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:
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?
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.
© 2008-2010 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
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.