Abstinence Education Programs Argumentative Analysis

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.

In 2005, nearly half of all high school students have had sexual intercourse. Plainly stating that abstinence programs do not work (USA Today). Abstinence programs were beneficial many years ago, but since they are ineffective in delaying teen pregnancy, then teen pregnancy rate has increased. Abstinence programs teach the “no sex until marriage” clause, but they don’t teach teens about birth control and the consequences of having sex at before they’ve matured. Although many studies argue that abstinence programs are educational and beneficial, other studies will show that they don’t delay teen sex, they don’t prevent the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), and are a waste of taxpayers’

The philosophy behind abstinence-only policy implies that the greatest risk of informing students about their options for contraception would be that educators are condoning premarital sex. The risks that our students are already taking, however, are greater then policymakers are considering. It is generally accepted that the majority of sexual intercourse among young people remains unprotected (Westwood, 2006). Abstinence-only curriculum is not preventing adolescents from having sex; it is just making them naïve to the risks they are taking with their lifestyle choices.

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

“Don’t have sex because you will get pregnant and die!” (Mean Girls). This famous quote said by Coach Carr, the health teacher, in the movie Mean Girls swarms the brains of teenagers all over the world. While this quote is quite extreme and is making a mockery of abstinence only programs, it’s analogous to what teachers across the nation are reciting to brainwash our youth. Abstinence-Until-Marriage programs are implemented in numerous high school and junior high schools across the country. While the title seems promising, “Mathematica [Policy Research Inc. (on behalf of U. S. Department of Health and Human Services) found that through] evaluation, [there’s] no evidence that abstinence-until-marriage programs increased rates of sexual abstinence” (What the Research Says…). Teaching a course that isn’t beneficial is meaningless and merely a waste of time. These curriculums use fear tactics to scare children away from sex, reinforce gender norms, and provide inaccurate medical information. Schools that provide abstinence only programs are denying our youth factual, substantial knowledge and survival skills. Instead, these schools should consider an abstinence-plus program, also known as a safe sex contraception education, for their students.

Morris’s statement, echoed by her fellow abstinence-only proponents, would make it seem as if the United States government has not funded or promoted abstinence-only education. However, funding for abstinence-only programs has been increasing since the 1980’s, when it first began; “The Adolescent Family Act…was signed into law in 1981…to provide support to teen parents and ‘to promote chastity and self-discipline’ through a ‘family centered approach” (Schwarz, 2007). Even recently, in 2007, President Bush proposed an increase in spending for abstinence –only education, going from $176 million to $204 million (Boonstra, 2007). Percentage wise, “In 2006-2008 most teens aged 15-19 had received formal instruction about…or abstinence (84%)” (Guttmatcher Institute, 2012). A review conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that “youth who were assigned to the Title V abstinence “program group” were no more likely than youth assigned to the “services as usual” control group to have abstained from sex” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007). The amount of funding for abstinence-only education is astonishingly high,

Abstinence only education is hindering the lives of teens in today’s world. Schools should stop teaching abstinence only education since, it increases the rate of teens having sexual relations with other people, it does not give students adequate lessons on preventing STDs, and the rate of teen pregnancy is higher for students who receive abstinence only education. As a nation we need to help teens protect themselves with this topic and most importantly approach it with caution. Many schools believe that abstinence only education is the most effective way to instruct students on the topic of sex when it clearly is not.

Abstinence is a remarkable topic to be taught, however, should not be the only choice taught, and it’s impractical to expect the youth to hold out until marriage. Abstinence, along with STD and pregnancy prevention is imperative for the youth in the nation. It is factual that accepting promiscuity as part of our culture might cause a rise in STD's, teen pregnancy, and Aid’s. These increases are the reason we must begin early in educating children about the diseases, how to prevent them, and how to practice safe sex. Schools are insane for not lecturing the importance, or proper use of

The controversial topic of whether or not sex education curriculum should teach contraceptive use or abstinence-only is heavily debated. In 2013, the U.S. totaled 273,105 babies born by teenagers, ages from 15 to 19 (“About Teen Pregnancy”). This raises the question: why is the number of pregnancies so high? Is the reason for that unsettling high, number because abstinence-only is being taught or contraceptive use is being taught? Students who are taught abstinence-only are more likely to wait to have sex, which results in the lowering of teen pregnancy. The abstinence-only curriculum also reduces students sexual activity.The sex education curriculum in the U.S. should consist of abstinence-only education.

Not only does abstinence only education exclude adolescents of various sexualities, but it fails to regard the health of teenaged girls as well. The repression of female representation in health courses has contributed to the magnification of the gender stereotypes, where women are ideally portrayed as pure vessels if they remain virgins until marriage. Therefore, young girls should remain chaste and pubescent boys naturally have a rampant sexuality due to their uncontrollable hormones. Traditional gender roles are then reinforced, disregarding female sexuality thus alienating them within their health courses since they are not educationally included. This form of instruction censors out necessary sexual guidance concerning their respective reproductive health. For example, details about contraception, abortion, human sexuality, and sexual assault specifically concerning females are neglected within the classroom. Health courses have long-established condoms as the popularized and primary way of having protective sex. But what school boards don’t incorporate in their curricula is that there are various methods of contraception, precisely for women. For example, there are birth control pills, hormone implants, cervical caps, and vaginal rings. Although these preventative measures do not safeguard for STI and HIV contraction, they can decrease the likelihood of having an unintended pregnancy by ceasing ovulation or preventing sperm flow in the vagina by increasing the hormones

However, more and more studies are proving that Abstinence-only programs are do not effectively prevent any of the above listed issues. One such study was conducted by Pamela Kohler, Lisa Manhart and Dr. William Lafferty, which utilized surveys given to never-married heterosexual adolescents between the ages of 15 and 19 and compared those who received abstinence-only sex education, those who received comprehensive sex education and those who received no formal sex education. It was found that Abstinence-only education did little to nothing to prevent teenage pregnancy and that adolescents who received abstinence-only sex education were up to two times more likely to report teen pregnancy than adolescents who received comprehensive sex education. The study also found that abstinence-only programs did not reduce the likelihood of adolescents engaging in premarital sex. Abstinence-only sex education was also proven to have no effect on reducing the likelihood of STD diagnoses among

For instance, in an article written by Kathrin F. Stranger-Hall and David W. Hall, professors at the University of Georgia, titled “Abstinence-Only Programs are Ineffective in Preventing Teen Pregnancy”, states, “the more strongly abstinence is emphasized […], the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rate”. This article also states that many case studies prove that abstinence-only teachings show no sign of positive effect on teenage sexual behavior. In addition, in schools that taught Level One sex education (referred to as abstinence-plus), which includes comprehensive sex education and encouragement of condoms and contraceptive use and teachings of HIV awareness, proved to have the lowest rate of pregnancy in teenagers (Stranger-Hall).

Half of all new human immunodeficiency virus, also known as HIV infections in the United States and two thirds of all sexually transmitted diseases (STD) occur among young people under the age of 25 (Starkman, Rajani). It’s estimated that by the end of high school, nearly two thirds of American’s youth are sexually active, and one in five has had four or more sexual partners (Starkman, Rajani). Despite these alarming statistics, less than half of all public schools in the United States offer information on how to obtain contraceptives and most schools teach "abstinence only" education (Starkman, Rajani). Even more alarmingly there is little evidence that abstinence only curriculums are successful in encouraging teenagers from delaying

It has been almost thirty three years since the first federal funding was put to use in “. . . sex education programs that promote abstinence-only-until-marriage to the exclusion of all other approaches . . .” according to the article “Sex education” (2010) published by “Opposing Viewpoints in Context;” a website that specializes in covering social issues. Since then a muddy controversy has arisen over whether that is the best approach. On one hand is the traditional approach of abstinence (not having sex before marriage), and on the other is the idea that what is being done is not enough, and that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach. This entails not only warning against sex, but also teaching teens about how to have

Programs that encourage abstinence have become a vital part of school systems in the US. These programs are usually referred to as abstinence-only or value-based programs while other programs are called as safer-sex, comprehensive, secular or abstinence-plus programs which on the contrary promote the usage of effective contraception. Although abstinence-only and safer-sex programs disagree with one another, their core values and stand on the aims of sex education is to help teens develop problem-solving skills and the skill of good decision-making. They believe that adolescents will be better prepared to “act responsibly in the heat of the moment” (Silva). Most programs that have been currently implemented in the US have seen a delay in the initiation of sex among teens which proves to be a positive and desirable outcome (Silva).