Christian Arguments Against Abstinence-Only Education

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

The foundation of the abstinence-only policy was laid in 1981 under President Regan when the United States Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) administered by the Office of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs (OAPP) (Denny, 2006). The main purpose of this this proposal was to keep sexual relationships until marriage (Weaver, 2005). The AFLA became founded on the belief of funding and developing abstinence-only based curricula in public schools throughout the United States (Weaver, 2005).

Today, it is most common that conservative and religious families practice and teach abstinence more than families who are not religious (WebMD). School systems have always believed that the biggest contraceptive is abstinence, which is why they have been so consistent with that approach for so many years. “"Schools teach 'no smoking' and 'no drinking.' They don't say 'if you smoke, use a filter' or 'if you drink and drive, wear your safety belt.' Why should sex be treated differently?", said Peter Brandt, President of the National Coalition for Abstinence Education in Colorado Springs. It is imperative that school systems continue teaching abstinence but also inform students on the potential health risks of sex and how to prevent

Many advocates for abstinence-only education believe that its message is strongly intertwined with traditional values and religious faith; both of which they claim to have measurable influence in preventing teens from having sex (Collins, Alagira, and Summers 12-13). Christian conservative women believe that comprehensive sex education would encourage sexual activity and lesbianism, as well as undercut marriage and create social decay (Fields 24).

“A mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity. Different people will disagree about the veracity of this statement, but we know that it does not reflect the experiences of the majority of young people” (Collins 1). Sexual education is a mandatory part of every grade school curriculum and is funded by the federal government. “The content of sexuality education curricula in America varies widely by region, by school district, and sometimes, by classroom” (Collins 1). I believe that because of this fact that it should be taught in a one consistent way.

Those who wish for comprehensive education to be taught often correlate shame and abstinence only education. The argument is if sex is not shamed and instead normalized and properly discussed future adults will practice behavior that is safer. They also argue that because of the higher pregnancy rates among those taught in abstinence only states, abstinence only education is ineffective (Stanger-Hall). Laci Green, a YouTube public speaker and activist, argues that abstinence only education shames women specifically for unplanned pregnancy and not men. She also brings up that shame and sense of failure can create stigmas for young parents. Green also argues that Bristol Palin, abstinence advocate, has had two unplanned pregnancies and thus not only does abstinence education same women but it also is ineffective.

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.

Federal funding has played a large role in this increase, as monetary incentives have been the driving force behind much of the change. To put it in numbers, the amount of federal dollars going to schools that adopted abstinence only programs almost tripled in the seven years between 1998 and 2005, increasing from 60 to 168 million dollars a year (Santelli, 75). And among United States school districts that changed their policies, twice as many chose to adopt a curriculum that more heavily focused on abstinence only until marriage as moved towards a more comprehensive program (Landry). This disturbing statistic shows how effective the religious right has been in pushing abstinence only programs in face of a dearth of evidence as to their effectiveness. This effectiveness is mainly due to intense lobbying funded by individuals and organizations on the far right. One man, Raymond Ruddy, has personally put 1.5 million dollars towards advocacy and lobbying for abstinence only programs (Eaton). While lobbying like this commonly happens on both sides of the aisle, in this case public opinion goes against what people like Raymond Ruddy say is necessary. According to a recent study, "Ninety-eight percent of parents say they want HIV/AIDS discussed in sex education classes; 85% want 'how to use condoms' discussed; 84% think sex education should cover 'how to use and where to get other birth control,' and 76% want

Five seventh grade students in a New Orleans middle school were asked how to prevent HIV/AIDS and pregnancy. They believe, eating a hot pepper after sex will prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancy. These students attended an abstinence-only education school where they are prohibited to discuss condoms and other contraceptives to prevent STD and pregnancy (Woebse, 709-710). Since 2014 the U.S teen pregnancy birth rate dropped to 24.2 per 1000 women, 9% lower than 2013(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). With abstinence-only education being taught, could abstinence-only education be credited for the decline? Does the thought of eating hot peppers after engaging in a sexual act scare teens enough to be abstinent? Or are teens learning

Once again, the topic of religion and how it plays a role can be related to the sexual education curriculum. Based on the type of school as student attends, they will learn different things about sex and sexuality. Until recently, catholic schools in Ontario used abstinence based curriculum to teach students about sex. If there was discussion about intercourse it was between a heterosexual husband and wife (Stonefish & Lafrenier, 2015). To me this seems extremely unrealistic to be teaching children abstinence when most, if not all of them are aware of sexual activities and or participate in them. The policies that surrounded the curriculum did not allow any room for teachers to introduce the larger picture of sexuality. The current curriculum allows students to learn about self-expression and healthy relationships (Stonefish &Lafrenier, 2015). In my opinion, this is the most important thing to teach children about themselves, what their personal boundaries are and that there is no normal it is simply an illusion that was created from past values and beliefs. An example of this is “religious leaders, who have long been considered a source of counsel and support for many family issues, have been revealed as critically significant factors in determining the cause for depression in sexual minority youth” (Stonefish & Lafrenier, 2015). This shows that the past

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

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

Schools receiving money from the government, in sponsorship of the program, must teach the students to “just say no” to sex until legally married. The schools are also not permissible to teach students safe sex and “may not mention contraception except to point out failure rates of various methods” (Brody). There are a few states that have stood up to the government and refused funds, so the state has the option to determine their own ways to teach sex education. However, 43 states still take part of the program and promote it. Millions of dollars are pulled from the government each year for the program and many schools support the abstinence-only movement. The programs have encouraging titles, such as “Teens in Control” and “ReCapturing the Vision” (Impacts). Students are greatly encouraged take virginity vows until marriage, carry an ATM card (abstinence till marriage), and conceitedly wear “purity” rings (Kelly). Programs, such as these, are used to develop a strong self-worth and to teach about the negative consequences that could occur from sexual activity, but there is a major flaw: abstinence-only programs are inefficient.

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