Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (19716)	7/30/2001 6:26:11 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Maybe (radical concept) having Plan B pretty much rules out Plan A as an option. I understand that simply having a plan B undermines plan A to some extent but I don't think it rules it out if the two are integrated creatively. And I'm not very sanguine about how many kids will be receptive to plan A under any circumstances. If there were any kids over whom I had any influence, I'd push plan A as effectively as I could and I think that I could make a good case. Not until marriage, but at least until they were out of high school. I think that we could make plan A more attractive and sex with condoms less attractive. The risk is pushing kids to plan C, which is no plan at all. Increasing unprotected sex produces a public health nightmare. One of the problems with plan A is the business of abstinence until marriage. That's waaayyyy too long to expect kid to wait. A more realistic target might make plan A more palatable. Karen