Essay on Abstinence Education

Abstinence is the only form of birth control that is 100% effective – in both preventing pregnancies and most sexually transmitted infections. If you choose to be abstinent, then you have decided not to have any type of sexual relations. Learn some of the reasons why people choose to abstain as well as the benefits from this behavior. Discover the difference between continuous and complete abstinence. Read advice on how to stay abstinent and when to make the decision about using abstinence as your contraceptive method. Possible pitfalls people face when choosing this method are also examined.

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

Additional research has explored the effects of abstinence based programs on actual behavior outcomes. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) compared the effects of abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education programs, operationalizing effectiveness in terms of initiation of sexual activity and teen pregnancy rates. They found that teenagers who received comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence-only or no education were significantly less likely to report a teenage pregnancy. In addition, their conclusions mirrored Sather and Kelly (2002), finding that abstinence-based programs did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in sexual activity. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) actually concluded that comprehensive sex education was more likely than abstinence based to reduce the percentage engaging in sexual activity. Overall, the researchers showed that comprehensive sex education, including but not limited to contraception, did not increase the prevalence of sexual activity in teenagers or the risk of teen pregnancy, while also showing the that abstinence only education produced a higher likelihood of pregnancy.

Sex education for American youth has been a topic of discussion across the nation since the early 1980s. Teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease are two major problems throughout the U.S.. Sexually transmitted infections have been an ongoing problem for American people since World War I. To combat the growing teen pregnancy and STI rates, the U.S. established organized sex education. Since sex education has been integrated in schools across the nation, it has been heavily influenced by religion. The federal government has funded abstinence-only education programs for over a quarter century. Abstinence-only

In 2005, nearly half of all high school students have had sexual intercourse. Plainly stating that abstinence programs do not work (USA Today). Abstinence programs were beneficial many years ago, but since they are ineffective in delaying teen pregnancy, then teen pregnancy rate has increased. Abstinence programs teach the “no sex until marriage” clause, but they don’t teach teens about birth control and the consequences of having sex at before they’ve matured. Although many studies argue that abstinence programs are educational and beneficial, other studies will show that they don’t delay teen sex, they don’t prevent the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), and are a waste of taxpayers’

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

Since the HIV/AIDS epidemic began in the U.S. in the early 1980s the issue of sex education for American youth has had the attention of the nation. There are about 400,000 teen births every year in the U.S, with about 9 billion in associated public costs. STI contraction in general, as well as teen pregnancy, have put the subject even more so on the forefront of the nation’s leading issues. The approach and method for proper and effective sex education has been hotly debated. Some believe that teaching abstinence-only until marriage is the best method while others believe that a more comprehensive approach, which includes abstinence promotion as well as contraceptive information, is necessary. Abstinence-only program curriculums disregard

According to advocatesforyouth.org, “Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are a waste of taxpayer money.” Since 1996 over one billion dollars has been spent on these programs. Because these programs are unsuccessful many people argue that it is a waste of money to spend billions of dollars on ineffective programs. However comprehensive sex education which teaches students about contraceptive usage and abstinence does not get the funding that abstinence only receives.

“The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases” (Stanger-Hall, Hall, “Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates”). According to several studies, this is mainly due to the fact that numerous states teach abstinence-only education, which usually does not include material on contraception, STIs, nor pregnancy. The alternative to abstinence-only education is referred to as comprehensive sex-education, where the practice of abstinence is promoted, but students are additionally taught about contraception, STIs, pregnancy prevention, and interpersonal skills. Despite the beneficial results of this alternative, abstinence-only education is still taught all over the

Many studies have shown that programs that focus on abstinence rather than contraceptive use are successful in reducing teen sexual activity”(Kim). She goes on to explain that abstinence is the best possible choice. Also that early sexual activity during teen years can have a risk of causing a contraction of a sexually transmitted disease, damage psychological constitution, lower academic achievement and cause unwanted teen pregnancy. All of these side effects are completely avoidable. The definition of “abstinence” is “Abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as expected standard for all school age children (Kim). It is emphasized as a healthy lifestyle and is explained by its effect on social, psychological, and health aspects. She cites that “Studies have shown that abstinent teens report, on average better psychological well being and higher educational attainment than those who are sexually active. She makes sure to repeat the claim that early sexual encounters can cause early irreparable psychological damage. A 2010 study in medical journal archives of pediatrics concludes that a abstinence only education reduced sexual initiation in the group of African-American adolescents. Two years later one third of the participants had initiated in sexual activity. “By

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

It has been almost thirty three years since the first federal funding was put to use in “. . . sex education programs that promote abstinence-only-until-marriage to the exclusion of all other approaches . . .” according to the article “Sex education” (2010) published by “Opposing Viewpoints in Context;” a website that specializes in covering social issues. Since then a muddy controversy has arisen over whether that is the best approach. On one hand is the traditional approach of abstinence (not having sex before marriage), and on the other is the idea that what is being done is not enough, and that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach. This entails not only warning against sex, but also teaching teens about how to have

Programs that encourage abstinence have become a vital part of school systems in the US. These programs are usually referred to as abstinence-only or value-based programs while other programs are called as safer-sex, comprehensive, secular or abstinence-plus programs which on the contrary promote the usage of effective contraception. Although abstinence-only and safer-sex programs disagree with one another, their core values and stand on the aims of sex education is to help teens develop problem-solving skills and the skill of good decision-making. They believe that adolescents will be better prepared to “act responsibly in the heat of the moment” (Silva). Most programs that have been currently implemented in the US have seen a delay in the initiation of sex among teens which proves to be a positive and desirable outcome (Silva).

Religious groups and parents argue abstinence only is all students need to be informed of in school but studies show that students sexually activity is not reduced by abstinence-only programs. The United States Department of Health and Human Services released a study in 2007 of