Would you rather be subsidizing even more teem moms?
Where did you come up with your notion that promoting porn results in less teen moms? Subsidizing porn = subsidizing less teen moms? Exactly how does that come about?
“Would you rather be subsidizing even more teem moms?”
This stuff is sick.
The way to have less teen moms is for those girls to not remove their pants.
The whole of educating them do do stupid things in a safer way, is a fallacy.
They should just not do stupid things.
If a kid has sex then they are making a baby. They shouldn’t make a baby.
I am under the impression that you subscribe to the “steam valve” theory of human emotions. The theory goes that you have a certain amount of pent-up energy, and it needs to be let out somehow. This theory, however, is far too simplistic. Sexual restraint can be encouraged, as indeed it was before around 1965. People were far more modest in general at that time and sex was not discussed in public. Rates of illegitimacy were far lower than they are today.
Of course people always have sexual instincts, but we’re living in a time when the media and the schools are encouraging an absense of them. That’s what this article is about.