Abstinence In Schools

According to advocatesforyouth.org, “abstinence only education teaches students to abstain from sex prior to marriage.” These program has been proven to be ineffective. Abstinence only education is ineffective because it is not conducive in reducing teen pregnancy rates and sexually transmitted diseases rates. Abstinence only programs are less likely to teach students about birth control and contraception and how to access it. These programs has not been shown to reduce teen sexual activity.

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’

Every person has the right of balanced sex education, if they want. Abstinence-only education is not the correct approach in Texas, because the programs ignore youth’s basic human right and the fundamental public health principle of accurate information, they advocate contraceptive use and does not emphasize their failure rates, and virginity pledges do not delay the beginning of sexual activity.

The issue of the paper Misinformed and Unprotected is that Abstinence-only programs lack to inform teens about sexual contact because the system is current set up as only teaching teens to not have sexual contact till marriage, leaving out important information for teens who what to learn how to be safe with sexual contact. The writer’s position on the paper is that the education system should be changed to inform teens more than just wait till marriage to have sex. The evidence list is that Abstinence-only education advocates claim that abstinence-only programs prevent premarital sex, but that the programs need to stop being publicly funded because these programs may make those who have suffered from sexual abuse feel ashamed and unwilling

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

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

The Texas abstinence-only approach in school systems has failed to give information required to educate teenagers to what can happen to their life and future by engaging in sexual activity.

In El Paso, just like many other cities in the conservative States, the chosen form of sex Ed. is abstinence only, thus making it so that most middle and high schools do not offer the option of even taking the comprehensive class. This causes issues of public and personal safety to arise, as well as reckless endangerment. Most people, especially teenagers, do not know their anatomy as well as they believe they do, nor of any diseases that may be transferred through menial tasks such as; sharing a toothbrush, sharing edibles, etc. Abstinence only teachings have been proven to be ineffective as they do not prevent teenage pregnancy, the start of the act, nor the number of partners a teen might take. Comprehensive abstinence classes have been

Teenagers are notorious for being curious. Not every teenager has, but there are many who have tried drugs and alcohol despite all of the school’s and parent’s warnings. Why is sex any different? A study in 2015 reported that 41% of high school students have had sexual intercourse (Child Trends Data Bank). That number isn’t extremely concerning but what is the legitimate likelihood that all of those students were honest? Schools such as MCPS teach about contraceptives, but stress abstinence more than anything. By withdrawing information such as a minor’s rights when it comes to abortion or contraception, students could ruin their entire future. Everyone has made mistakes and has regrets, but withdrawing information from students in the hopes that they practice abstinence is not worth a student’s future. School systems should be teaching students their rights when it comes to sex.

Statistics show that of these two choices, abstinence only is the better option. “…without an abstinence message, [students] were significantly more likely than the abstinence only students to be sexually active two years later” (Chavez 22). When schools teach abstinence, the only option the students learn is to wait till marriage. With this type of understanding, instead of comprehensive, it protects teenagers from many things both physically and emotionally. “According to the CDC, the number of high school students who claimed to have never had sex increased by ten percent…” (Marcovitz 18). More studies continue to show how abstinence education decreases many issues both emotionally and physically and increases healthy, stable relationships. Since comprehensive education has become more popular, studies show the increase in sexual activity and pregnancies. “Every year, 1 of every 10 teenage girls becomes pregnant, and more than 400,000 teenagers have abortions” (Lickona 84). Since comprehensive education has been taught a lot recently, “…certain STI rates are increasing” (Connelly 5). More studies also show that young girls are affected the most by schools not having an abstinent education program. “…young women aged 15 to 19 had the highest reported cases of Chlamydia and gonorrhea” (Connelly

"abstinence-only" sex education programs have been shown not to be successful in reducing adolescence sexual behavior. Just a few abstinence-only have been shown to change attitude towards abstinence over a short period up to six months. Educating youth with the skills and tools to make healthy choices about sex and relationship is more effective than denying it and telling them not to have sex. We need to give young people accurate sexual information if we want them to take responsibility for their well-being rather than eliminate information about condoms and birth control. Studies shows over two-thirds of Canadians have sexual intercourse before age 20 (Matika-Tyndale, Barrett, & McKay, 2001) so it is crucial that youth receive all the

If you have lived through the experience of being a teenager in the United States then you have probably been subjected to a sex education course at some point in your life. I, like the majority, attended an abstinence-only program in high school and most of what I remember from that experience is being uncomfortable. In fact, the clearest memories I have of the program taught at my school, or Worth the Wait, is of a video of a woman who creates a pancake in the shape of a vagina for her daughter and a montage of dozens of girls saying “No!” to emphasize what my response should be to sex. But, now that I am an adult woman and am close to the age where I might start thinking about motherhood I can see why these abstinence-only programs

These programs are promoting marriage and using fear tactics in regard to having sex before marriage. These abstinences programs come into the school and force their opinion onto the students that they should abstain until they are married. Programs like this are making students sign forms stating that they will abstain from premarital sex. Students

The intentional withholding and misinformation given by AOUM programs threatens the fundamental human rights to health and information. Adolescents need complete and accurate information regarding sexual health in order to protect their health and lives (Santelli et al., 2017). The eight-point federal statutory definition of abstinence education requires programs to withhold information on contraception except to emphasize their failure rates. Keeping adolescents uneducated in regards to contraception and other aspects of contraceptive health is inherently trying to force them into abstinence (Stanger-Hall & Hall, 2011; Ott & Santelli, 2007). This contradicts the ethical principle beneficence as it may lead adolescents to engage in unprotected

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