Abstinence Education Works
More than 100 organizations have adopted the use of True Love Waits to promote sexual abstinence, in large part because they have seen how well the campaign works and the potential it has to reverse negative trends in communities. They understand that from a medical standpoint, there is no such thing as “safe sex” for an unmarried teenager, as evidenced by the fact that each year nearly 1 million teenage girls become pregnant.
Since 1991, when federal abstinence funding began, births to 15- to 17-year-olds have dropped 43 percent despite a 25 percent increase in that age group. In 1991, 54 percent of teens said they had had sex, compared to 47 percent in 2003. Further evidence that abstinence education works can be found in a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control, which concluded that both abstinence and contraception contributed to the decline in teen pregnancy rates between 1991 and 2001. The study attributes the majority of the decline in teen pregnancy rates (53 percent) among 15- to 17-year-olds to abstinence and 47 percent to contraceptive use.
One study found that abstinence education programs cut the rate of sexual activity among students roughly in half. In another study, 16 out of 21 studies of abstinence education found youth who received abstinence education had lower rates of sexual activity when compared to youth who did not receive abstinence training.
Significantly, there are no negative risk factors associated with virginity pledges, but the same cannot be said for teaching teens about using condoms and other forms of birth control. Even setting aside the physical risks, can a condom protect your heart?
While studies about teens’ sexual behavior sometimes have contradictory findings and conclusions, the true measure of success is changed lives. True Love Waits frequently receives correspondence such as this letter from Caroline in Colorado Springs:
“I was part of the [Washington] D.C. ‘94 event, and first made a commitment to abstinence until marriage… Although it was not easy…I can say it was definitely worth the wait and we have no baggage in our marriage because of past partners or troubling diseases."
“Ironically, my cousin Emily was in Athens, Greece, this past summer…[She] was part of the True Love Waits event, and signed her own card as well...So from one of your first events to your most recent event, you are touching lives and encouraging teens. I know at least five to six in my youth group who are now married and were virgins when they married and signed that pledge!”
If you approach a commitment to sexual purity by saying, “I’m going to try to live a pure life,” you are probably going to fail. When the going gets tough, you’re likely to crumble unless you have made a commitment to gut it out. People get in trouble when they make a commitment trusting in their own power to carry it out. You will need God’s power to remain sexually pure. If you make the decision now to abstain from sex, then you will already know the answer before you encounter any compromising situations.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I love to explore I recently came across your blog and have been reading along.I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog 70-523 | 70-526 | 70-528 | 70-536 very often.Wish I had found this blog before. The advices in this post are very helpful and I surely will read the other posts of this series too. Thank you for posting this.I was very happy that I found this site. I want to to thank you for this great information!! I undoubtedly enjoyed every bit of it and I have bookmarked your website to see the new stuff you post in the future.
____________________ Clark 70-542 | 70-547 |70-562 | 70-564 USA
When you lower standards we encourage lowering of virutes. Abstinence works. I vote to continue with abstinence education only. Check Pam Stenzel and her testimony.
Encouraging chasteness, or preventing pregnancy ?
Because it actually sort of sucks at both.
With abstinence theres no suck.
Abstinence Only education is a fallacy because it only expresses one side of the argument. This article cites in the that "both abstinence and contraception contributed to the decline in teen pregnancy rates between 1991 and 2001" showing that there is indeed another side to the argument, and it is apparently a very in depth side according to another statistic that is presented. The article states "The study attributes the majority of the decline in teen pregnancy rates (53 percent) among 15- to 17-year-olds to abstinence and 47 percent to contraceptive use," that is not a very large difference in the effectiveness of the two sides, and the age range is not very wide. Depending on the individuals polled, it would likely be found that several people both younger and older have had sex. This is an important fact because abstinence promotes no sex until marriage. What age do most people get married today? There can be a wide range of answers. This statistic includes only a small group in order to prove a point that will support the argument of abstinence education works.
Sex is all over the media, and not often presented as a taboo. If someone wants to have sex, there is not much that can stop them, and signing a pledge card is definitely an example of something that will not always work. Only teaching abstinence will leave a large group of young people uneducated about factors and consequences of sex. Assuming people either won't have sex, or that they will get quality information about it is dangerous. Teaching the consequences of sex helps insure that people know what they are getting themselves into, and that they are getting good information, not lies or misconceptions that they may have heard from other sources.
Presenting both sides of the argument will be more effective because young people will know the facts, no matter the decision they make. Information can be very powerful, and a lack of information can be equally as dangerous. People will make their own individual choices, so they should be encouraged to make the most informed choices possible.
I have to agree keeping a teenager a virgin is the best way to reduce the problems of STDs and pregnancies. The only problem with that is that most teenagers want to and are going to have sex. The best way to deal with the problem is not to tell them to be virgins and hope it works. You have to show them that if they do decide to have sex, they need to use condoms and any sort of birth control available to reduce the chance of STDs and pregnancies. Abstinence only sex-ed programs may be the best solution ideally but they just aren't that realistic.
I don't believe that abstinence is a bad thing to teach your children- however, that is not going to work on everyone. If teens really want to have sex, they are going to have sex. They'll ignore what they have learned about abstinence due to urges that are expected and normal for teens. By avoiding the topic of sex and choosing to teach abstinence instead, they're missing half the point. Although some may choose abstinence, those who don't need to be informed of the risks at hand and the strategies to avoid them.
This argument is from a purely CHRISTIAN stand point which is understandable seeing as Lifeway is a Christian organization, but the topic is "Should 'Abstinence-Only' Sex-Ed be Taught in Public Schools?" In PUBLIC schools. Perhaps CHRISTIANS should be taught 'Abstinence-Only' programs, but who says it is alright to push your beliefs on others? What of those who have grown up in a family of a different religion, or even no religion? Who are we to tell them what is wrong and what is right?
We live in AMERICA, an America where we say that "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." And as such a country, we should not be allowed to decide what is RIGHT and what is WRONG for anyone other than ourselves.
Abstinence education doesn't work, plain and simple.The decision of whether or not to have sex is not for the government or society to make, it's up to the teenager and future adult: and most choose sex. Even after the unreasonable perfect situation of the Christian right--ie, abstinence until marriage--they will still need to use the information. Birth control, sexual diseases, and anatomy are just a few of the things even abstinent adults will need to know after marriage.
Let's not pretend that by not teaching children about sex, they'll never find out. Not long ago at all I was in elementary school and learning about sex at that young age! But the lack of sex education at that age made a very dangerous situation for students in which sex was thought to be something fun and naughty adults did, and nothing more. You see the problem?
Further, there's no need to press a message towards children in the classroom unless it's something that there's a wide concensus on, or it's agreeable, like 'dont bully' and 'be nice'. As for something parents are split on, let the parents teach the message to their kids, and keep their hands off of the children of other parents.
Both abstinence instruction and contraception "succeed" and fail. The data would indicate that both should be taught to reduce unmarried and unintended pregnancy. Yet having a child, even as a teenager, in itself is not wrong. It may require much additional effort, and when teens learn how difficult it is, especially when the father deserts the mother, they may wisely choose to avoid sex before marriage. Or they may choose contraception. What needs to be taught is that abstinence is better than contraception, not that contraception is good. Contraception just encourages more sex. One school required both boys and girls to carry around life-size baby dolls during class to give some idea of what it involves. Teaching what having babies as teenagers involves is a good idea. Taking human life in the womb is a bad means to an often well-intentioned end, and abortions increase with the use of contraception. Also, many teens resort to oral sex, thinking that it satisfies the partner without risking pregnancy. Such expressions of intimacy make later breakups much more difficult than if there had been less intimacy.
I pulled this off of the Wikipedia article entitled "Adolescent Sexuality in the United States":
"When parents become aware of what abstinence education vs. comprehensive sex education actually teaches, support for abstinence programs jumps from 40% to 60%, while support for comprehensive programs drops from 50% to 30%. This sharp increase in support of abstinence education is seen across all political and economic groups. The majority of parents reject the so-called "comprehensive" sex education approach, which focuses on promoting and demonstrating contraceptive use. Sixty-six percent of parents think that the importance of the "wait to have sex" message ends up being lost when programs demonstrate and encourage the use of contraception."
The quote is from a poll report conducted by the National Abstinence Education Association.
The issue seems to be a debate between extremes. Neither abstinence only or "comprehensive" seem to be the answer.
What parent want's to think about their 'little angel' having sex? Are parents rejecting comprehensive because they do not believe it will work (and that Abstinence-only is superior) or because they are uncomfortable with the idea of their child learning about sex, condoms, and birth control?
The extremes are not Abstinence-only vs. Comprehensive, because any program deemed comprehensive would have to include discussions of abstinence ... Abstinence-only is the extreme, I'm not sure what the opposite would be... condom only?
"Since 1991, when federal abstinence funding began, births to 15- to 17-year-olds have dropped 43 percent" -- Can this drop be directly attributed to areas where abstinence education was used? Or was the drop seen universally? Many of the studies I've reviewed are deeply flawed: they introduce an enormous selection bias (those participating in the programs are already more likely to be abstinent). The studies cited here need to be reviewed to ensure the conclusions are statistically valid and scientific.
"The [CDC] study attributes the majority of the decline in teen pregnancy rates (53 percent) among 15- to 17-year-olds to abstinence and 47 percent to contraceptive use." -- This would suggest that eliminating contraceptive education would harm our goal of reducing teen pregnancy rates, since half of our gains come from contraceptive use.
"Even setting aside the physical risks, can a condom protect your heart?" -- The remainder of your argument is nothing more than an appeal to em
I agree with you completely on this. Lifeway's arguments are riddled with the holes of logical fallacies. In there very first argument against the topic, they were guilty of a red herring.