This story, about how the government is encouraging abstinence for singles under 30, serves as an unintentional follow-up to another story I blogged about earlier this morning. The earlier story covered a study, finding that access to protection better explained countries’ STD infection than promiscuity did. Indeed, Africa has lower promiscuity but higher STD rates than developed countries.

I pointed out regarding the earlier story — and I’ll point out with regard to this one — that multiple sex partners is the only thing that outright causes STD infection. Sexual activity is the only thing that causes pregnancy.

Abstinence education to the exclusion of information about contraceptives, then, has two outcomes. One is that some kids (presumably) will be convinced, and they will have a 0 percent chance of unwanted pregnancy. The other is that the kids who don’t take the message to heart won’t know that they can significantly decrease the risks of their promiscuous behavior.

On the flip side, teaching about contraceptives will make some kids engage in sexual activity who wouldn’t otherwise, but it will make the promiscuous-no-matter-what ones safer. The question is, which deters more pregnancy, making fewer teens and young adults promiscuous or decreasing the pregnancies of the ones who are anyway?

Both sides have managed to come up with some sort of study to support their viewpoint, but I think there’s a big case to be made for (A) leaving sex education out of public schools and leaving it to parents or (B) telling the whole truth –both that contraception works significantly and that abstinence is 100 percent effective — and letting kids make up their minds.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.