Debate: Abstinence-only vs. comprehensive sex education – Debatepedia.
Abstinence-only education in our schools continue to gain momentum, despite increasing evidence that the programs are doing little to alleviate the extraordinarily high rates of teenage pregnancy in the United States. The Bush Administration were vocal advocates of abstinence-only education.
Though studies show more than half of teenagers between the ages of 15-19 are sexually active (Moore, Driscoll and Lindberg, A Statistical Portrait of Adolescent Sex, Contraception and Childbearing, 1998), more than $100 million is spent by the federal government in programs that censor information about safe-sex practices.
These abstinence-only programs teach religious ideologies and stereotypes as scientific fact .Every reputable sexuality education organization and the American Medical Association have denounced abstinence-only education.
Abstinence-only is not effective at reducing teen sex rates. Abstinence-only does not help decrease STD infection rates. Abstinence-only wrongly bashes all non-marital sex.
The use of virginity pledges in these course often are useless, as the prevent nothing and are frequently broken.
Abstinence-only sex education is immoral, scientifically inaccurate, wasteful, and just plain wrong.
How would we define “Comprehensive sex education”?
Comprehensive Sex Education teaches about abstinence as the best method for avoiding STIs and unintended pregnancy, but also teaches about condoms and contraception to reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy and of infection with STIs, including HIV. It also teaches interpersonal and communication skills and helps young people explore their own values, goals, and options.
So if a teacher says “There are ways to prevent bad things happening to you, but they go against God. The only way you can be sure is to not have sex until you’re married. If you do choose to be as sinful as to have sex before you’re married, you should make sure that everyone want’s to be doing what they’re doing.” That’s comprehensive sex education, right?
Well, I meant in a way that did not show any sort of basis towards any religion. Something along the lines of “While it has been proven abstinence is the only 100% safe way against unwanted pregnancies and STDs, there ARE other options.” Except in way more detail.
But “Comprehensive sex education” in lawmakers’ minds is different from sex ed in reality. How do we know it won’t be slanted? We have no way to be sure, that’s the real problem.
Sad, but true. But I guess the only possible way is to make it law and pray that it is followed. (Yes, I see the complete irony in this.) Also, better to have a slightly slanted view than no accurate information whatsoever, I would assume.
Yes, but the problem is that the schools where there is someone trying to prevent good sex ed is probably in the kind of area where no one else is teaching about birth control and such.
I am unable to understand this post. But well some points are useful for me.