posted
Well, no, because they are actively making the decision not to try to protect students who do have sex.
I consider that on the same level as a school teaching kids not to drink, but not telling them that they shouldn't go home in a car with someone who is drunk or that they shouldn't drive if they do get drunk. That is, the school is actively and knowingly choosing to put kids at higher risk.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do sort of think the abstinence-only approaches reflect the belief that less harm is done by failing to achieve 100% abstinence, than by allowing a greater amount of premarital sex but preventing STDs and pregnancies relative to the amount of sex.
Like Samp said, they might not be under the delusion that they can 100% prevent premarital sex, but they also aren't actively choosing to cause greater harm, in their own minds. It's just a different evaluation of the harms. (One I would probably disagree with strongly.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
