing that for them their whole life. They need to learn to make the right decisions themselves,and that won't always happen, and when it doesn't, at least their health will be protected. IF you are a proper parent and teach them all you can, not just your own personal morals, but real life situations.

And where has that gotten us so far? Hasn't worked. When things aren't working you find something that does. Unless you are crazy, then you do the same thing over and over again hoping for different results. Won't happen.

Not once does it give an analysis of the rate of occurrence as a percentage of the total population.

comparing flat numbers from one near to the next without taking into consideration the fluxuations in overall population is disingenuous at best.

"Get real"? What I hear from you is "SEX SEX SEX" rather than personal accountability, proper parenting, and moral behavior.

As far as the rest, LOL, you just don't get it do you?

But, that's okay DarkWizard, I'm sure you're busy worrying about the New World Order puppet masters that are just about to take over the WORLD!!! Gasp! Don't you have some conspiracy theories to attend to? ;)

Is there really anything...out there???

However, with the right kind of barrier device...

One thing I like about you...you're consistent. Your retort was true to form. And, apparently I got to you! "First of all, screw you."

I just wanted to hear you say, "...it is 99.9% likely that they [Republicans and Christians] are indeed represented in the population."

It warms the heart.

Sex has truly been glorified over the last thirty years and for half of that we didn't have abstinence only education at all (except, perhaps in church run schools) and for the other half we have. The second half doesn't seem to be having the effect we were looking for.

Most kids don't make it through high school as virgins. But, I wonder what the numbers were in 1965? Or 1945? or 1885? I don't know? Do you?

((Polite applause for your achievement...well done DW))

And hey, wow, good job with the strawman argument. I never argued whether or not Republicans or Christians or even Christian Republicans were included in the numbers or not...since it is 99.9% likely that they are indeed represented in the population.

((Further polite applause for your strawman argument))

Keep it up

I know it's pointless to try and have an intelligent conversation with you, but I'll try anyway. I guess that shows lack of intelligence on part for thinking you care.

"...where exactly in this article does it talk about how many of these cases were teenagers getting STDs despite abstinence-only programs? Oh yeah, NO WHERE!"

You are so right. The abstinence programs must be a success like the give money to insurgents program in Iraq. This can only mean that only Democrats, Atheists, and the ignorant poor are driving these numbers! All the good abstinent Republicans and good Christians are obviously immune to such natural desires as sex.

So, logically, for the numbers to increase and for Republicans and Christians to not be a part of these numbers would mean that Republicans and Christians are in the minority of American society. Do you think that is true SOTM?

Now, let's hear that awesome retort to how this is off on another tangent or isn't in the article.

Is it better for us, as a society, to protect our citizens against disease and unwanted pregnancy or is it better for us, as a society, to demand personal responsibility? Now, for me, I think personal responsibility is the way to go, but you can't demand that of someone if you didn't give them the tools to be responsible. Further, that means that if I am responsible for myself then people need to not tell me that I can't marry a guy (as a guy), or that I can't smoke, or that I can't drive without a seatbelt or many other things.

See, these things all tie together. We can't just keep taking one issue and tying it into a knot without looking at all of the other sides of the issue and what else is involved.

And yet, nothing in the article even touches on what the numbers are for teens. And certainly nothing about how many of those teens participated in "abstinence-only" programs versus other programs versus NO programs.

Uh huh...

The administration is not against condoms, don't be ridiculous. It may be (and should be, in my mind) against having school systems having condoms available to teenage or pre-teen students.

Abstinence IS birth control. The best birth control. The birth control pill (which is what you mean, I think) has been shown to have healt effects with long-term usage. At least, I've seen reports that indicate that is the case.

You're right. Ick, indeed on the eye chlamydia. Yikes.

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/america/statistics...

more info:

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/s...

I'll find more.

Now. If the kiddies are being taught at home why are the infection rates increasing? If abstinence only education were working (these kids would have been in their early teens when the Federal government quit giving money to programs that didn't at least have that component), why are the infection rates increasing?

Yes, you're right, it doesn't mention it in the article, but it's more complicated than that and you know it.

And when is the last time you heard of the percentage of unwanted prenancies and STDs being higher in mature adults then in teenagers?

Nothing wrong with teaching abstinence, but be realistic and teach protection as well, actually foremost...they will need protection methods alot more, even if they are abstinent until they reach adulthood. You still going to preach abstinence when they are 20,30,40? when they are 20,30,40 they still need to protect themselves.

Since, of course, we don't have the right to hand out birth control in middle school or high school because only the parents have that right while society in general pays the price.

I am, perhaps, the strongest proponent of individual rights on this site, however, society does have the right to protect itself, just as we would from a deranged madman with a hammer. It is only a matter of degree.

The only part in the article that even identifies non-adults is where it refers to congenital syphilis, which isn't even the STD type that "broke the record", which was chlamydia.

I've seen people jump threads and take them off on tangents, but wow this crowd so far has been really interested in bashing abstinence and promoting teenage sex...

When you're a teenager peer pressure is a powerful force.

Is this kind of like the miracle on ice?

PLEASE for your own sake, your partners sake,and our sakes...here are the methods of protection, it's a must you use protection. You have a much better chance protecting your child with education of protection then you do by just saying 'NO don't have sex', that's virtually no protection.

END SARCASM

What's wrong with us?

Glad i wasn't in the head count though!!

Let's celebrate. No, not THAT way!!!

An interesting tidbit:

"Of equal importance, chlamydia infection of the eye is the most common cause of preventable blindness in the world. Blindness occurs as a complication of trachoma (chlamydia conjunctivitis)."

eek.

Compromise.

/end sarcasm