Rhetorical Analysis Of Badertscher And Geier's Article

Smith uses several different rhetorical techniques to make her point that being deeply rooted in a community is more beneficial and important in life than being ambitious and financially successful.

But they get the message that sex is risky.” They begin to see sex as a sensitive issue that should be taken very seriously because it involves life-changing consequences. Additionally, a study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that teaching about contraception and making them available to teenagers was not associated with increased risk of sexual activity as many abstinence-only supporters have insisted. Therefore, the availability of birth control along with education about it does not increase sexual activity but informs teenagers to practice good decision-making for their bodies and their future.

Drilling into teens’ heads that sex is inherently bad will do no justice in the long run. Notwithstanding, abstinence-only programs do nothing but this, for they hold the opinion that making teenagers fear the consequences of precarious sex will prevent them from engaging in it. Advocates of both abstinence-only and comprehensive programs are worried that premature sex, even when wholly safe, will psychologically damage teenagers, but “there are no scientific data suggesting that consensual sex between adolescents is harmful”, yet abstinence-only education by itself continues to mandate the teaching that sex out of wedlock will do harm (Santelli et al. “Abstinence and abstinence-only education” 74). Unlike abstinence-only education, comprehensive sex-education attempts to focus on developing healthy mentalities for the benefit of their students. Promotion of healthy relationships between oneself and others will help make teenagers find trust between themselves and their sexual partners before participating in the act, furthermore causing them to make sure their partner does not have any STIs and is using contraception. Conversely, abstinence-only programs’ persistence with enthusiastically promoting abstinence leaves teenagers with little clue about their mental health. “Even those few individuals who remain abstinent until marriage are left

Second, critics also point out that learning about contraceptive methods will only encourage young teenagers to be sexually active. This is because it sends mixed signals and minimizes the importance of abstinence. However, this is a common myth about comprehensive sex education and currently there are not enough of data to conclude such result. Since the 1990s, trends show comprehensive sexuality education has a more positive

After analyzing and evaluating both articles, the arguments of Badertscher and Geir are much more reasonable. Their use of cause-effect were genuinely sufficient. The reader must weigh in towards Badertscher and Geir’s devices because parents are the closest family members, and they should be the ones that young adults should count on. The authors also did a splendid job establishing logos into their article. On the other hand, the authors Lee and McManon could have done a better job to say the least. Their use of statistics were hardly understandable and does not appeal to the benefits of sex education. Their use of assertions may also doubt the reader. Sex education done by schools may become a discomfort to students, thus the programs should

Sexual education teaches adolescents about the use of birth control, their bodies, STD’s, and pregnancy. Due to the awareness of sexual education, adolescents are more careful about sexual intercourse. The pregnancy rate has reached the lowest in modern era between 1990-2010. It declined to 51% pregnancies per 1000 females ages 14-19 to 57.4%. This is the lowest recorded since 1973. Sexual education was not offered in schools until 1983 and many people had close to no knowledge about the options. Even though teens today are aware of their options today, they do not take proper precautions.

Aligned quite closely with the modern view on sexual education, the article uses countless graphs and statistics to back their support of extensive ‘comprehensive safe sex’ education. Statistics from over two decades are strategically used to support the authors’ position, including charts siting the differences between teen pregnancy rates when abstinence and safe sex tactics are used. Despite the seemly sound intellectual integrity of the piece, the Halls’ bias is quite evident. The clever way in which many of the charts displaying the ‘failures’ of abstinence education are presented can be quite misleading and even confusing to the reader, along with the authors’ selective choice of data. The Halls also fall victim to the collective responsibility/guilt fallacy in the final paragraph of the work as the authors

In both cases, Abstinence-only education did not direct them, in any way, to abstain from sex (Valenti). Therefore, given that so many teens will not desist from sex, effective sex education programs have the responsibility to help teens to be aware of the risks and consequences that come along with sexuality, like early pregnancy or STDs (Alford). Such effective programs should employ personalized interviews and follow-ups for each student and parents; as well as committees including doctors, psychologists, pediatricians, and real young people with shocking experience as a teen

Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Sept. 2016. In this journal, the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education is discussed, and evidence is used to support this claim from highly recognized associations. Associations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, American Public Health, and the American Medical Association tend to go against abstinence-only education and lean towards comprehensive sex education due to the nature of the content. The article stresses the ability of the lessons to educate students about protection, plans, and diseases, something critical for teenagers to know. Readers are also informed that public opinion is not in favor of abstinence-based education. Beliefs about this type of education are also explained saying that a person’s personal education doesn’t reflect their beliefs, but politics and the world around them

The hypothesis is that abstinence-only sex education does not cause teenagers to have less sex when compared to comprehensive sex education. In a comprehensive sex course, the students would learn that abstinence is the best method for avoiding STIs and pregnancy, but it would also teach about positive contraceptive use, sexual health, and sexual expression. By teaching the

2. Learning Objective: The students will be able to increase their knowledge about sexual education, sexual diseases and pregnancy prevention. The student will be able to describe the consequences of having sexual relationship before they are ready. The student will be able give example of alternatives of how to avoid sexual interaction with adolescences. Learners are able to analyze research and graphs of the increase and decrease of sexual activity without enough precaution and its consequences during adolescence. Students will able to formulate a

All over the world in classrooms, households, churches and sometimes in every day life sex education is a topic on people’s minds. Whether this topic is taught in detail rather than in avoidance of the action is the debate we need to have. It is almost impossible to go all of our lives without being exposed to some level of education of sexual activity. Sometimes that education is associated with positivity and other times it is comparable to the sin of all sins. Sex education is more beneficial than abstinence only education because those taught to avoid it have no information on how to safely go about it when their urges surface, as well associating fear of sin and holding them to pledges of virginity can harm young adult’s decision

Sex Education is a controversial but extremely important topic. Yet, we are doing very little to address it. Teaching sex education in school is essential for teens to help build strong foundations for sexual health. Although sex education must begin at home, some parents feel uncomfortable talking about the topic it with their children and believe teaching their children about sex education can end up encouraging them to engage in sexual intercourse. Therefore, parents and schools try to emphasis the importance of abstinence. Parents and schools try to teach children to never have sex until they are married. However, this program is flawed because it promotes a bias perspective. The goal of the program

Teenage sexual activity has sparked an outcry within the nation. With such activity comes a high price. Studies have shown that there has been a significant rise in the number of children with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), emotional and psychological problems, and out-of-wedlock childbearing. Sex has always been discussed publically by the media, television shows, music and occasionally by parents and teachers in educational context. Teens hear them, and as the saying goes, “monkey see, monkey do”, they are tempted to experiment with it. Therefore, it is important for every teenager to be aware of the outcome associated with premature-sex. If students are educated about the impact of

The teachers attitude towards teaching sex education greatly influences the education the children receive. In the article "Teachers' Attitudes Towards Abstinence-Only Sex Education Curricula" they performed a survey asking teachers various questions about their confidence in teaching sex education and thoughts on early sexual activity. The survey showed that teachers are not confident in their ability to convince students on abstinence-only education (Bowden, Lanning, Pippin, and Tanner). In schools, administrators are removing information on contraceptives from textbooks and censoring sexuality questions. Experts on HIV/AIDS prevention are also tightly regulated on what they can speak about. “In 1999, one-quarter of sex education teachers said they were prohibited from teaching about contraceptives” (Santelli). Not only is the government restricting scientists from educating factual evidence, school systems are restricting teacher from doing their jobs, which is to teach facts not