I lean towards the abstinence side of the argument between abstinence and comprehensive sex education because of my religious beliefs. Although I feel abstinence should be the focus of sex education, I think it is important to teach young people a balance to protect themselves. While researching this topic, it seems that many of the articles have the same idea to teach abstinence along with safe sex which would be comprehensive sex ed. With the rising sexual transmitted diseases and pregnancies, young people need to have an understanding of both sides. They need to be taught all consequences of choosing to have sex or to wait. Teaching youth, if they choose to be abstinent, they may fall into peer pressure, and they need to understand …show more content…
I do feel some of the abstinence teachings need to slightly change because I feel most teens are going to have sex no matter which sex education program they are taught. I think the teens should get the comprehensive lessons, but also have the explanations on why abstinence is also a good idea. That way the teens get the abstinence talk, but then if they choose to ignore it, will know how to properly protect themselves, know how contraceptives work, the proper way to use those contraceptives, and know of where to get proper help if they need it. So my opinion didn’t change it was just modified.
-Sarah Melcher- When we began this project, I was against the idea of abstinence-only programs. I had a similar mindset to those who argue for comprehensive sex education and against abstinence programs. I thought they were a waste of time and ineffective. After reading the articles though, I learned there are teens that the abstinence programs actually work for. I was surprised to see too, that there were quite a few articles arguing for combination abstinence and comprehensive sex education programs. I now feel that this is the best answer for sex education for teens. It gives them the best of both worlds. They are taught that staying abstinent is the best thing for their bodies to
Abstinence education strives to create an environment in which students will be prepared to remain abstinent because it is the “only completely effective form of birth control. Creating an appeal to religious groups with the same ideology, these programs promote “the idea of sexual activity inside the context of marriage [as] the only proper behavior. ” (“Comprehensive Sex Education vs. Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage-Programs”) In the TED talk “Why We Shouldn’t Shy Away From Sexual Education”, Dr. V. Chandra-Mouli adds that “one of the main reasons for resistance to sexuality education is the concern that it plants the idea in children’s minds to have sex before they are ready…” Parents fear the idea of their children being influenced to have sex out of wedlock because it brings a higher risk of getting a sexual transmitted disease (STD) or becoming unintentionally
Sexual education is a highly debatable topic, but many believe the information taught to students should be abstinence-only. Abstinence-only education has been put in place in order to educate students about the social, mental, and physical benefits of resisting from all sexual activity. It emphasizes the unsafe impacts of participating in sexual activity before marriage and having casual sex. It also promotes the idea that sexual abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Abstinence education only permits the discussion of contraception and condoms in terms of failure in order to utterly discourage casual sex (Wilgoren, 1). Along with teaching the physical dangers of sex, abstinence education also teaches the mental dangers of sex (Abstinence-Only Education, 1). Sex has many risks and dangers that are not
Additional research has explored the effects of abstinence based programs on actual behavior outcomes. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) compared the effects of abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education programs, operationalizing effectiveness in terms of initiation of sexual activity and teen pregnancy rates. They found that teenagers who received comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence-only or no education were significantly less likely to report a teenage pregnancy. In addition, their conclusions mirrored Sather and Kelly (2002), finding that abstinence-based programs did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in sexual activity. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) actually concluded that comprehensive sex education was more likely than abstinence based to reduce the percentage engaging in sexual activity. Overall, the researchers showed that comprehensive sex education, including but not limited to contraception, did not increase the prevalence of sexual activity in teenagers or the risk of teen pregnancy, while also showing the that abstinence only education produced a higher likelihood of pregnancy.
As a result of the unsuccessful overly funded abstinence only programs, teens fail to use contraception. This leads to increased pregnancy rates. Students and teens fail to use contraception because they are not informed of its importance and how to access it. This is why many people feel it is important to replace abstinence only with comprehensive sex education.
The teenagers and children of today read about, listen to and watch all sorts of information about sex. While most adults have had some form of sex education, we must ask if this new generation is learning anything new or helpful from their sex education classes. The American culture and way of living is so absorbed in sex that children should be taught about it, people just can not agree on how to teach them. In her article New Sex ed Funding Ends Decade of Abstinence-Only, Kelli Kennedy proves that abstinence-only sex education classes and programs are not as good as regular sex education classes better than Shari Roan does in her article Teen pregnancy rates rises. Are abstinent-only programs to blame?
Studies have also shown that abstinence-focused programs have failed to reduce STI rates. The American Sexual Health Association states, “More than half of all people will have an STD/STI at some point in their lifetime,” (“Statistics”). Comprehensive sex education would teach teenagers how to improve their sexual health, prevent unwanted pregnancies, and prevent sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Providing students with this information does not encourage them to participate in sexual activity sooner. Several findings show that, “[Comprehensive sex education] effectively promotes abstinence and may delay sexual debut, reduce sexual frequency, reduce the number of sexual partners, reduce STI risk, and increase the likelihood of consistent contraceptive use,” (Jeffries 173). Comprehensive sex education will be beneficial to students by teaching them how to have sexual intercourse safely, if they choose to not remain abstinent.
It’s safe to say that most of our school systems today use the “Abstinence- Only” approach. School systems teach sex education classes in middle school, where most students will not be in a situation where they must use the information used in these courses, such as contraceptives. In middle school, it is best to learn the Abstinence Only approach, while becoming a high schooler, it would be more effective to use the Safe- Sex approach to increase their knowledge on the consequences of sex. While reading an article, a high schooler engaged in a sex education class said,
Abstinence teaching only is not effective when trying to prevent STIs in teenagers. According to "Life123" (2012), ”While abstinence-only education programs have the support of many major national religious groups, a comprehensive sex education program in schools has the backing of a wide range of educational and medical organizations. Most proponents of comprehensive sex education argue that teens should be encouraged to abstain, but should also get information about contraceptives, sexually transmitted diseases, and how to prevent HIV” (Family).
Proponents for abstinence-only education believe that the abstinence-only message has contributed to the decline of adolescent sexual activity as well as negative related outcomes. In the 1990s there was a decrease in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. These proponents attribute these declining statistics to the abstinence-only message and claim that the declines cannot be accredited to increased
Clemmitt (2010) states that currently the most effective approach to prevent teenage pregnancy is evidence-based sex education programs. The primary debate about the best method of preventing teenage pregnancy is between abstinence-only courses and comprehensive sex education. The author says that after operating comprehensive sex education, the Obama approach, many communities and county areas have drastically reduced the rate of teenage pregnancy. Studies and statistics suggested that abstinence-only courses have not contributed to reduce teenage pregnancy rates. The author points out that the abstinence-only courses also include sexually transmitted diseases classes and discussions of unhealthy relationship and making decisions, and abstinence
Does “abstinence-only” programs mean abstinence-only lives for teenagers receiving this type of sexual education? There are those who fully support abstinence-only sex education while others deny its ability and believe it only under educates teenagers. From the latter, the author claims that abstinence only programs are not effective. He presents evidence to suggest this is valid, including that high school students need medically accurate information on how to decrease their risk of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy because they are sexually active. Though the underlying issue has merit and the argument is sound and is valid because of logical
I believe that all schools should teach an inclusive form of sexual education. I believe that teaching abstinence is not working in the slightest because the rate of teenagers who are sexually active is gradually increasing. Since the fact is that teens are participating in sexual intercourse, we need to teach them how to have sex safely. Schools need to teach a form of sexual education that will fully cover how to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and infections, because the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs contain inaccuracies and flaws, the popular opinion differs from state policies, and the government and tax payer’s money could be better allocated to a different cause. Ultimately teaching proper sexual education will help to lower the teenage pregnancy
The classes proved information about contraceptives, STDs and HIV prevention. It also is age appropriate and scientifically explained. Collins says it well that “by denying teens the full range of information regarding human sexuality, abstinence-only education fails to provide young people with the information they need to protect their health and well being.” Students when asked survey by the Kasier Family Foundation said that they knew more and felt better prepared to handle different situations. Abstinence only education just chooses to avoid it and does not take into account students who decide a different path. Abstinence only education supports say that by teaching the “abstinence-plus” education that they are sending mixed messages towards students. Current advocates for comprehensive education cite that “providing teens with contraceptive information does not encourage early sexual activity.” The Surgeon General David Satcher had said that based off of the information he had derived from both approaches “evidence gives strong support to the conclusion that providing information about contraception does not increase adolescent sexual activity….[it only] increased condom and contraceptive uses among adolescents who were sexually active.” (Collins 9)Most evaluations of many different types of
According to Christina Fisanick (2010), an author who specializes in writing about controversial subjects, those on the side of abstinence argue that “promoting abstinence until marriage is the only way to ensure the safety and well being of all young people who might consider engaging in premarital sex,” and “insist that abstinence-only education is essential for the well being of society” (“Introduction to Do Abstinence Programs Work,” 2010). Emma Elliott (2009), a defender of abstinent-only sex education and writer for Concerned Women for America (the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization dedicated to promoting biblical values), argues that abstinence sex education is the
Controversy is rampant regarding the sexual education of grade school children. Some insist that it is prudent to educate children on this subject beginning as early as kindergarten. Others strongly disagree that earlier education has any effect at all on teen sex and pregnancy and, therefore, abstinence should be the focus. Lastly, we have those who believe advocating abstinence is appropriate, but agree that a more in depth sexual education is also necessary for those who are going to have sex anyway despite our best efforts to teach them otherwise.