There has been an ongoing debate between advocates for abstinence-only programs and supporters of comprehensive sex education. Over the last several years, Congress has emphasized and funded the abstinence-only approach, which focuses on teaching young people that abstaining from sex until marriage is the best means of ensuring avoidance of HIV infection, other sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancy. Any discussion about contraceptive options generally is considered counterproductive and contradictory. Conversely, comprehensive sex education explains to young people the potential benefits of delaying sexual experiences until they are emotionally and physically ready. It also includes a discussion about abstinence and contraceptive options. To advocates of the abstinence-only approach, the rise in teen pregnancy rates and STDs supports the idea that a simple message of "no sex outside of marriage" for teens is the only appropriate approach for educators. Those who support comprehensive sex education argue that the recent rise in teen pregnancy rates after a steady decline for the previous 15 years suggests a failure in the abstinence-only approach.So what do you think? Should the federal government fund only abstinence programs, comprehensive sex educations programs, or both?