Imposing The Pro-Life Club Analysis

Adolescence can be a very confusing and difficult time for many teens because they are pushed out of childhood and into adulthood. The push for the use of comprehensive sex education programs is causing the rates of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) to increase. By providing teens with a comprehensive sex education program that can not only confuse them about their sexuality, but also lead them to engage in sex before they are mentally ready, is extremely harmful. Because abstinence is the only sure way to prevent the spread of STDs and stop unwanted pregnancies among adolescents, it should be the only curriculum taught to them.

Valenti provides sources from students, parents and data that are in favor of comprehensive sexual education rather than abstinence only programs. A 2007 study showed that students who took abstinence only programs were just as likely to have sex as their cohorts but also likely be less informed on how to protect themselves from pregnancies and STIs (2009:119). One such incidence involved a ninth grade teacher shockingly claiming pre martial sex was illegal (2009:103). Another involved a seventh grade teacher using Velcro to demonstrate the “painful” ties we create when engaging in sexual activity (2009:

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.

In 1913, sex education became a topic that was found to be an important education tool. Since then, this form of education has been a hot and debatable topic among many Americans. The original reason for sex education classes was to reduce problems such as sexually transmitted illnesses and prostitution. In recent years, abstinence has become the focus of sex education curriculum. Abstinence means refraining from sex completely. Although, it is the only one-hundred percent way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, abstinence-only instruction should not be the only form of sex education taught. Our youth need to know about all aspects of sex. This intails how to protect them if they choose to become sexually

On Wednesday, March Second, Pro-life and Pro-choice supporters showed up outside the Supreme Court to defend their side regarding the Texas legislature passed in 2013. This law, placed new regulations on the state's abortion clinics, however, since this addition eleven abortion clinics have closed their doors (Liptak). Texas representative’s argue that the law is meant to strengthen patient care after some shocking violations. While pro-choice groups argue the law has imposed an “undue burden” on women seeking these facilities. Despite the conflict, this event this event can be used to display the advantages and disadvantages of Federalism.

Long before the development of iconic male-dominated American culture, the ideals of a patriarchal society have been implemented within the foundations of multiple civilizations, serving to dictate the actions of its individuals under the black-and-white confines of social constructions like gender roles, gender binary, sex roles, and many other aspects of everyday life that are still present at this very moment. One of the most crucial elements of contemporary American society that these limiting patriarchal values have latched onto is the comprehensive sexual education of it's youth. Undoubtedly, those who need it most are almost always doomed to receive the short-end of the stick with the introduction of Abstinence-Only education—a method that has been consistently proven to embed misogynistic and gender-discriminatory ideals within its shame-based and fear-centered curriculum, in addition to being profoundly ineffective in preventing the negative aspects that go along with unsafe sexual activity; much less effective than it's counterpart, Comprehensive Sexual Education. This unbiased, fact-based, and health-focused method of sex-ed serves to inform students about a number of topics in an age-appropriate context, allowing them to make choices they are comfortable and familiar with when it comes to a time they feel they are ready to make them, regardless of what sex, gender, or orientation they happen to identify with.

Some of you know that I have a book forthcoming (Howard, 2016) on work and vocation. Since the book is primarily for Christian women, I am profiling several women whose work reflects the gospel in various professions. One of them is Susanne Metaxas—yes, Eric Metaxas's wife. Since 2006, Susanne has served as president of Avail, a "care network" in New York City for women facing unplanned pregnancy.

We have all heard the stories about the rise in teenage pregnancies, girls dropping out of school to care for their newborns, and even those who get pregnant on purpose. This new trend is everywhere. Most parents fail to have the “talk” with their children and are left without the proper education regarding sex until its too late. With the current rates of teenage pregnancy correlated with the current rates of spreading epidemics of STD’s and HIV/AIDS, steps should be taken in an effort to aid the situation. Schools are a main source of information and education for teens, and are in a unique position that can provide adolescents with knowledgeable skills and understanding that promote sexual health. With consistent speculation surrounding

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.

Abstinence only education has been the most prevalent form of instruction in middle and high school courses for years in the United States. Instead of providing accurate scientific facts, it has been primarily based on ideology and what has been traditionally morally accepted: sexual activity within a heterosexual marriage. As a result, teenagers have been taught through biased information influenced by current heteronormative standards. Consequently, abstinence only education fails to acknowledge the minority populations of teenaged students who are different genders and sexualities other than a heterosexual male. Realistically, it can be inferred that a majority of the student bodies in America are rich in diversity. The classroom is no longer composed of homogenous individuals. Instead, classrooms are full of adolescents of various genders, sexualities, ages, and ethnicities. Abstinence only education strictly instructs through biological and reproductively compatible terms rather than addressing other methods of having sex, specifically pertaining to the LGBTQ community. The current curricula typically teaches that penile-vaginal sex is the “proper” way to have intercourse and that it is customary that sex occurs only between a man and a woman. Thus, emphasizing how genitalia should be used rather than having a more holistic approach towards sex. Ultimately, this disregards all of the possible mechanisms that exist when it comes to physical touch. As a consequence,

In Quindlen’s essay she talks about when she was sitting in a clinic in the poorest neighborhood in New York City. She sat with a group of young teenagers who amazed her with their knowledge of sexuality. Quindlen talks about someone mentioning the thought that sex education in school would lower or prevent teen pregnancy, but students will do whatever they want to do. Even though it is good to teach young teenagers about sex and possible risk of the act, it could create confusion in students, wondering the class is teaching them about contraceptives or abstinence. The essay explains how half dozen young teenage girls show off that they are having sex, getting pregnant, and having babies.

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).

Sex education is still treated as taboo in the modern world. The roots of this vary from culture to culture, but the impacts remain the same; the prevalent rape culture that persists around the world, STI pandemics, sky-high teen pregnancy rates, and the LGBT community being at a much higher risk of contracting diseases and being targeted for hate crimes (Sanoff, 1). However, what remains unacceptable is when this prohibition seeps into governmental actions, especially governments with an emphasis on the separation of church and state.

When I was in the eighth grade, I remember attending a sex education course. At the young impressionable age of fourteen, I listened quietly as the lecturer showed us grotesque pictures of sexually transmitted infections and warned us that abstinence was the only effective way to not get pregnant. At the end of lecture, everyone at the assembly was handed a little card that read, “Virginity Pledge” and we were all required to sign them. Looking back on this memory, I am appalled by the severe lack of scientific foundation of the lecture, the use of misinterpreted statistics, and the use of peer pressure in requiring students to sign pledge cards. Many students my age probably have a similar experience with this type of sex education, which is referred to as abstinence-only sex education. Students deserve a better sex education than what the abstinence-only sex education programs provide. Abstinence-only sex education should be removed from all U.S. schools and replaced with comprehensive sexuality education.

Coinciding with the onslaught of the new millennium, schools are beginning to realize that the parents are not doing their job when it comes to sexual education. The school system already has classes on sexual education; these classes are based mainly on human anatomy. Most schools do not teach their students about relationships, morals, respect, self-discipline, self-respect, and most importantly contraceptives. Everyday students engage in sexual activity, many of them with out condoms. This simple act jeopardizes these students' futures and possibly their lives. An increasing amount of school systems are starting to combine messages involving abstinence from sexual activity,