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?
"...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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
- Fastolfe July 24, 2008 10:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
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.
- Andromeda17 January 25, 2009 2:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
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.
- Benjamin Tuttle July 28, 2008 6:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
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?
- MrBook May 14, 2009 6:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- goznes September 4, 2008 7:16AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- Blue Linchpin December 20, 2008 9:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
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.
- Andromeda17 January 25, 2009 2:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- tripleayex February 10, 2009 7:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- Luke2734 February 15, 2009 12:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
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.
- StriveforYourDreams February 16, 2009 12:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
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.
- truehappiness September 30, 2009 10:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Encouraging chasteness, or preventing pregnancy ?
Because it actually sort of sucks at both.
- quantummechanik September 30, 2009 10:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
With abstinence theres no suck.
- countryboy September 30, 2009 6:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
There ya go! A little of both. When I got sex-ed, my teacher didn't take a stand point on either way. She explained about the boy parts and the girl parts. She told us about STDs and the methods with which to avoid them, and she said the best way was abstinence but also told us about condoms and such. It was an informative course without pushing the matter either way.
- Andromeda17 January 25, 2009 2:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Since the reality is that people are having sex (possibly) before they are ready they should be able to do so in the safest way possible.
It a bit like saying that since policemen would rather not be stabbed they shouldn't wear stab vests. In the long run we'd all like a society where nobody stabbed anyone but in the mean time we should protect those who are risk.
Providing young people with education about the emotional side of sex and encouraging them to abstain may have positive long term outcomes but until you can convince everyone to live this way (which will never happen of course) it has dangerous short term implications.
By ignoring all other forms of sex education you may simply be deferring the negative outcomes you describe. An adult who does not understand contraception is just as likely to experience depression at (for example) an unwanted pregnancy. There is no reason to think that uneducated adults in a better position to protect themselves than uneducated teenagers.
- willsurvive July 24, 2008 2:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Congratulations on using what is obviously a very biased source. No one in their right mind would think that teens are just eager to be told they should stop having sex.
As a teen myself, and having jumped around from many high schools and having friends in different parts of the country in high school (thank you, internet), I can attest that your statement and your sources are outright lies.
Teens DON'T want to be told they shouldn't be having sex. Teens are already having sex, whether or not they say anything. The few students who aren't having sex are either doing it because they actually believe in abstinence only, they aren't interested in doing it, or they'd never have a chance at sex. Most teens, however, are having sex: and aren't going to stop any time soon.
Try using a non-biased source this time, or some common sense.
- Blue Linchpin December 20, 2008 9:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Teens are at an unstable age where emotional instability, impulsive behavior, and increased hormone production takes control of their lives. These factors put teens at high risk of pregnancy without proper sex education. According to a reporter on "Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health", teens participate in lascivious sexual activity because they want to fulfill their individual needs of intimacy, social status, and pleasure. Teens live under tremendous peer pressure, and want to fit in. Having sex propels the teen's social status higher despite the added risks involved.No matter how tough an abstinence health class can try, teens will put their popularity status before a teacher or values learned in class. Teens are at a time in their lives where there is no balance,and everything is fluctuating all at once, which alters the choices made by teenagers.
Instead of focusing on the repetitive negatives of STDs and pregnancy, the focal point should be helping teens find alternative ways of increasing social status, finding intimacy, and pleasure. Teenagers are sexual beings, and what they are feeling is natural. They should not be pushed away from the truths that their bodies are telling them. In fact, promoting intimacy is going against teenager's wants of finding social status, intimacy, and pleasure, so they will indeed rebel. Teachers need to work with a similar mindset of a teenager, yet find more responsible ways of finding these goals in their teaching.
Teens have emotional instability, and have a desire for finding an absolute. They want to have intimate relationships just like adults do. However, they lack the maturity and proper decision making because of their still developing minds and bodies. Human affection is a primal need. In a time so unstable at the teenage years, a teen wants to have that one absolute in their life. When teachers criticize teens for wanting to find fulfillment of their voids, they rebel because they want to feel loved. They want to have sex. That need is primal. Consequently, instinct takes over.
Teens need to be taught not to hide from their feelings because their instinct and sex drives are too strong for them to hold back. If teens are continued to be taught with abstinence as the goal, it will continue to fail. Yale University researcher Hannah Breckner performed a survey that yielded results that " sexually active virginity pledgers were less likely to use condoms at first sex than non-pledgers" Breckner also noted that "pledgers were less likely to seek and obtain STD-related health care, possibly because of increased stigmatisation or misperception of infection risk among pledgers". http://www.rediff.com/getahead/2005/mar/23youth.htm
Through this survey, it shows that students encouraged through abstinence do not get educated enough about birth control, STIs, and other risks. These children need to be safe and protected through methods, not words. Words will not prevent a pregnancy. Knowledge and the use of preventative measures will.
Teens need to know the facts about sex. A program that will effectively keep teens safer is one that does not tell a teen, no, no, no. A teen would just rebel and commit sexual acts, but unsafely because of the lack of knowledge an abstinence only program gives to its students. Teens are at a time where decision making is not at its highest peak, but if they know how to be safe, and if they are taught to find social status, pleasure, and intimacy in other ways, than we will be speaking in terms that a teen will respect and is more likely to abide to.
- Kabunky February 5, 2009 7:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
While students may say that they want abstinence to be taught in schools, it seems that there is a pattern with teenagers that they like to have boundaries put in place in order to break them down. Although this may not be true for all teens this broad generalization is much like the argument that "engaging in premarital sex often leads to depression." While something such as the act of having sex, with emotions behind it, may lead to depression, there are also things such as drugs, family problems, bad grades, low self-esteem, ect. that led to depression. While "seven in ten teens said they did not think it is okay for high school age teens to have sexual intercourse", who are these seven teens that believe this? Have they simply never had the opportunity to have sex? Or are they saying it is not right for high school age teens to have sex, and then being one of those teens having sex with their significant other? Also, the morals of these teens must be taken into account. Based on one's religion, environment they were raised in, and even gender can effect what a teen’s decides to do in their personal time. This should not effect what teens are taught in school since all teens do not feel the same about this issue. Just because teens do not feel like they want to have sex does not mean they should not be taught want to do if the situation arises. Without the education in schools, teens that want to take the precautions will be forced to look towards possibly unreliable sources for their information. Now does this world want teens being educated by trained teachers who will honestly and carefully answer all of their questions, or would it rather the future generations search the internet or even go into a sexual act without any information?
- Shay February 9, 2009 8:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Statistics that merely state the opinions of ten teens don't show any reliable information whatsoever. These are incredibly biased statistics and I don't even see any information as to where these teens go to school or even their gender.
- Kurtis34 February 11, 2009 9:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I agree with all of what you said. Statistics depend on the auidence that is asked, so those people could have been all students that practice abstinence. The people who become depressed after haveing prematrial sex are probably more depressed because they thought they were 'in love.' I also agree when you say that a person's enviornment, gender, and religon effect the decison a person makes. A person makes the decison for themselves, unless of course they are taken advantage of. Because a person makes the decison for themselves, abstinence-only sex-ed shouldn't be taught. It shouldn't be taught because a person needs to know how to take care of themselves.
- HAYDEN February 12, 2009 10:14AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I agree. While teens are falling so deeply into what they believe is "love", their hormones are raging and they are filled with so many emotions that they become overwhelmed and the only way they know how to express such strong feelings is to engage in intercourse with the girl/guy they are dating. Maybe if teens were shown different ways to express themselves and their feelings (such as through writing, or music, or art) they could show their special person they love them without "making love". But I find it interesting that in the statistic this argument shows, the teens that now wish they had waited for marriage until having sex, well...didn't. So obviously whatever we are teaching kids about "abstinence-only" isn't working because even though they may wish they hadn't done "it", they did.
- trotterk88 February 11, 2009 10:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Not all teens are going to chose abstinence! Obviously it's not the best idea for adolescents to jump right into sex, but that doesn't mean that some won't chose to do it anyway. Teaching only abstinence methods of sex education will set those other individuals up for stds and pregnancy. You can't just pretend like that population of kids doesn't exist and leave them open to such consequences.
- tripleayex February 15, 2009 9:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
if my school taught abstinance only sex ed almost everyone here would have sex just to rebel against the school.. i'm a firm believer in abstinence but.. that's only cuz i learned about sex and i'm scared i ain't gonna ruin my life by gettin pregnant but.. with the proper use of contraceptions it can be prevented and with an abstinence only program teens aren't going to know about how to prevent it.. which is really what teens need to be taught.
- DaisyMarieGeorge March 11, 2009 10:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Teens don't want to hear "Don't do that!"
They hear that enough as it is. A more effective way in making the teens of today safer when it comes to sex, is educating them on what they can do to avoid pregnancy and STD's, not drilling them with don'ts.
- garzafanhc March 2, 2009 8:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I believe abstinence education should be emphasized because of the harmful emotional impact on immature kids that having sex at an early age in uncommitted relationships can have. There is no way you can take it back. Once done, its done. But that should not preclude factual presentation about contraception - kids are going to do this anyway - ultimately the choice will rest with them in a given situation. If they're going to do something stupid, at least let them know how to prevent spreading a disease or bringing a child into the world when they are completely unprepared.
- Obi1Kenobi July 25, 2008 6:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I see kids everyday who have no clue what's coming when they decide to "get down." There is definitely no stopping teens now. We need to know how to protect ourselves, not just hear teachers preach to us about everything we do wrong. Plus, if parents want their teens to change so bad, they should talk to them themselves, not leave it to some teacher, who's just interested in these kids from 8 to 3.
- Emily Barrett January 25, 2009 4:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If a parent wants their child to have a strong abstinence base then they should be the ones installing that in their child. The children that have had that moral put in their life at a young age are probably more likely to obey it then somebody that learns about it at school. The kids that want to do it are going to find a way to do it.
- HAYDEN January 25, 2009 10:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I have to say that if I was a parent I would want a strong abstinence from sex message sent to my kids too. Parents want their kids to refrain from sex until they are married because they know that is the best way to keep away from STDs. The problem with abstinence only sex-ed programs is they don't teach kids how to prevent pregnancies or the spread of STDs. School need to use a sex-ed program that will benifit the student body as a whole, and abstinent only sex-ed programs are not the way to do that.
- Luke2734 February 15, 2009 12:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
In the article, "Parents want a Strong Abstinence Message" the Christian organization of Lifeway show statistics that 90% of parents want an abstinence education because it is the best for the well-being of their child's health.
This strong percentage of parents are the body that help fund the educational system through their taxes. Since the tax money is coming from their pockets, they should be paying for the education that they want their child to recieve. It is very important to keep the wants of the parent satisfied because if they are not satisfied, they will complain and cause problems for the school and state.
As parents, they will always have a mind set to be protective over their little baby no matter how old they are. Parents do not want school systems advocating that sex is allowed if it is protected because that puts their child in danger. Many parents raise their children with values, and do not want schools to tarnish the values that parent s have spent years on teaching their child. Sexual activity is risky and unsafe, and that will cause a parent to worry about their children's well being and health.
- Kabunky February 25, 2009 11:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Parents want their children to practice abstinence, so therefore they want the schools to teach abstinence only. However the teachers can teach abstinence, but that does not mean the teens will listen. The parents that think the teens will listen to the abstinence only and not have sex until they are married are being naive. The world seems to be a different place than it was years ago and teens are even having sex earlier than before. Although this is not a good thing, abstinence only programs are not going to change it.
- tator February 26, 2009 2:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Hayden and Emily, both of you make great points. Abstinence should be taught by parents not teachers. Teachers are there to educate their students, not tell them the decisions they should be making. Sure, there's nothing wrong in telling them that abstinence will protect them from pregnancy and STDs but to only tell them that is a diservice to the students. If the parents want a strong abstinence message taught so badly, they need to do it themselves.
- Kurtis34 February 15, 2009 12:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Kurtis makes a good point. It should be the parent's job to tell their kids what they want them to know. Teachers have enough to worry about as it is. And teaching teens about such a touchy subject is not an easy job. Parents can't just leave it up to their childrens teachers, they need to do it themselves or stop complaining.
- garzafanhc March 2, 2009 8:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This article speaks a lot of truth. I think parents know that their children aren't going to wait until marriage to have sex. I mean, they probably didn't themselves. They just wish that they would hold off until their kids are older and more mature to make those decisions. So teach Abstinense until the student is older, not until they are married.
- garzafanhc March 3, 2009 8:16AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Like most of the arguments from Lifeway, this badly confuses "abstinence education" with "abstinence-ONLY education." I think there are few out there who believe abstinence is a bad option or shouldn't be taught. The success of True Love Waits and other similar ideas is great... not that I believe that the wedding day is the right time to become sexually active, but because those involved are taking control of their sexuality through deliberate thought, which can only be good for them.
But abstinence-only education in schools is a different thing.
- mj75 September 10, 2008 9:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Finally someone has come out and said it. Abstinence-only education and abstinence education aren't the same thing. Sure abstinence is a sure fired way to avoid pregnancy and STIs but it shouldn't be the only thing taught. Kids should be learning about EVERY available option to keep themselves safe.
- Kurtis34 February 15, 2009 1:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Yeah, I agree that "True Love Waits" will definitely work to persuade adolescents in places like Uganda and Africa to stay pure until marriage, but I am not so convinced it will make such an impact on U.S. kids. Unlike the children in Uganda and Africa, American teenagers are constantly subjected to a media that seems to scream, SEX SELLS. The music that American teens listen to is jam-packed with sexual slurs and innuendos, reality shows have "hook-up" scenes for entertainment, and sex seems to be a hot topic at lunch tables in high school cafeterias. Teens see these things in the media and begin to accept it as the norm. In other words, everyone is having sex, no one waits, thats just the way it is.
- trotterk88 January 25, 2009 6:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
First of all,I think every person is a victory in some way. This says that the kids who make it to marriage are victories. What does that leave for those kids who can't take the peer pressure? Are they failures? Will they not find spouses because of a mistake in high school? This can't be true. Plus, bringing up the kids in Uganda and Kenya isn't going to inspire kids in America. Why would we want to be like them? Yes, sending a positive message is amazing for teenagers because we all get enough negative as it is. But one message won't carry self-respect in a hand basket. Each person has to find that on their own. So True Love Waits can speak to some people, but for others listening to some guy preach about their personal lives won't help at all.
- Emily Barrett February 11, 2009 9:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Not all the kids that take the true love waits oath is going to keep it. I mean seriously. I have seen people take that pledge and turn around and break it. Some people just take it because they are thinking, "what will I look like if I don't take this pledge?" So I mean its not like everybody takes it seriously. Abstinence sex-ed is good, just not abstinence only sex-ed.
- HAYDEN February 11, 2009 10:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Pro-abstinence education groups like to say abstinence is 100% successful. As this interview shows, abstinence EDUCATION is not 100% successful.
I thought Bristol's interview was very thoughtful. She's been through a lot, and she's trying to make the best of it. It's great that she has strong support from her family. I wish her well, but I would remind folks that not everyone for whom abstinence education ends if failure have that type of support available. We owe them straight talk about sex.
- word2thewyz February 18, 2009 11:27AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Trends in current data on new infections suggest that the incidence of HIV is rising among married women and girls worldwide."
Most likely these HIV incidents are a result of marrying one of the irrational people who wanted their rowdiness before marriage . That's how HIV spreads more easily.
- DaFatalGigabyte December 8, 2009 8:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
All the things listed under what is taught in 'abstinence-only' sex-ed seems to have nothing to do with sex? I mean I see how they might relate but thats not really sex-ed. It is true that a child under 18 doesnt have the capacity to raise a child *while some might*, but this is why they need to be taught how to not get pregunant.
- HAYDEN February 11, 2009 10:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You are exactly right. All of the subjects listed seemed more like self help book titles than something that had to do with sex-ed. Yes, they all have at least some tiny relation to sexual behavior but do not educate students about sex in any way, shape, or form. Also, those listed are all very subjective. You can't be taught about love, and similar emotions...you just can't. Emotions cannot be taught and relationship guidelines should not be taught either. Those topics belong either in church or between parents and children. The school should in no way teach students about love and relationships, other than how to keep themselves safe.
- Kurtis34 February 25, 2009 4:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The Teen-Aid curriculum, if it is not misrepresented here, might give teenagers a dossier of information useful to avoiding sexual activity, provided it is presented in a relevant and appealing manner. The problem that crops up from abstinence-only curriculums is what will happen when teenagers ignore the advice of these programs. Yes, some might successfully employ abstinence, the best form of protection, but some won’t—how many depends on what study you invent—and we must increase our effectiveness towards these people. They, unlike their wise counterparts, will ignore the lessons or conveniently forget them when love, romance, and sex barge into the room. In other words, they have that teenage tendency to think irrationally. Some of these irrational teenagers, however, might do a cost analysis. The end result will always include sex. If they were instructed on how to use contraceptives, they might use them to GREATLY reduce the chance of pregnancy and most STD’s. If an abstinence-only program left them in the dark on these devices, then the teenager will have sex anyway.
Of course, a curriculum that teaches about contraceptives should do more than just hand them out. Abstinence is better than safe sex; such a course can give students the information and skills to avoid sex and predators. All that contraceptives do is plug the holes in the abstinence curriculum. Those who can grasp the concepts of abstinence in the heat of passion will not be lured into licentiousness by contraceptives. Those who cannot understand abstinence will have the next best thing we can give them, a comprehensive knowledge of contraceptives that effectively reduce pregnancy.
- The Monk February 16, 2009 8:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Sex education is very important in today’s world as most of the teenagers don’t know the side effects of premature pregnancy and suffer from many problems. Many schools in country suggest sex education classes for their students which is very good. Troubled teens help like counselors and websites provides good information about treatment centers.
http://www.restoreteens.com/Search/0/Residential-Treatment-Center/index.html
- treatment centers
November 5, 2008 3:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Quote: "Abstinence programs, recommend that if you are not going to be 100% abstinent then it is important to use a condom correctly each and every time to reduce but not eliminate the possibility of sexually transmitted diseas."
Although this may be the basis for many abstinence-only, it is definitely not how they are executed; many simply state that abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs.
Additionally, many have inaccurate information distributed, including exaggerating condom failure rates, and stating that condoms prevent pregnancy but not AIDS. An investigation and report by the Texas Freedom Network on the state of Texas found that 10% of programs had incorporated religious material into the program, and that 40% had blatantly inaccurate information stated as facts.
- Johnny March 18, 2009 2:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Just because schools won't find teachers to teach the course correctly, doesn't mean the course doesn't work. These schools are just lazy. If the teachers don't teach right, it's there own fault and no one else's. Again, if parents aren't informed, that is their fault. I'm sure the school would be happy to tell them what was being taught if they bothered to ask. You cannot blame out-of-wedlock pregnancies on a class, just like you cannot attribute all the people who make it to marriage to the class they took. It is a personal choice not homework. Also, if a health teacher is embarrassed talking about sex, why are they teaching that class?
- Emily Barrett February 11, 2009 10:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This is a great example of why it is so critical that regardless if the program is "abstinence-only" or just "sexual education", some form of educational information must be taught to children in public schools. If kids aren't properly informed about consequences, safe sex, and risky situations, they are more likely to end up in the heat of the moment with no clue what to do. From my personal expierience as a teen in public schools, I can honestly say that absolutely no sex talks or sex education has been given to me in all my years of attending public schools. All I have ever learned about sex was obtained through my parents, or through other students. So for a while, I was confused and had many questions to be cleared up. Luckily I am blessed with parents who care enough to share this information with their child. It's too bad that some teachers care more about the football team's rankings and the basketball team's winning streak than trying to keep kids from ruining their lives because they are so clueless about safe sex. If kids were scoring very poorly in one area of academics, it wouldn't ever be over-looked. Why are teen pregnancies, teen sex, etc. over-looked? Just as it is important to have a great math teacher, it is important to have a good health teacher. Kids need a little help, is it too much to ask?
- trotterk88 February 11, 2009 10:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
In a perfect world it would be wonderful to teach abstinence-only and to believe that this would work for all children. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world and we much education young adults about the need for safe sex. We can put our heads in the sand and pretend that our abstinence teaching works wonders, but it's just not the case. Look at the statistics. So what are we to do? Teach abstinence first, but also, we must teach children about safe sex.
- marloma July 15, 2008 11:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Truthfully, I can't believe that health teachers go home at night and belive they truly stopped some underage pregnancy. In reality, no teacher, parent, pastor, or anyone can stop it, besides the teens themselves. So not teaching teens how to prevent and just saying "don't do it" really hurts them in the long run. Plus, teenagers lie all the time. Saying some oath is just like lying about what they're doing on a saturday night. They sugar-coat everything to make it sound better to their parents and themselves. Every person goes through the same pressures and problems. Teachers and adults just need to try to help and not try to live for these teens.
- Emily Barrett January 25, 2009 5:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Certainly, any teen may take a pledge to purity, with great intentions. But in reality, 88% of them end up breaking their pledge. So we MUST have a back-up plan, and this is why abstienence-only programs just don't work. Although abstinence is the ideal, we must educate teens about birth control, STDS, and the psycological effects of engaging in sexual intercourse. In the here and now, abstience oaths sounds like the straight and narrow, but when caught in the heat of the moment, teens are highly likely to fall off the path.
- trotterk88 January 25, 2009 6:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
I have to say the article is pretty much 100% correct. Abstinence only sex-ed programs don't work. The fact of the matter is that teens are going to have sex, and we need to make sure they know all the facts and consequences of their actions. Teens need to know what STDs are and how to prevent them if the have sex, and abstinence only sex-ed programs dont't get that message across.
- Luke2734 February 11, 2009 9:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
If teens would listen to abstinence only programs then I would have no objection to schools teaching only abstinence. The problem, however, is that as said in this article 88% of teens will have sex before marriage. This is a clear indicator that teaching abstinence only will not work. If teens are going to have sex anyway wouldn't you want them well informed on how to use contraceptives and how to stay safe from STD's?
- tator February 26, 2009 2:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
88% said they would wait until marriage and didn't. That says something. I wonder how many of those have/had STDs or unplanned pregnancies because no one taught them safe sex. At my high-school there is very little sex-ed. We're only required to take a semester of ' health ' which barely goes into sexaul education at all. Of all my friends that have sex, I don't know ONE that uses condoms.
- ieatcomputers June 12, 2009 12:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Lifeway points to a RAND Corp. study that shows how effective abstinence pledges can be. From the author of that study (in the article Lifeway linked in their response): "'But that's not to say virginity pledges should substitute for comprehensive sex education, because a majority of teens do have sex, and even among teens who take virginity pledges, many of them have sex,' Martino says."
For those who know best how effective abstinence education can be, it's not sufficient. Comprehensive sex-ed is much more important than simple moralizing.
- jhstutzman July 31, 2008 12:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
So basically, even if a teen has decided not to engage in sexual activity until after marriage, they should be informed of the DANGERS in partaking in such an activity and should know how to protect themselves. Such as having their partner tested for sexually transmitted diseases and knowing how to prevent the spread of such etc.
- Andromeda17 January 26, 2009 4:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I agree with this. If kids are not taught the safe way, who knows what this world will become. Everyone would end up with a disease or a lot more babies. Even though some kids will pertake in the abstinence-only path, others will not. The ones that don't should know how to keep themselves healthy. Teaching the safe way would most likely lower the rate of unintended teen pregnancy.
- HAYDEN February 3, 2009 5:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Although in a perfect world, abstinence only could be taught and all high school kids would listen. This is not even close to the case, however. More and more teens are becoming sexually active at a younger and younger age. They must be taught about the risks and responsibilities of making these choices. These teens must know that if they are not careful they could get an STI or become pregnant. They also need to be taught to practice safe-sex, if they are choosing to avoid the abstinence only way of life. Teaching abstinence only is just not a practical way of approaching this situation.
- tator February 8, 2009 11:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Some may take these scary statistics and turn them into a reason to promote abstinence-only sex education, but they actually show the need not to promote it. You can't shelter every high school student, and then send them off to college not knowing how to protect themselves. They would be completely overwhelmed. The breakout of pregnancy and diseases would skyrocket because these kids wouldn't know what to do with themselves. Students all need to know how to be protected not how to be abstinent.
- Emily Barrett February 11, 2009 9:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Do you have any evidence to back that up? According to this study in 2002, 18% of women age 15-19 who were at risk for becoming unintentionally pregnant were using no birth control at all, compared to 10.7% of the overall 15-44 group. So this suggests that women who are older and have had a chance to learn and become comfortable with contraceptives are more likely to use them when they are at risk of unintended pregnancy.
The study: http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/january-2008
- mj75 September 10, 2008 9:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Knowledge is vital. Children from a very young age must learn about procreation and the vehicle by which that is made possible. Gradual training in the home is the best method, but we puritanistic Americans are often embarrased to take on that responsibility, therefore it falls upon the shoulders of our schools. Its best for kids to learn the FACTS and not learn the distorted information shared amongst fellow youth. Children should be taught that abstinence is the best form of birth control. But, realistically, they need to know about STD transmission and the terrible damage they can do to the body for life. Kids also need to know how to properly use all forms of birth control. This kind of education won't encourage children to have more sex as we can see from this kind of education in many European countries.
- msreason September 9, 2008 8:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Several comprehensive sexuality education programs have been demonstrated, through rigorous evaluation, to delay the onset of sexual intercourse, reduce the frequency of sexual intercourse, reduce the number of sex partners, and/or increase the use of condoms and/or other forms of contraception among teens"
Doesn't this exert from the article describe the basis of what sex education should be teaching teens, other than abstinence only? Some teens are going to have sex no matter how much you preach abstinence or waiting until you are married. If that is the case, the goal is then to decrease pregnancies, STI's, and the number of partners. Teaching about contraceptives and other ways to stay safe seems to be the only logical way to do this.
- tator February 26, 2009 2:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Proper information about the risks of sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancy, and the relative success and failure rates of condoms and other barrier methods of contraception do not undercut the argument for sexual abstinence. On the contrary, they reinforce the message that casual sex carries serious risks. As a result, children given comprehensive sex education are slower to become sexually active, and tend to be more careful when they do have sexual intercourse.
From an abstinence point of view, taking precautions is not ideal. However, from a public health point of view, it's a significant improvement.
- Michael Glass
November 15, 2008 3:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm all for the two-sided program. Once teens start, there is no way to stop them. But helping them stay safe is definitely important. And helping the kids, who haven't started keep from starting or at least know how to protect themselves when they do, is also essential. There has to be a "happy medium" between only abstinence and just sex.
- Emily Barrett January 25, 2009 6:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I agree with this. Abstinence and protection should be taught at schools. Because some kids will listen to the abstinence message, and some will not. Students should be taught how to take care of themselves if they decide to have sex because in the world we live in more and more kids are deciding not to practice abstinence. Since the teen pregnancy rate has gone down, this teaching seems effective.
- HAYDEN January 25, 2009 10:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm also for the two-sided program. Teens need to be informed on the subject as much as possible, but too much information might have the opposite effect. It's like when your mom told you not to do something when you were a kid; it made you want to rebel and do the exact opposite of what you were told not to do. Pushing too much of this info into these teen's minds will also cause them to do the opposite, or so I think. I agree a lot with Happy Medium idea.
- garzafanhc February 2, 2009 9:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I like the two-sided program. However, I think we should focus more on educating teens about protection and the dangers of engaging in unprotected sex. I think kids today are 'getting older' faster. If that is confusing, what I mean is that they are doing things that kids their age fifteen years ago did not even know about. From a younger sibling, I have heard stories about middle-schoolers doing things no one did when I was that age. It's a problem. But what is causing it? Some say kids today are being educated about sex too early. But how early is too early and how much should we be teaching them? It's a very complicated issue.
It seems that many teens today do not take STD's and STI's seriously enough. Some seem to brush off the idea that their desired sexual partner could have an STD or STI. Then they are dumbfounded when they discover that they have an STD or STI. I think teens should be more educated on how to prevent contracting an STD or STI as well as the symptoms and long-term complications associated with them. I don't really think that teaching abstinence, in high school, is effective. If teens are not being taught to be abstinent at home, many times, they do not take it seriously in school.
- Emar February 8, 2009 5:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I don't think the reason kids are becomeing more expirenced at a younger age is because they are being taught about sex to early. I think that the media is showing a bigger influence to kids. The media doesn't really seem to care about the innocence of younger kids. For example,PG movies when I was little meant a clean no cussing movie with maybe a little kiss, but now PG movies even have the word "bitch" in with a little more heated make out scenes. This also has to do what the parents allow their kids to watch and listen to.
- HAYDEN February 12, 2009 10:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I totally agree. This way, it covers all areas of teens regarding sex. It covers the teens who are having sex as well as the ones who aren't. I am happy to see someone who is open-minded enough to accept that no matter what we do or say, some teens are flat out just going to have sex. Its a hard fact to face, but let's be real. If abstienence only messages are being pounded into kids heads after they have already engaged in intercourse, it is a complete waste of time and effort. If teens are already having sex, they need to know about how to stay healthy and protected.
- trotterk88 February 11, 2009 10:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
What role has culture played in declining teen pregnancy rates? How has fear of HIV infection curbed the hook up culture? How about the chastity movement; this didn't exist when I was single in the 80's, and I could have used the support. I didn't want to betray my Catholic moral code, but the pressure was enormous. If I had a mentor or like minded friends, the loneliness would not have gotten the better of me.
Maybe it's because of cultural influences young people are reinforced in their resolve to wait until marriage for sex. This is just as likely an explanation as your Planned Parenthood talking points.
Young people consistently poll more prolife than their parents, maybe they are more pure as well.
- Leticia Velasquez July 16, 2009 10:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If abstinence only education is effective then why are the rates of teen pregnancy on the rise in Texas?
- MrBook September 2, 2009 4:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Just as some teenagers ignore other health warnings, so some are going to ignore warnings against pre-marital sex. Educators have a responsibility to all teenagers, not just the ones who will heed the warnings about sexual contact with others. There are students who will rely on chastity to keep themselves safe. However, not all will be able to resist temptation. In those cases, they need to know how they can protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
- Michael Glass August 16, 2008 9:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Even if teens have absolutely no moral beliefs regarding sexual purity, the majority of Americas believe that in the long run, it is better and healthier both physically and mentally for teens to wait until they are older to engage in sexual activity. This is why it is critical for public schools to educate teens about the consequences that result after sexual intercourse. It is important to arm them with information regarding STDs as well as safe use of contraceptions.
- trotterk88 January 25, 2009 6:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Finally, here is someone who sees that the two ideas could work together for the greater good. It's not just black and white. It's gray. You can't condemn one idea as right and one idea as wrong here in America. Everyone gets to make that decision on their own. Each student should get to decide, free from pressures at school, what their view on abstinence is. Yes, most adults agree that teenagers should wait. But, most teenagers choose to not listen to adults. So what is left to do? Face reality. Teach teenagers how to be safe, so when they make their decision, they'll be informed either way.
- Emily Barrett February 11, 2009 9:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I agree wit this argument. The problem America has with abstinence-only sex-ed is the only. America is not against abstinence. This is why there should be a mix of information and an abstinence message. That way the bases r covered.
- HAYDEN February 11, 2009 10:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Don't you believe that in reality, what the American Public Wants is to see teens making good choices? Don't you think that the parents of their children want to see them live a healthy and successful life? I don't think the American public cares whether we take sides about how we are going to teach or kids about sex. We as a nation must put pettiness aside and not only look after ourselves, but look after others. We must make sure that whether it is abstinence only or simply sexual education that the children of America are well informed and well educated about sex before they embark on the personal choice to engage in intercourse. Maybe if we weren't arguing so much about whether programs are abstinence only or not, more programs would already have been implemented into public schools and more teens wouldn't have been un-supervised and ended up pregnant....
- trotterk88 February 11, 2009 10:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
This article caught my attention because of the one quote from "What the American Public Wants" as the author wrote that adults perform sexual activity with agape unconditional love. " ...because sexual activity should be associated with meaning and serious commitment" It would truly be a perfect world if in fact all of the promiscuous lovebirds of the world could show their affection with meaning. Sex today basically comes down to the basis of poor Headenism,or the indulgences of pleasures, especially those of the flesh. Many of you may be appalled right now, grabbing your pitch forks and what not, but to be honest, even some adults do not get love correct.
Why should I be talking as I am a high schooler and not a parent you say? It is because you very people are my peers and my elders, but I am not in the least impressed. Why should I be? Divorce rates are spiking so high that 50% of first marriages fail, and you all thought you found TRUE love, but you were mistaken. Those couples gave themselves to each other and they fail each other as well. Now those very people "fall in love" and marry, have sex, and have a 67% of their marriage failing. These are all statistics proving that serious committed adults in marriage fail too. Sex is no longer the blood covenant of man because people perform the act and break it. Why is it then that teens are shunned for doing the very same thing? You say it is because of marriage, but the parents do not keep the marriage, so sex becomes a more than one person act whether it is performed by a teen or an adult. In a perfect world sex will only be performed with true meaning and maybe perhaps love. I see it that the act of sex has lost its true meaning because of the parents in our generation choosing to divorce and lead their children to think it is ok to move person to person, and the children are mirroring that same trait, but are catching on faster about how it is acceptable to promiscuously debauch from person to person.
My link from my statistics http://www.divorcerate.org /
- Kabunky February 25, 2009 3:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I agree a lot with this article. In today's age, teens are more likely to go against authority. We don't live in the perfect world we all like to believe. Sex surrounds not only teens, but every other person in this world. The media puts it in our every day life. Every teen wants to be the person they see on the cover of a magazine.. in every single way.
- garzafanhc February 11, 2009 9:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I have to say this article has a bunch of truth behind it. Sex education programs cannot stop the spread of STDs or pregnancies amoung teens alone. Popular culture and the morals of the kids are some of the key factors on whether or not that particular teen will engage in sex before marriage. I'm not saying sex education doesn't work, I'm just saying you have to do more than just attend a class.
- Luke2734 February 16, 2009 11:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I think that sex ed should be taught in public schools , more specificaly in middle and up.If the adolecent doesnt really have a great relationship with their parents or they dont talk that often, who would talk to them about it and how would they know how to practice safe sex? how would they gain knowledge about std's- sexualy transmitted deseases? and how would they know about the preasures of having sex from their peers? Its a great program to teach to prepare them for when they decide that they are going to have sex. So i completly agree with it.
- Karebear April 25, 2009 1:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
1
11
7
8
1
1
1
1
6
2
2
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
Should 'Abstinence-Only' Sex-Ed be Taught in Public Schools?
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 not smart
I noticed one of the groups that believed abstinence-only sex-ed would be the correct solution was a religious Christian organization. Not very earth-shattering to see by any means. But the separation of church and state is one of the more important decisions the supreme court decided on in the last century. I'm not either pro or anti abstinence, if someone chooses to wait until marriage to engage in sex, that is certainly their preogative and I respect that. But many of us are not in that mode of thinking and need the education and tools to survive the pangs of adolescence. For me, sex ed was not anything ground breaking, most kids are aware of the anatomy, but actually, it was one of the first times I was told about what unprotected sex could do, how to avoid it, and even social situations with the opposite sex. And not to start a war with the religious groups pro abstinence, but where exactly in the bible does it mention "thou shalt wait till they marriage"?
- Sundevil
July 13, 2008 9:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(4)
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.
The Bible Says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultry"
For the record, Sundevil had asked the question about where in the Bible it says 'thou shalt wait till marriage". Just to be clear, the commandment is Thou Shalt Not commit Adultry. In Gods eyes sex outside of marriage is considered adultry and thus a sin and something you shouldn't do.
Not that I agree, but you asked the question.
AS for sex ed, I think children should be taught the basics of anantomy in the early grades. I think they should then be taught all the horrific consequences of having sex before they are mature enough. Girls especially are very vunerable and I think schools should really emphasize how important it is to wait until you're older.
Also, kids should see what happens to a person with AIDS, STD's and/or the pain and suffering of having an abortion or giving a baby up. Single teenage moms should not be glorified, (JUNO).
The only problem I have with Sex Ed in schools is, the schools really have a lot of other things they need to be teaching such as Math/English, etc and ultimately it's up to the parents to be the main educators on this issue.
I realize some parents are unwilling or unable so for those kids, there should be something. I have three teenagers myself and my husband and I make a point of talking and explaining to them about sex. Even when they don't want to hear it! 'MOM...you're gross', is something I hear a lot of but I don't care. They'll thank me for it and as of now they're all good kids.
- terio818 September 3, 2008 7:07PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
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.
In response to "thou Shalt Not Commit Adultry"
You have that messed up. Adultry happens when you step outside of your marriage vows. Before marriage sex is called fornication in the Bible.
- UltraConservative October 23, 2008 9:06AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where in the bible
is sex before marriage called fornication?
- quantummechanik
June 28, 2009 1:09PM
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.
And the Bible is a load of crap
So don't bring that into the argument.
- bagpiper2005
January 28, 2009 10:58AM
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.
Acting like a little kid
Evolution is crap, so don't bring that here either.
Doesn't that sound childish? When you decide to grow up, come back and talk.
- jediguru1
March 28, 2009 12:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
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.
At least we have evidence of evolution!!!
Oh well, not that it's in any way related to sex-ed . People need to quit using the Bible to argue secular issues, and that's the point I was trying to make.
- bagpiper2005
March 28, 2009 11:20PM
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.
This isn't an evo vs bible debate
Look, evolution is as much of a religion as Christianity. They both take a TON of faith to believe them. So, using evolution as a non- religious view is totally preposterous. Depending on how you interpret much of the "evidence" put forward by both sides, it could go either way. Therefore, telling me to leave the Bible out of this is like me telling you to leave science out of this. I don't mean that to imply that science doesn't back creation, because it does just as much as evolution. The difference is, creation has the Bible and science; while evolution has only science. And science goes through a major change every 10 or 20 years, the bible doesn't. Lets leave comments like yours out of here and let people put forward their opinions with no restrictions.
Ok. Now lets get back to the sex-ed discussion.
- jediguru1
March 28, 2009 11:35PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
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.
You don't know your science well enough.
"Look, evolution is as much of a religion as Christianity. They both take a TON of faith to believe them"
Other than the faith that your senses are not lying to you and to every other person who's around you, science does not require faith. It doesn't require faith to accept things when you have solid repeatable evidence that is reliable. The bible does not have reliable evidence. It's not a credible source.
"I don't mean that to imply that science doesn't back creation, because it does just as much as evolution. The difference is, creation has the Bible and science; while evolution has only science."
Science does not back creation. It shows different dates for the age of the universe for one. It also gives ways that things could have originated in ways that do not require a god at all. The bible is only consistent in two things. It's contradictory constantly switching back and forth between what happened. It's also lacking evidence that jesus even existed as well as getting dates wrong. It was also written a minimum of 50 years after the events it describes. This is exactly why creationism and it's counterpart intelligent design are not allowed to be taught in schools as science.
- sdwerd
June 28, 2009 7:51AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
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.
parental responsibility
The ultimate responsibility for teaching a child about ethical sex are the parents... schools are in an odd (though needed) place in offering Sex Ed. As such they are obliged to relate ALL options... including that teens are going to have sex (as they always have)...
Abstinence is the best way to prevent the transmission of STD's, and unwanted pregnancies but Abstinence only education , on the assumption that it will prevent a significant number of teens from having sex, is naive at best.
Keep the religious education in the home or the church, leave the schools to teach all the tools that teens will need to make educated, ethical, decisions.
- MrBook
May 14, 2009 6:09AM
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.
To what scriptural basis
do you use to put sex before marriage under adultery. Sex DURING marriage with a non-spouse, I could get behind. But adultery and sex before marriage are two different things.
- quantummechanik
June 28, 2009 1:08PM
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.
Jacob, 2:28
"The Lord delights in the chastity of women." Which is why I guess men are allowed to whatever the hell they want. *Sigh*....
- Livvy January 31, 2009 1:07AM
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.
Keyword "Education" ...
Abstinence-only isn't education - it's a directive rooted in antiquated superstitious philosophies. That children have sexual bodies is a given. We can teach them how to use those bodies safely for a long, happy and healthy life OR we can pass to them our irrational fears and arrogances.
Passing irrationalism onto our children is nothing short of tragic and arguably abusive. Passing to them the means and attitudes for the fullest happy lives possible to them is our duty as parents and matured adults.
We are committed to educating others or we are not. There are no half measures worth discussing.
- Naumadd
July 24, 2008 7:19PM
Reply to this Recommend
(7)
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.
24 yr old female here...
I believe that teaching absitnance- only in schools is a waste of time. It is by no means a bad idea...i wouldnever say that, but the truth of the matter is that if teenagers want to have sex...they are going to and you cannot stop it. you can teach all the reasons that kids should wait...but in the end, theyre going to do it if they want. I know the situations is different with everyone...but when i first had sex i was 17, and it was about 4 months after we started dating,we were eachothers firsts and actually continued dating for 5 yrs after that. i know thats not the case for all. but i did it bc i loved this boy and we both wanted to and were ready to. Teens should know where to obtain protection and how to use it correctly. i would rather my child know all the facts, then have sex not knowing anything. Like i said you cant stop them, so why not educate them??? Dont you want them to be safe? Educating is not promoting sex. Its helping teens think before they make THEIR choice.
- lanidee02 July 25, 2008 8:12AM
Reply to this Recommend
(5)
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.
come on
I'm a little sci-fi. All girls or boys should have an implant at birth, almost like a tubal clip. After the age of 20 if they both have a job for 5 yrs and have a steady relationship for 5 yrs then they can be granted access to having children. They don't have to be rich. Just committed. There are too many kids with no dads. Too many nut jobs for moms. I had my first at 19yrs old with no direction. I like to think I was a good mom, but in hindsight I sucked. Now I have another 15 yrs later and have the chance to do it right. Or should I say with more maturity. Teenagers are going to have sex regardless. So fix the problem.
- momof2alienboys
July 27, 2008 8:10PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nut job = Mom
That's what happens to people when they get almost no sleep, have milk shlurping out their boobs, and hormones raging. Just when that subsides, there's the constant "AHHHH...what are you Doing?!" running through minds as they're running after the fast-footed child, wiping poop off a butt, washing a billion articles of clothing, and listening to the wails of a child seeking independence and understanding of the world.
of Course too many moms are nut-jobs. It should be part of the job description. ;p
- SocialistBetty
December 31, 2008 11:52PM
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.
What gives you the right?
Honestly, what gives you the right to decide when people get to have children? While I'd agree with some sort of control on the number of children we can have, and change as a culture, honestly? Forcing jobs and steady relationships in return for children? How un-American is that?
- Blue Linchpin
January 1, 2009 4:17PM
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.
Being an american does
Like sitting on your ass while on welfare is soooooo american. What should we do with all the lonley abused starving homeless children without both parents do???? What gives me the right, I am an amreican and it's my first amendment right to voice my opinion. Since there are hundreds of cultures here choose one. Susan smith killed her kids , do we say great they'd probably be losers like her anyway or should we control the issue. in the real world, i've seen 12 yr olds with babies, moms with pipes beating thier kids 12yr olds selling crack. Kids bringing guns to school. Maybe then there should be psych evals before you can be a parent. I can't even find a 16 yr old to hire because they can't count. Actually, where do you live, NY sucks. If I see one more starving kid ask me for money , I'm going to smack the crap out of it's mom. And yes forcing jobs is a good thing. NO JOB NO MONEY NO FOOD!!! Where can I go with no job and rent an apt? If your not in a relationship how can you have one with a child? If you are single and can afford a kid god bless you go for it. If not get fixed. I'm not paying for welfare.
- momof2alienboys
April 21, 2009 12:29AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Excuse me
But isn't the whole point of America supposed to be individual freedom? Oh, whoops, that only applies to the wealthy. My bad.
- Blue Linchpin
June 4, 2009 2:15PM
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.
Nope. Apparently
American involves the forced sterilization of people who don't meet requirements for breeding.
Go USA.
- quantummechanik
June 28, 2009 1:16PM
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.
Un-American? You bet!
Since when is being "American" an indication of truth or virtue? In a country where half of all marriages end in divorce and homeless kids wander the streets of every city (when they've managed to stay out of prison!) the status-quo is clearly not working.
Unfortunately most people turn out to be fertile, regardless of any other qualification they may have - or lack! - for responsible, effective parenting . Considering the consequences for the individuals involved, as well as for society as a whole, whenever a new person is created, there's nothing radical about the proposition that society should impose additional requirements for procreation.
By now the facts are incontrovertible: abstinence-only " education " does not prevent or reduce the incidence of pre-marital sex. However, it does increase the likelihood that teens will engage in unprotected sex, thus increaning their risk of unintended pregnancy and STDs.
- ajhil
June 18, 2009 9:27AM
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.
Two separate questions...
The decision about having pre-marital sex is ultimately one guided by a person's views on the appropriate time and place for sexual activity. The knowledge of how to prevent disease and pregnancy should be mandatory regardless of when an individual chooses to have sex. Abstinence should definitely been taught as the only foolproof way to prevent disease and pregnancy. However, once abstinence ceases to be an option (either in or out of marriage), then what? To equate comprehensive sex education with an endorsement of sexual activity is like saying you shouldn't teach nutrition class with materials on dessert because people might overeat. Ignorance doesn't build wisdom.
- jrr2ok
July 27, 2008 8:57PM
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.
Can't control them...
I don't want my kids to have sexual intercourse until they're married, but at the same time I know I can't control everything they do. As much as it scares me as a father to know that they might make poor choices, it would scare me even more if those choices were made without all of the facts. Abstinence-only sex ed simply does not provide an objective look at all of the facts. Period.
- slacker
July 29, 2008 11:42AM
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.
Abstinence-only sex ed fails our kids.
While abstinence pledges and abstinence-only sex education may decrease rates of teens having sex while in high school, those same teens are four times more likely to have anal sex and six times as likely to have oral sex, both of which carry considerably more risk for contracting an STD. The problem with these religious groups is that they don't actually care whether actual progress is made, only that the material is in line with THEIR BELIEFS (not anyone else's beliefs, because anyone who doesn't think like they do is immoral and therefore inferior). Although all 50 states experienced a slowdown in their teen pregnancy rates in the late 1990s and early 00s, the states that had the least amount of progress were states with well-established abstinence-only programs at a vast number of their public high-schools (Arkansas, Texas). A number of AO curricula also plainly state a number of things that are simply not true, lying about the failure rate of condoms and their ability to stop HIV.
- DelBeano
August 1, 2008 10:15PM
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.
More information, please
Public schools are a place to educate youth. This interest is not well served by a program such as "abstinence-only" that is really a restriction of the educational content to only certain things that some groups prefer for political reasons.
Teenagers are not like toddlers, who do what you tell them because they simply and completely respect your authority. Teenagers rebel, they make decisions for themselves. We have a duty to provide them with the information they need to make those decisions.
Abstinence is a strong option for sexual safety, and one that should certainly be stressed in sex ed. But teenagers need to learn about contraception and what kinds of contraception can prevent STDs. They need to learn things that will defend them from stupid myths about pregnancy and STDs. Once they know all that, they may actually *believe* in the benefits of abstinence. Without that, this program will fail in every child who eventually rebels.
- mj75
August 2, 2008 12:23AM
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.
Vows of chastity are easier to make than to keep.
Sex education should be for all, male and female chaste and unchaste, straight and gay. Yes, condoms do have a failure rate, but so do vows of chastity.
Children should be taught the consequences of sexual contact with others, including sexual transmitted disease and pregnancy. Like Saint Augustine, many would pray for chastity - but not yet. For young people like Saint Augustine, information about risk reduction may help to keep them safe while their better selves have a chance to come to the fore.
Of course, some parents don't want their children to be informed about condoms. However, the learning of the great majority cannot be held hostage to the objections of a religious minority.
- Michael Glass
August 8, 2008 5:35PM
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.
They're going to have sex anyway
In my opinion, abstinence-only sex education is a real joke. Do you honestly think that they'll abstain if they want it that bad? Of course not.
I think the ideal "sex education" would recommend abstinence, yet expose students to other means of protection and contraception. Sort of like "we recommend against pre-marital sex, but if you insist on engaging in sexual intercourse before marriage, here are some precautions you should take."
By and large, this form of sex education is very unproductive. By using abstinence-only education, those who are going to have sex anyway will not be aware of the many great forms of contraception and protection that can be used, and put them at an even greater risk. By broadening the scope a little bit, we can make those who insist on engaging in these activities (despite the recommendation against them) more aware of the ways they can take care of themselves.
Abstinence-only sex education: preaching to the choir.
- bagpiper2005
August 12, 2008 5:01PM
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.
get real
Sex is one of the great pleasures in life. Of course teens should pick their partners carefully and protect themselves, but to tell them "no" is a waste of time. It's perfectly natural to want to get some. These folks need to wake up and put their energy into some other problem.
- philomom August 15, 2008 4:43PM
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.
No it shouldn't
Back when I was in high school 22 years ago there was only one pregnant girl in the school. Now today, at the same high school there is a daycare and 9 pregnant teens. I recently asked my daughter if she had ever had a sex ed class, and her response was that no she had not but the class would be taught next year when she is a junior. Part of the problem as I see it is that they quit teaching sex ed in school. I had a sex ed class in 6th and 8th grade and even in health class in high school. Today, teaching sex ed in their junior year is way too late, for some they have already had sex by that time, thats the way it is in my neck of the woods. Teaching abstinence will not work, we must teach these kids the cold hard truth, not cover it up with abstinence.
- Skewed
September 3, 2008 10:33AM
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.
An objective look at the semantics
Issues surrounding sex, sexuality and children will always be clouded by passionate opinions backed by little or no objective evidence or evaluation.
Instead, let's change the variables of the problem without changing the semantics or form too much. Instead of asking whether or not we should educate young people about sex before they have it, let's ask whether we should educate young people about driving a car before they do it.
If we trade marriage as a barrier of sexual freedom for a driver's license as a barrier of legal driving freedom, this plays out pretty simply. Would it be advisable to teach young people how to drive before they get their driver's license? I hope everyone can agree that the answer is "yes".
Given that, what would we do if young people were driving cars without licenses? Should we pretend that it doesn't happen and refuse to teach them how to drive? They shouldn't be driving anyway, but what if they cause a collision and injure themselves? Should we educate them about driving before they are ready to get a driver's license anyway, to improve their ability to make smart decisions and therefore help prevent possible negative consequences? Yes, we should.
That's just driving in general, though. Now, what if those same young kids were buying Ferraris and Lamborghinis by taking out 18-year loans and doubling up their paper routes? Does our obligation to educate now become more pertinent or less so? The kids are now dealing routinely with very precious cargo and extreme negative consequences in the case of mistakes due to inexperience or lack of proper judgment.
So what will it be? Teaching kids how to drive well (even before they probably should drive) to help them become better drivers for their own and others' sake, or ignore the problem and just hope that inexperienced drivers don't kill themselves or drive into your living room?
- h3h
September 4, 2008 10:46AM
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.
Fear never works!
http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S=9142807&nav=menu69_2_12
- karols
October 8, 2008 1:47PM
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.
Why use schools to teach Sex-Ed???
Does anyone here really trust the government with matters like this? Whatever happened to the role of parent in this issue?
- F2XL
October 13, 2008 4:36PM
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.
Right on...!
My first reaction is similar to that of the presidential debates...All this rhetoric about issues in which no candidate has business making promises. Sex education. Just because it contains the word 'education' in it DOES NOT mean it's the government-school's responsibility. As a property tax owner, I have vested interest in how my money is spent. So do my neighbors who might disagree with me. The solution lies in the middle ground: don't "teach" the material because this debate will never be settled (especially as the 'educators' become more and more socially liberal.
This is yet another reason we homeschool our three children.
- Jefe
October 16, 2008 4:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
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.
Glad to see some agreement!
I think anyone who looks at this objectively will realize that if we trust schools with moral issues like this then that creates a VERY dangerous slippery slope for ethics and education as a whole.
- F2XL
October 16, 2008 8:57PM
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.
If you don't like it, you can always homeschool.
At my school parents had to consent to sex-ed classes by signing a permission slip before the student could attend. Thus, in many schools parents do have a role in the issue.
Further, parents have the choice to send their child to public school, private school, or homeschool . Look at the Duggar family. They homeschool their kids because they wanted their children to be guided by conservative Christian values in their school life, sex life, and choice of friends. They are part of the quiver-full movement, which argues against the use of birth control and encourage couples to have as many children as possible, hence, their own brood of 18 at this point. This is their opinion on sex ed and education as a whole, and although I don't agree, it is their choice.
- illusion
June 11, 2009 3:43PM
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.
We're not teaching our children something: Morality
What we're doing is teaching our kids to be immoral from the start. We're telling kids to have safer sex and telling that it's okay to give a piece of your emotional self away to someone just to say we had a good time.
Ask someone who has had sex before marrige (it may even be yourself) and they'll tell you that they had a good time while they did it; however, most all will tell you that the long-term implications are what really matter. Every time two people have sex, they release hormones that literally bond them together emotionally. If you keep doing this over and over with every guy or girl you happen to like at the time, you give a piece of yourself to each person until there is nothing left to give. Sex then becomes just a routine.
Is this what we want our children to do? Let them have a good time at the expense of their soul? Do we just sit back and let our kids tear themselves apart while we could have told them about another way to preserve themselves? Do we want them to give themselves away before they get married, and when they finally do tie the knot, have nothing left to give? The answer is a resounding "no".
"They're just having a good time. What's the problem with it?" The problem is that us as mentors have allowed our future generations to rip themselves apart and have done nothing about it. Do we continue to stand back and not be apart of our kids lives? Never.
The time to act is now.
- filmfreak
October 30, 2008 9:46AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hm.
Keep your religion out of this. Thanks.
- Blue Linchpin
December 20, 2008 12:57PM
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.
Question
Out of curiosity, what's your problem with it?
- filmfreak
December 22, 2008 8:12AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My problem with it
Religions, all religions, need to be kept to the person who believes in them. There's no reason for a parent or anyone else to press their religious beliefs into schools or debates. If there's a reason for it, it should be an actual reason--not one found in a dusty old book.
- Blue Linchpin
December 22, 2008 8:44AM
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.
Explain
The rule of any argument states that conclusions need to be backed up with reasons and support. Why do religions "need to be kept to the person who believes in them"? Why shouldn't anyone use their religious beliefs in schools or debates. Again, out of curiosity, why do you see religion this way, especially in a country that promotes freedom of religion? Could you please explain more?
If religious views were pressed on someone from childhood and they blindly follow "a dusty old book" or what their parents believe, you're right; they should shut up. They haven't made the decision for themselves. However, if someone HAS made that decision for themselves, we should respect that choice, no matter if we disagree with it or not, especially in a country where tolerance is taught.
I really do respect your views on religion. I don't agree with them; however, I respect them. Please show the same courtesy to me, especially on a website called "Opposing Views". I've made the concientious choice to follow Christianity ... and you can't get me without my religion. Therefore, I cannot "leave my religion out of this". They're inseprable.
- filmfreak
December 23, 2008 10:21AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Explanation
Religion is simply incompatible with reasoned debate. Religion by its very definition is based on dogma and faith in things that are unproven: and using something unproven to argue in a debate is useless. If there's a debate on whether or not same-sex marriage is alright, for example, and the only arguments on one side are religious ones, there's essentially no argument from a legal and logical standpoint. There needs to be a real, logical reason or proof.
I'm not sure why freedom of religion has anything to do with people not using religion to argue a point. I'm not saying people aren't allowed to practice or believe in a religion, but rather that they need to keep it out of debates that are unrelated to religion. If they want to debate theology, fine, but the entire world does not revolve around theology. Logic and laws are secular.
You don't have to leave your religious views out of something: what you do need to do is actually have a reason besides a religious one if you're going to force a (religious) opinion on others. Make sense?
- Blue Linchpin
December 23, 2008 1:46PM
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.
Makes sense
I see what you're saying and it makes sense. Arguments should be logical and be based on something that is concrete. What I'm saying is just that and, surprise, it ties right into my religious beliefs from that "dusty old book".
Like I stated earlier, ask anyone who had sex before marrige and most will tell you that they regret it, due to emotional ties and diseases. I don't want my (future) kids to do something that they will regret, all in the sake of a good time. In a time when the rate of STD's are skyrocketing, I'm going to tell my kids to use abstinence in a sexual decision to keep themselves from getting something that they are stuck with for the rest of their life. That makes logical sense to me. I personally don't want to be stuck with syphillus or gonorrhea.
However, I'll humor you and make this conclusion on sex-ed without religion. It is not the government's role to be influencing the lives of our kids with a class that they could probably learn from their friends; parents should be the ones responsible for guiding their children, not the capital. We all know how much the feds can mess things up. :)
PS: I'm not forcing my views on anyone. People are smart and intelligent, like yourself, and can make their own decisions. This happens to be mine and I'm letting it be known.
- filmfreak
December 23, 2008 4:06PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Since you asked it ..
Well, some 35 years ago I had my first sexual experiences as a teen and only married some 10 years later and not at all with the first mate. I think you would have named me promiscuous. Do I regret it? No way. It was all part of my biography. Some experiences were good, some not, but all took a turn in shaping me. What I do regret, tho, is that in those days we didn't really realize that becoming pregnant was the least of consequences of having sex, so I trusted on hormonal contraception instead of a decent barrier method.
I see no reason why hormonal mature individuals should not have sex if they choose to have it. I just would want to make sure they will make an informed choice, will have a choice (not be forced by a more powerful partner) and will know how to practice true safe sex.
- Gonneke
May 5, 2009 9:12AM
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.
Complete Sex-Ed for Schools
I think schools should give priority to abstinence because thats the most effective way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and diseases, but also have to teach about being responsible and safe sex.
- Julio Cesar
January 14, 2009 7:09PM
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.
Why not?
Sex ed teaches kids to be responsible. Remind me that these are kids that are hormone raged crazy nuts some times. The more appropriate argument is when we should be teaching a kids this stuff.
- The Other Conservative Guy
January 22, 2009 9:34PM
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.
It doesn't work...
If abstinence only works and it should be adopted on a national level, then how come in abstinence only communities, there are so many more teenage pregnancies than in communities that teach safe-sex practices as opposed to abstinence only, and don't let the Netherlands tag bias anyone.
- Spikeman
January 25, 2009 9:07AM
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.
Abstinence only sex-ed has not proven effective.
So kids are biologically prepared to have sex whenever spermarche/menarche hits (which happens as early as 8). But they aren't psychologically prepared for the experience until much older, which is why it makes sense that so many parents want their kids to be taught "abstinence only sex-ed." I don't believe that this idea is backed by crazy religious types as much as it is every day concerned parents who only want to shield their children from harm. Having said that, research indicates that abstinence only sex-ed works (a little) on younger teens, but not so much in older teens (in fact, pretty much not at all). Bottom line - I believe you could hammer your 18 year old with statistics of STDs, dangers of teen pregnancy, etc all day long every day 24/7, but they will continue to think that they are somehow "unique" and impervious to such trivial setbacks like gonorrhea.
- Livvy January 31, 2009 1:26AM
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.
ALL The Facts
Teaching abstinence-only sex-ed is like teaching republican-only government classes. Only teaching abstinence hurts students more than anything. They need to be informed about every aspect of sex, not shown just one path. Students are going to have sex regardless of what they are or are not taught, so you might as well teach them what could happen through multiple sex partners or not practicing safe sex. They need to be prepared for what is out there and informed about how they can protect themselves and others from STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Teaching abstinence-only just makes teens more succeptible to the cons of multiple sex partners and unsafe sex. Students need the facts, and ALL the facts.
- Kurtis34
February 1, 2009 2:33PM
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.
Best For Everyone
I have to admit both ways of teaching sex-ed has their benifits, but I believe that we need to use the solution that will benifit everyone as a whole. The fact of the matter is there will always be kids in high school that will have pre-marridal sex, and we need to teach them what the consequences are to that and how to help prevent sexually transmitted diseases if they decide to. I think teaching kids what can happen to you when you have multiple sex partners will help them make more intelligent choices on whether or not they choose abstinence until marriage.
- Luke2734
February 1, 2009 9:57PM
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.
Hope for the best prepare for the worst.
I agree with lanidee02 if it's going to happen it's going to happen. Teachers can stand up in the front of the classroom and preach to their students about abstinence but, it is not going to stop them from having sex. Since when does telling a teenager not do something stop them from doing it? Doesn’t that just egg them on even more? So, why not teach them how to be responsible if they choose to be sexually active. You could actually have an impact on their future if you teach them how to prevent pregnancy. I’m not at all saying that teachers should promote sex or encourage it but, they should teach kids the prevention methods so they are aware of them. Religion should be kept out of the schools. If parents want to teach their kids that abstinence is the best choice that is their decision. If parents want to shelter their kids from reality, then they should home school them, and keep them cooped up in the house. They shouldn’t allow them to watch TV, read magazines, or use the internet. Sex is everywhere so you might as well address the fact and tell your children how they can prevent pregnancy. Don’t get me wrong I know people choose abstinence but, I don’t believe that just because you or your child’s teacher tells them to not have sex they will automatically follow your commands. Everyone is their own individual and will make the choice they feel is right. We can all hope our children abstain from sex but, hope can only get you so far.
- Jack
February 8, 2009 5:13PM
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.
Hope for the best prepare for the worst.
I agree with lanidee02 if it's going to happen it's going to happen. Teachers can stand up in the front of the classroom and preach to their students about abstinence but, it is not going to stop them from having sex. Since when does telling a teenager not do something stop them from doing it? Doesn’t that just egg them on even more? So, why not teach them how to be responsible if they choose to be sexually active. You could actually have an impact on their future if you teach them how to prevent pregnancy. I’m not at all saying that teachers should promote sex or encourage it but, they should teach kids the prevention methods so they are aware of them. Religion should be kept out of the schools. If parents want to teach their kids that abstinence is the best choice that is their decision. If parents want to shelter their kids from reality, then they should home school them, and keep them cooped up in the house. They shouldn’t allow them to watch TV, read magazines, or use the internet. Sex is everywhere so you might as well address the fact and tell your children how they can prevent pregnancy. Don’t get me wrong I know people choose abstinence but, I don’t believe that just because you or your child’s teacher tells them to not have sex they will automatically follow your commands. Everyone is their own individual and will make the choice they feel is right. We can all hope our children abstain from sex but, hope can only get you so far.
- Jack
February 8, 2009 5:19PM
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.
It wouldn't matter anyway
Kids don't listen to everything they're told and they only believe what they want to believe. Abstinence has been taught for a long time and teens are still having sex as much, if not more than ever. You can try to scare teens with the threats of STI's and pregnacy, but being "invincible" causes them to do whatever they want without consquences. If teens are going to do it, they might as well focus on informing them about sex. These public programs should focus on contraception to make sure teens are staying safe and they should answer any questions teens may have to avoid confusion. Our culture is different, influence is strong, an abstinence program won't do much.
- ice cream man
February 11, 2009 11:56AM
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.
For those who think abstinence only programs arent smart
Read this book: THE MYTH OF SAFE SEX, by John Ankerberg and John Weldon
Excellent book for all parents but highly recommended for Christian parents. This book was very beneficial to me as I am studying the effects of Planned Parenthoods involvement in sex- education in the public school system. This book is chucked full of statistics that will shock even the learned reader on Aids and the devastation that has occured because of the sexual revolution mainly in our school systems. The numbers of youth that are infected today will break your heart and if that statistic alone does not cause you to get involved by either monitoring what your childs school is teaching in Health and Sex Education or by doing the best thing, in my opinion,and remove your child from the secular authorities that are ruining the minds, hearts, and spirits of America's children . I give this book a 5 for its efforts to tell the whole story and to try and prevent further deaths from this sexual holocaust killing innocent children who have been taught that sex is safe and this book will show that it is anything but safe.
- Hope7
July 2, 2009 12:03PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Birth control
The problem with abstinence only sex-ed is it leaves out any discussion of natural family planing. Women are then left with the one sided aproach of Planed Parenthood.
- mike1948
July 28, 2009 3:02PM
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.
even married couples
Indeed, even for married couples there are reasons why having children is to be avoided. A couple that already has as many children as they can afford (or cannot yet afford to have children) benefits from family planning assistance.
- MrBook
July 29, 2009 6:51AM
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.
Sorry Won't work
I myself am a Christian and I know abstinence is the best choice (as far as religion and morals are concerned) but I am not so blind as to say teenagers will listen. Obviously they won't always listen so why not give them the hard facts while in sex-ed classes, but tell them if they DO end up engaging in sexual actions to protect themselves as to not end up pregnant, and to hopefully remain disease free.
- Dylandts
August 13, 2009 8:38PM
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.
Texas
The increase in teen pregnancy rates in Texas (the poster state for abstinence only education ) supports this hypothesis.
- MrBook
August 22, 2009 3:11PM
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.
I myself
I myself know how teen's respond to abstinence only education . Heck they laugh at the mention of abstinence *literally*
- Dylandts
August 22, 2009 10:56PM
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.
sex
well last time I checked sex was fun and felt good.
The only reason why I did not have more sexual encounters when I was in my teens was because I lacked opportunity, not because I didn't think it was right.
- MrBook
August 23, 2009 7:55AM
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.
Good
Then that proves my point.
- Dylandts
August 23, 2009 12:52PM
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.
not really
my experiences are anecdotal... the proof is in the teen pregnancy rates in states that focus on abstinence only education .
- MrBook
August 23, 2009 2:02PM
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.
Public Schools Shouldn't be Teaching Sex-Ed at All
To clarify, I do not object to teaching anatomy in our schools . It is an appropriate function of an educational institution to teach students how the body works.
Despite the name, Sex-Ed is not about education . It's about moral guidance or indoctrination depending on the material and your viewpoint. At one extreme is abstinence-only , and what I view as the much farther extreme, "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings is promoting the virtues of "fisting" to 14 year-olds and handing out "fisting kits." Neither belongs in our public schools.
This responsibility ultimately belongs to parents, and those individuals and entities with whom they choose to share it.
- erik
January 9, 2010 12:53AM
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.
It didn't work for me
Coming from a junior in college , growing up I was bombarded with abstinence only sex -ed, heck I received a purity ring two years after I lost my virginity. Sex wasn't something I strove for, it was something that just happened; albeit in all cases I was intoxicated but that is another argument in and of itself. It took an eye opener, a good friend of the gal sitting be down and explaining that I should go get checked, to make me be very pro-active with protection.
This is a very touchy subject, but for me the only advice I received in high school was from my baseball coach. That said, in health class, when it came to the subject of STD's was to ""wear a condom and thats that."
I don't know what was more humiliating, having to tell my dad what that test was on the bursar billing statement, or actually getting the test done because of my carelessness.
- Match March 3, 2010 5:23AM
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.
Why it didn't work for you
You.
- koopa March 8, 2010 9:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.