Why does McCain oppose funding teen pregnancy prevention issues but approves Viagra?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080902/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_mccain_teen_pregnancies

Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Thoughts?

Answer 1

He figures kids don't need to get their groove on anyway!  

Answer 2

cognitive dissonance...besides, mccain's next wife will probably be a teenager

Answer 3

The government needs to stop paying for everything. The Liberals in this country will never stop whining until everyone pays 90% of their income in taxes and sits around waiting for Big Brother to take care of our yards.  

Answer 4

How many teens do you know on Viagra?

Answer 5

There's a difference, society does not want teens getting it on. But adults, who cares?

Answer 6

Why does the liberal media support 16 yr old Jamie Lynn Spears and why did Nickolodean keep her KIDS show on?!

I bet you were one of the ones yelling "LEAVE JAMIE LYNN ALONE!"

You hypocrite liberals crack me up

Answer 7

A seventeen year old boy needs viagra?  Come on what is your point?

Answer 8

well hes a religious man but hes also and married man with whos old as h**l and prolly has a erectile dis function  

Answer 9

lol that makes no sence

Answer 10

Because he feels that one should be responsible for his or her own actions, I would assume.  I guess depending on your point of view, this is either good or bad.  But, I hardly see how supporting funding for Viagra is hypocritical when compared to federal funding for teen pregnancies.  Viagra helps men with ED...which is typically an older male demographic.  Hardly do teen males need Viagra.  

So...no, it is not hypocritical.  Maybe slightly backwards...but certainly not hypocritical.

Answer 11

"Palin herself said she opposes funding sexual-education programs in Alaska.

"The explicit s*x-ed programs will not find my support," she wrote in a 2006 questionnaire distributed among gubernatorial candidates."

- from your link

This speaks for itself.