What should public schools teach our children about sex? It can be a complex question, especially when dealing with morals, social norms, pop culture, hormones and health. When students sit down for their sex education, should teachers embrace an abstinence-only policy?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Sure it would be nice if children followed everything you taught them and if they did we wouldn't need to teach them about protecting themselves. Here's the catch, they don't listen. However much we would like our children to wait until marriage most of them don't and when they don't know how to properly protect themselves they end up getting pregnant.
Lets now weigh the cost to society of a baby born to an unwed mother versus the cost of education and subsidized birth control. We teach them sex is bad and they do it anyway THEN they're so ashamed they cover it up and are less likely to get proper maternity care increasing their risk of premature birth. I don't know the numbers but I'd rather pay for birth control than a couple of weeks in the neonatal intensive care unit for a teenage mother's unintended pregnancy.
- EAnthes
December 9, 2008 3:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
They don't work. I've seen peers take them. I've taken one. They don't work.
What the youth of America deserves is information that can be life-saving. Not a blatant sidestepping of necessary information.
"Just don't do it" is authoritative and most teenagers want to make decisions on their own rather than hear an ultimatum. It's ignorant and terrible. Everyone deserves access to the truth from experts and most kids expect their "sex ed" class to have the most accessible experts. If they don't get truthful information from this source, they might not get it at all.
Trial by fire is a primitive concept, especially when dealing with an issue like sex. Do we not trust tomorrow's leaders to make their own informed decisions about something so significant and so central to life? Abstinence-only sex education is elitist.
- goldenbear16 May 14, 2009 10:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
1
11
7
8
6
2
2
1
1
1
1
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Abstinence Saves Taxpayers Money
- From Lifeway
By LifeWay Christian Resources - Biblical solutions for life
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Um... I don't think you understand your own argument....
"...researchers estimate that adolescent childbearing itself costs the taxpayers $6.9 billion each year."
Yeah... teenagers always have, and always will have sex. That's what teens do. You can teach them whatever you want, but when it comes right down to it, they will choose for themselves whether or not to remain abstinent. You are saying that teen pregnancies are costing a lot of money. Well, don't you think that if they'd had some sex ed teaching them about proper use of condoms, etc. that they could have avoided getting pregnant? Saying "don't do it" isn't going to stop teens. Besides, you are a religious group. You can't try and force your beliefs on teens. It is up to their parents to teach them that stuff. Not public schools. Public schools are for education not religion.
- mmsomekid July 24, 2008 6:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Religion Isn't a Direct Concern Here
I agree with the essence of what you say against abstinence-only sex education. Impressing religious dogma on students--in a secular educational system, run by a secular government--cannot be tolerated, either. However, religious or dogmatic arguments are not employed in this argument. It could motivate LifeWay to take this stand, but, to be fair, LifeWay does not use a religious crutch to make its argument.
- The Monk
February 7, 2009 12:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But it is a religious based issue...
The church (and religion in general) made sex a shameful thing. It is the church that continues the rhetoric that sex out of wedlock is evil, shameful, and a sin; but says that sex within marriage is a beautiful, wonderful, and blessed by God.
So even if people are not directly proclaiming that abstinence-only should be taught for religious reason; those who believe abstinence-only should be taught have come to that opinion from religious influence. Thus whether conscious or unconscious, abstinence-only is a religious stance; so, since religion is not taught in public schools, abstinence-only should not be taught either.
- Johnny
March 18, 2009 2:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Make it uncool and kids will stop doing it.
I agree that young mothers have a much tougher go at things. Ignorance of sex, though, does not reduce teenage pregnancy. That's why we should educate them instead of letting them experiment and get pregnant! Ignorance of sex just breeds curiosity, and kids will find ways to experience what everyone has been keeping from them. When you make things taboo, you make things 'cool' and interesting. If you make red shoes illegal, I guarantee you that 14 year olds everywhere will covet them and find a way to get them.
Education takes the mystery out of it. Having a dialogue about it is what kids, and parents, need.
Don't make sex a red shoe; make it boring, overdone, and uncool. Ask any kid: education is boring. It's a perfect formula and that's how you'll end teenage pregnancy.
- thedr9wningman
August 21, 2008 9:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ew yuck
If you want to make it really uncool, simply remind the kids that their parents do it all the time.
- Adam Hammond
September 3, 2008 7:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A Total Impossibility, Thanks to Hormones
Sorry, you really can't make sex uncool...it's like trying to suggest to people that chocolate doesn't taste good. Sex is fun, and always will be, because we are programmed to like and want sex. You can't fight mother nature!
- pwk October 30, 2008 9:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sure
Teen abstinence is a very good idea. You are missing the point. The abstinence programs that you are advocating would only save taxpayers money if they actually lowered teen pregnancy.
- Adam Hammond
September 3, 2008 7:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Abstinence Teaching By Itself Does Not Save Money
If I’m following your argument correctly, then I strongly disagree. I do not believe that it is the pre-marital sex which is causing the severe economic and social costs and also the personal pain, but it is the result of the sex, the babies, which has placed the burden upon society. There is nothing wrong with teaching abstinence. Actually, I do feel that if we lived in a perfect society, abstinence would be my preference for my teenager. Yes, it would be extremely desirable if all teenagers did practice abstinence. Unfortunately, we live in a very imperfect society. Teenagers MUST be given more tools to deal with pre-marital sex. Lately, pre-marital sex and pregnant teen-age girls seems to have become ‘real cool’. In the heat of the moment, teen-age girls and boys must have more tools at their disposal other than just abstinence. Obviously from the news these past few days, regarding the teen-age daughter of the Vice Presidential Candidate who is now expecting, the Abstinence Only Position doesn’t seem to have worked. If it hasn’t worked for the daughter of a Governor and now a Vice Presidential Candidate, how is it going to work for teen-agers living in impoverished areas and who also may not have a strong emotional support system at home. I say Abstinence Yes, but Abstinence and More.
- mellis
September 11, 2008 3:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your Argument isn't Adressing the Topic
I believe that you've fallen victim to Ignoratio elenchi; in other words, your argument doesn't address the topic. What you're saying is that PREGNANCY costs tax payers money, NOT SEX. While you are saying that ABSTINENCE saves tax payers money, then you could just as well say that CONTRACEPTIVES save tax payers money. From the economic standpoint, pregnancy is not a valid argument against teen abstinence when a 'Contraceptive' Sex-Ed could be taught in schools.
- Andromeda17
January 25, 2009 2:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You Can't Change Us
Well, teaching that abstinence is the only option is not going to lower taxes. You would have to change the teens themselves to lower taxes. You can't make teens not want sex. It's going to happen no matter what any teacher in any classroom chooses to tell them. Plus, saying that children of teen mothers are more likely to become teen mothers themselves is like failing them without even giving them a chance. Those kids will make their own choices, free of what their parents chose. No kid that I've ever met wants to end up just like their parents. You cannot blame a failing economy on the people who have a chance at saving it!
- Emily Barrett
January 25, 2009 4:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Assuming the Unknown
One must take into consideration that while teen pregnancies do cost American tax payers more money, spreading abstinence in schools could become quite costly as well. A certain amount of teens will by nature rebel and refuse to take the abstinence advice. Therefore, there would still be teen pregancies that tax dollars will support. Additionally, the cost of implimenting abstience-only programs in schools is unknown, but of course costly. Not only is the issue costly in dollars, but in time and commitment as well. This author seems to assume that an abstinence-only message will decrease the number of teen pregnancies and this opinion ultimately cannot be proven.
- trotterk88
January 25, 2009 6:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
lower pregnancy rates..differently
Teaching abstinence-only in schools is not going to lower the taxes because the students are not going to change their minds over what their health teacher says. I will admit that some students would listen to the abstinence-only message, but lets face it a majority won't. Thats why comprehensive sex ed should also be taught, so that the people that are not going to practice abstinence know how to protect themselves and slim down the chances of getting pregnant. This would lower the price of underage pregnancy.
- HAYDEN
January 25, 2009 10:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This argument contradicts itself
You are arguing that less teen pregnancy saves taxpayers money by requiring less to be put into welfare programs that young parents often utilize, but then arguing that teens should not be taught about birth control methods in school, but instead only be taught abstinence. By not teaching teens (the ones who are choosing to have sex anyway, regardless of what they learn in school) how to protect themselves against unintended pregnancy, the teen pregnancy rate will INCREASE and therefore the need for tax dollars to fund programs such as WIC and welfare will also increase. Preventing teens from learning about contraception will only cause them to have sex without it. The way to reduce the number of teen pregnancies is to educate sexually active teens on how to PREVENT PREGNANCY.
- SSNickel
February 9, 2009 8:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This is unhelpful!
I am definitely confused by this article. Like someone else commented previously, the article does not address the issue at hand, and the pregnancies cost tax papers money not teaching contraceptive methods other than abstinence. I think this is another way for this author to try and twist the truth to readers who are still on the fence. And in my opinion if the actually teaching of safe sex methods was more expensive then just teaching abstinence it would would probably compensate for the cost of the pregnancies, because if those women were taught the safe sex then they would not be in that situatuon!
- SConn
February 17, 2009 8:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Abstinence-Only is Naive and Ineffective
Abstinence-only programs are prejudiced by religious influence; thus should not be taught in public schools.
A secular, neutral view should be taught; presenting all the facts about how pregnancy happens, and how STDs are spread. Then the choices presented, all forms of contraception, protections, prevention, AND abstinence.
- Johnny
March 18, 2009 2:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.