Abstinence And Education

Abstinence only sexual education wouldn’t be such an alarming problem if those in charge didn’t insist on falsifying statistics to perpetuate fear. While simply not participating in sexual contact is the only one hundred percent effective way to avoid pregnancy and disease, preventive medical care should no longer be overlooked. The Waxman report reviewed the curriculum and concluded that over eighty percent of schools receiving federal grants contained false and misleading information, generally the exaggeration of contraceptive failure rates (Beh, and Diamond). The Choosing the Best curriculum states that over a four year period condoms have a failure rate of fifty percent (CITE THIS) while the Center of Disease Control states the failure

The issue of the paper Misinformed and Unprotected is that Abstinence-only programs lack to inform teens about sexual contact because the system is current set up as only teaching teens to not have sexual contact till marriage, leaving out important information for teens who what to learn how to be safe with sexual contact. The writer’s position on the paper is that the education system should be changed to inform teens more than just wait till marriage to have sex. The evidence list is that Abstinence-only education advocates claim that abstinence-only programs prevent premarital sex, but that the programs need to stop being publicly funded because these programs may make those who have suffered from sexual abuse feel ashamed and unwilling

Clemmitt (2010) states that currently the most effective approach to prevent teenage pregnancy is evidence-based sex education programs. The primary debate about the best method of preventing teenage pregnancy is between abstinence-only courses and comprehensive sex education. The author says that after operating comprehensive sex education, the Obama approach, many communities and county areas have drastically reduced the rate of teenage pregnancy. Studies and statistics suggested that abstinence-only courses have not contributed to reduce teenage pregnancy rates. The author points out that the abstinence-only courses also include sexually transmitted diseases classes and discussions of unhealthy relationship and making decisions, and abstinence

In a country founded for the desire of freedom of religion, it seems a large step back has been taken when the federal government holds the education of America’s youth to a Christian moral viewpoint. Several lawsuits have been successfully brought against abstinence only programs for forcing religious viewpoints. Perhaps not directly religious in nature, abstinence only education muddies the line between separation of church and state. While they are few and far between some religions do not discourage premarital sex, and others encourage polyamorous relationships with multiple women. These may be the minority but to force christian fundamentals on their children is a violation of their rights and breeds discrimination towards them.

The foundation of the abstinence-only policy was laid in 1981 under President Regan when the United States Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) administered by the Office of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs (OAPP) (Denny, 2006). The main purpose of this this proposal was to keep sexual relationships until marriage (Weaver, 2005). The AFLA became founded on the belief of funding and developing abstinence-only based curricula in public schools throughout the United States (Weaver, 2005).

Every person has the right of balanced sex education, if they want. Abstinence-only education is not the correct approach in Texas, because the programs ignore youth’s basic human right and the fundamental public health principle of accurate information, they advocate contraceptive use and does not emphasize their failure rates, and virginity pledges do not delay the beginning of sexual activity.

People such as President George W. Bush has made no secret of his view that sex education should teach teenagers "abstinence only" rather than including information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Unfortunately, despite spending more than $10 million on abstinence-only programs in Texas alone, this strategy has not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. (2010 Union of Concerned Scientists) In addition, the Bush administration distorted science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants. In place of such established measures, the Bush administration required the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to track only participants' program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs. (Federal Register 65:69562-65, November 17, 2000). This

The theory of paradox is put into action when policymakers come up with policies centered on sex education. The theory of paradox is used to compromise on an issue at hand. There is one goal at hand, and two different, yet equally valid ways to reach said goal (Bogenschneider, 2014). There are two main approaches to lowering teen pregnancy and birth rates: abstinence-only sex education and comprehensive sex education. The federal government funds both different approaches but has more money available to states that choose to implement abstinence-only programs. Researchers look at teen pregnancy and birth rates in each state to calculate and observe the effectiveness of abstinence-only versus comprehensive sex education programs (University

The Texas abstinence-only approach in school systems has failed to give information required to educate teenagers to what can happen to their life and future by engaging in sexual activity.

"abstinence-only" sex education programs have been shown not to be successful in reducing adolescence sexual behavior. Just a few abstinence-only have been shown to change attitude towards abstinence over a short period up to six months. Educating youth with the skills and tools to make healthy choices about sex and relationship is more effective than denying it and telling them not to have sex. We need to give young people accurate sexual information if we want them to take responsibility for their well-being rather than eliminate information about condoms and birth control. Studies shows over two-thirds of Canadians have sexual intercourse before age 20 (Matika-Tyndale, Barrett, & McKay, 2001) so it is crucial that youth receive all the

Morris’s statement, echoed by her fellow abstinence-only proponents, would make it seem as if the United States government has not funded or promoted abstinence-only education. However, funding for abstinence-only programs has been increasing since the 1980’s, when it first began; “The Adolescent Family Act…was signed into law in 1981…to provide support to teen parents and ‘to promote chastity and self-discipline’ through a ‘family centered approach” (Schwarz, 2007). Even recently, in 2007, President Bush proposed an increase in spending for abstinence –only education, going from $176 million to $204 million (Boonstra, 2007). Percentage wise, “In 2006-2008 most teens aged 15-19 had received formal instruction about…or abstinence (84%)” (Guttmatcher Institute, 2012). A review conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that “youth who were assigned to the Title V abstinence “program group” were no more likely than youth assigned to the “services as usual” control group to have abstained from sex” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007). The amount of funding for abstinence-only education is astonishingly high,

Federal funding has played a large role in this increase, as monetary incentives have been the driving force behind much of the change. To put it in numbers, the amount of federal dollars going to schools that adopted abstinence only programs almost tripled in the seven years between 1998 and 2005, increasing from 60 to 168 million dollars a year (Santelli, 75). And among United States school districts that changed their policies, twice as many chose to adopt a curriculum that more heavily focused on abstinence only until marriage as moved towards a more comprehensive program (Landry). This disturbing statistic shows how effective the religious right has been in pushing abstinence only programs in face of a dearth of evidence as to their effectiveness. This effectiveness is mainly due to intense lobbying funded by individuals and organizations on the far right. One man, Raymond Ruddy, has personally put 1.5 million dollars towards advocacy and lobbying for abstinence only programs (Eaton). While lobbying like this commonly happens on both sides of the aisle, in this case public opinion goes against what people like Raymond Ruddy say is necessary. According to a recent study, "Ninety-eight percent of parents say they want HIV/AIDS discussed in sex education classes; 85% want 'how to use condoms' discussed; 84% think sex education should cover 'how to use and where to get other birth control,' and 76% want

During my childhood and adolescent years, I grew up in a highly Roman Catholic family who established firm rules about remaining abstinence untiled marriage and refusing to cohabitate with a significant other. Based on my past history of worshiping my faith, this religion has strong beliefs of being abstinence, not getting pregnant before marriage, and remaining heterosexual. During my adolescent years, my mother continuously stated how the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) population was committing sins and wondered why God created these “creatures”. In addition to my mother’s statements towards this population, it made me furious that we judged this population and questioned their happiness. In regards to Tristan’s faith

If this key concept is stressed in the teachings, it could prevent students from wanting to be sexually active. “When a person practices abstinence, there is no possible way for the egg and sperm to join together, which means there is no chance of that person getting pregnant” (“Abstinence”). Informing students that by practicing abstinence they are the safest and most protected they could ever be, will not stop all students. Truthfully, after learning this information on abstinence some students might be more encouraged to not follow it, because they do not see the purpose or want to be rebellious.

Self control is a very important skill in life. This skill is especially important in face to face interaction. It is important to teach responsibility not abstinence because abstinence is only attained through successful responsibility. The cell phones being taken away in the classroom does not teach responsibility with technology, or how to use it wisely and have self control with it. “We didn’t ban pens in our schools because students can pass notes during class. The pencils have also survived even though you could poke someone in the eye” (Ormiston 5). The classroom is a great place for young students to learn about cell phone etiquette and how to learn to not only stay safe, but also how to use the cell phones when you can easily be distracted