Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs the "abstinence only" educational initiative to reduce teen pregnancies just?
Results so far:
| No | 61% | 53 votes | Total: 87 votes | |
| Yes | 39% | 34 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIn judging "abstinence only" educational programs, the question that needs to be asked is "Does it work?" Keep in mind that this is referring to those programs that only discuss abstinence as a means of preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancy. These programs do not discuss other forms of protection against those problems (except, perhaps, to point out how flawed those methods are). Those that stress abstinence but also provide information about techniques used to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease are known as "abstinence plus" educational programs.
First, to test the effectiveness, let's take a look at the results. In April 2007, the Mathematica Policy Research group looked at how well "abstinence only" programs worked. In their report, was the following:
"Findings indicate that youth in the program group were no more likely than control
group youth to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex,
they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age." Of interest, though, is the fact that, despite what other reports had shown, the Mathematica study showed no difference in the use of condoms or other protective measures upon intercourse as those subjects not in the program.
However, this and other studies (such as one by Underhill K, Montgomery P, Operario D. at Oxford in August of 2007) showed a similar lack of positive results.
On the other end would be the "abstinence-plus" programs where abstinence is stressed but other "safer sex" techniques are also taught. A study by Underhill and the other authors mentioned in the above section also studied "abstinence-plus" programs. The effectiveness of these programs is much stronger. Out of 39 trials, 23 reported a positive effect on sexual risk behavior. It showed a positive effect in lessening unprotected sex, reduced the number of sexual partners and increased condom use when the interviewees did have sex.
Based on effectiveness alone, it seems obvious that "abstinence only" programs fail compared to a more comprehensive method. There are probable reasons for this.
A 2004 study initiated by Congressman Henry Waxman of California showed the amount of poor information given through these programs: They stated wrong failure rates for the effectiveness of contraceptives (particularly condoms), giving false information about the effects of abortion, overstating the risk of sexuality and giving poor information on homosexuality that treated some of the myths regarding homosexuality as fact.
In my view, this is a dangerous problem. If a program gives bad information that is later discovered to be bad by the student, how much credence would the student give the rest of the program? Dealing with facts and accurate information is always the best approach and more complete information is likely to have a better impact than reduced and possibly false information.
Learn more about this author, Steven Laskoske.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Part of the "safe-sex" curriculum now being taught in many public schools includes having the teacher demonstrate how to properly apply a condom, using a cucumber (or some phallic like fruit or vegetable). This is usually followed up by having the students themselves practice the technique.
It would be interesting to find statistics on just how many parents support teaching "safe-sex" over "abstinence-only"; and among those parents who support "safe-sex" curriculum, how many of them would feel comfortable with their teenagers bringing home that very cucumber, presumably still enwrapped within its rubbery prison, and who knows how limp by that point.
"Look at what I got an A+ on in Health class!", the child will unabashedly exclaim, waving it back and forth in their parent's face. "That's very nice, dear", the parent will respond with a gust of liberal enthusiasm. "We'll hang it up on the fridge for your father to see when he comes home. And then right in the salad it goes!"
Is it any wonder, the dramatic increase of parents taking their children out of the public school system, and placing them into private education, or turning to home schooling?
We entrust public schools, and the teachers they employ, to provide a quality education to our children, which we pay a hefty price for in taxes; to mold and shape them into future leaders; competent, bright and intelligent individuals to be admired and respected the world over. And the best utilization of that most coveted, heavily protected teaching degree (which, tenure will dictate, garnishes huge salaries) is best illustrated by showing a teenager how to properly apply a condom?
Why do we accept the teaching of "safe-sex" as being less controversial, less evil, less damnable than teaching and instilling the value and the virtue of "abstinence-only", and abstaining from sex while still young and while earning a high school degree?
"Safe-sex" education is a capitulation of moral authority, and an insult and degradation to every teenager who eagerly desires, who passionately seeks, who ought to expect an education that will help them gain and secure the insight and knowledge needed to procure a better future for themselves as they enter adulthood. When "safe-sex" is taught, as opposed to "abstinence-only", the subtext, the motive, the intent of the lecture, the agenda itself, is indoctrination into an unhealthy, less than safe, potentially deadly and absolute life altering decision that has devastating consequences which inevitably will extend beyond their youth.
The agenda surrounding "abstinence-only" is nothing more than saying to our youth - "Not now. Wait. Your education is more valuable to you right now than a short term sexual relationship based on emotions and hormones, rather than committed love."
What about religious overtones, religious messages, religious indoctrination, a religious agenda?
What about it?
Religion is no longer a fundamental, integral, mandatory part of any area of public education; "abstinence-only" is neither in of itself religious, nor strictly a religious message; its value, its importance, its teaching does not belong exclusively to religion, and religion does not have a copyright on it. Teaching "abstinence-only" void of religious undertones does not make the impact of teaching "abstinence-only" any less powerful.
Or are all the dangers associated with unsafe sex - the myriad of diseases, the emotional and psychological turmoil, the unexpected pregnancies - nullified unless there be a "God Commands" somewhere in the instruction?
Is it "just" that we, the parents, the adults, the educators - the ones who are supposed to be setting a proper example for our children - instead are teaching them to give up, to give in, to reject common sense, rationality and decency, and thus embrace depravity? Or is it just plain revolting?
It's about time we had the courage to remove the quotes that have surrounded "abstinence-only", and made it something to mock and discredit. Abstinence-only is a potent policy. It works. It will work for those who make that pledge to abstain, and have the will, the commitment and the moral support to stick with it.
Learn more about this author, T. W. Fuller.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Political Issues
- Is George Bush an able commander-in-chief for the US military?
- Are high taxes on cigarettes fair?
- Should the US Congress support funding to help the Capitol go green, despite budget constraints?
- Should prostitution be legalized?
- Should the US government continue to spend money to boost other countries' economies when the US budget is in a deficit?
- Is the IRS standard deduction fair to the poor?
