The Importance Of Abstinent-Only Programs 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’

The teenagers and children of today read about, listen to and watch all sorts of information about sex. While most adults have had some form of sex education, we must ask if this new generation is learning anything new or helpful from their sex education classes. The American culture and way of living is so absorbed in sex that children should be taught about it, people just can not agree on how to teach them. In her article New Sex ed Funding Ends Decade of Abstinence-Only, Kelli Kennedy proves that abstinence-only sex education classes and programs are not as good as regular sex education classes better than Shari Roan does in her article Teen pregnancy rates rises. Are abstinent-only programs to blame?

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 role of educating students about the importance of healthy sexual relationships has fallen hard and fast on public schools. School aged boys and girls are not receiving information from their parents on what decisions they should make in regards to sex. Parents are finding this topic of conversation too taboo to breach and as a result, students are getting what little information they are receiving from school. Less then half of school aged adolescents talk to their parents about sex and abstinence (Smith, 2005).

It’s safe to say that most of our school systems today use the “Abstinence- Only” approach. School systems teach sex education classes in middle school, where most students will not be in a situation where they must use the information used in these courses, such as contraceptives. In middle school, it is best to learn the Abstinence Only approach, while becoming a high schooler, it would be more effective to use the Safe- Sex approach to increase their knowledge on the consequences of sex. While reading an article, a high schooler engaged in a sex education class said,

Imagine if the United States said “Okay, we’re banning driver’s Education in schools. We don’t think a sixteen year old is mentally and physically prepared to drive safely, and we don’t want to encourage that”. So of course, schools start pulling driver’s ed classes, but also say “Wait wait wait, sixteen year olds may not be ready to drive, but they’re going to anyway. Why not make it safer for them instead of putting them out on the road with no safety knowledge?” But, the country continues to say “They’re not ready so we’re not going to encourage that in schools” Sex education isn't just about pregnancy, it's about avoiding STDs and other health issues. The highest teenage STD rates are normally associated with abstinence-only education. Some STDs will cause life-long problems, and should be taught about to teens. Although there is an attempt to minimize teen pregnancy and stds, the rate of teen pregnancy is higher in the U.S. than other Western countries, Among teens aged 18–19, 41% report that they know little or nothing about condoms, and 1 in 4 teens in the US receives information about abstinence without receiving any information or instructions about birth control.

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.

The fact that the United States does not actually require mandatory sex education is of utmost concern, seeing that places where sex education is not taught at all also experience the highest birthrates. In addition to places where sex education is not taught at all, areas in which abstinence-only education were taught also faced higher birthrates (Stanger-Hall and Hall 6). While abstinence only programs have shown no real statistical evidence of success, comprehensive sex education programs have, by combining the positives of both abstinence and information on how to engage in safe sex (Starkman and Rajani 314). In comprehensive sex education, students are taught not only how to use contraceptives properly, but also how to obtain them, as well as other aspects of practicing safe sex. Encouragingly, comprehensive sex education has shown a forty percent success rate in all of the following, “delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners, and increasing contraceptive use.” Even more impressively, there was sixty-seven percent rate in these areas individually (Malone and Rodriguez 1). Teaching that abstinence is the only option, and providing no alternatives, leaves many teens vulnerable to engaging in unsafe sex out of pure incompetence (Starkman and Rajani 314). Despite many concerns, comprehensive sex education does not make a teenager more likely to be sexually active, and is surprisingly supported by the majority

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

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

For my whole life I've been a devout Christian and I believed that the bible was the word of God and used it to form my opinions. So naturally I was against sex before marriage and pro abstinence only education and thought it was the best way to lower the teen birth rate,STD, discourage sex before marriage and promote Christian values.

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).

Within the United States, 38 states of the 48 states examined have some form of abstinence only education. Of those 38, 21 have laws in place that require schools to solely teach abstinence only sex education (Stranger-Hall, Kathrin F. and David W. Hall 4). The logic behind such practices is to prevent teenagers from engaging in intercourse and to decrease the rate of teen pregnancies. The curriculum of abstinence only programs stresses that teenagers should not engage in intercourse since that is the only way to guarantee one will not get pregnant. Information about contraceptives and safe sex to prevent pregnancies and the spread of STDs is not mentioned, and in fact is against those 21 states’ laws regarding use of funds to discuss in the class. The only information about contraceptives that is allowed while using those funds is emphasizing the failure rates (Advocates for Youth). Contrary to what these states are trying to accomplish, the rate of pregnancy is much higher than the median of the United States. Of the 48 states studied, the median rate of pregnancy is 62.5 per 1000 girls aged 14-19. However, the median of pregnancies for states with strictly abstinence only education is 76 per 1000 girls (Stranger-Hall, Kathrin F. and David W. Hall Table 3). The top 5 states with the highest pregnancy rates for girls aged 15-19 (recorded age represents the age at which the pregnancy ended) are New Mexico, 255 per 1000; Mississippi, 241 per 1000; Texas, 235 per 1000;