Adolescents should receive comprehensive sex education as opposed to abstinence only teaching methods.
“Comprehensive sex education is based on the premise that every person has a right to information about sex and contraceptive choices” (“Sex Education”).
Reason: Adolescents will learn the different types of contraceptive methods available to them.
Example: A third of all teenage pregnancies end in abortion (“Sex Education”). If adolescents were properly educated about how to prevent pregnancy, the need for abortions would be greatly reduced.
For condoms to be effective, they need to be used properly. Comprehensive sex education ensures that adolescents are taught this.
Reason: Adolescents are becoming sexually active younger and not waiting until marriage.
Example: In a survey conducted by the CDC in 1993, “more than 43% of ninth grade boys and more than 31% of ninth-grade girls report having had sexual intercourse” (Sex Education).
In the Journal of Adolescent Health, it was published that, “young people who take ‘virginity pledges’--promises to wait until marriage to have sex--are more likely than not to break their pledges, and are less likely to use contraception when they do have sex” (Update: Teen Pregnancy).
Reason: By teaching sex education, the adolescent is able to make his or her own educated decision about sex.
Example: Abstinence cannot be forced upon an individual. An adolescent will make his or her own choice on when to have sex. When they decide it is best that they have been taught how to have safe sex.
“Expecting abstinence to work on its own is an unrealistic approach” (Update: Teen Pregnancy”).
Reason: Comprehensive sex education teaches about STDs and methods to prevent them.
Example: The number of HIV diagnoses in the United States was 37,930 in 2005. This is a remarkably high number considering we now know how to prevent the spread of HIV (“Statistical Update”).
In 1995 2,300 cases of AIDS were reported to the CDC in the United Sates for ages 12 through 18. Just three years prior there were only 808 cases reported (“Sex Education”). If students are taught how to use condoms properly, they can better protect themselves against STDs and HIV.
Reason: The population is in support of teaching a non-abstinence only method.
Example: A study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania polled the US public opinion on sex education. They found that “approximately 82% of respondents indicated support for programs that teach students about both abstinence and other methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.” The study summarized that, “abstinence-only programs, while a priority of the federal government, are supported by neither a majority of the public nor the scientific community.”
4 comments:
You have developed a solid and clear argument in your brief. I also feel like you have provided excellent evidence that strongly supports your argument. I think that you have chosen a good topic to argue and mediate because it is so controversial and has become a more intense issue among teenagers especially. You have also included some good examples that offer good support for making your argument stronger. In addition to this, I found your topic interesting because I have wrote papers in the past in which I was arguing for the same cause. Well done!
While I agree that comprehensive sex education does instruct students about methods of birth control and STD prevention, I don't agree that this is necessarily a good idea. This not only sends a mixed message to students, (don't have sex, but if you're going to...) but also gives them a false sense of security (that the methods of birth control and STD prevention are fool proof and always work). Mixed messages and reliance on faulty methods of safe sex do not seem to be the best way to help students make informed decisions. Also, because of governmental grants to abstinence only programs, it seems that the public supports this type of education. I also agree that adolescents are having sex at a younger age, but maybe a different type of program could change this!
This brief is very interesting and you covered a lot of good points, but I was wondering a few things. Do you want all children to receive this sex education, or just the public schools? You refer to adolescence a lot, so at exactly what age would you propose this education to start? I think you have a lot of good evidence and stats to back up your point. But one thing I was wondering was, are you wanting to do away with the abstinence teachings and replace them with the sex education? Or would you rather present both sides and allow the individual to chose. One thing to keep in mind is that not all STDs can be prevented by using a condom, a lot of the time a person shows no signs of being infected. But overall, I can see where you are going with the ideas and I think you have very good points. Hope this helps!
As I mentioned before, I do not believe that accepting sexual activity among teenagers and giving them information about contraceptive and STD prevention is a good idea. Not only does it send students a mixed message, leaving them confused, but also leaves them with the impression that certain methods of birth control etc. make sex safe. In reality, these methods only provide safER sex. Condoms, considered the best STD protection after abstinence, have failure rates of 12- 40% in preventing pregnancy. Students must be taught to recognize the risk, and that the only way to really protect yourself is to abstain.
I agree that adolescents are becoming sexually active at increasingly younger ages. This is proof that comprehensive sex education is simply not working. I also agree that teen pregnancy and STD rates are a huge problem among teenagers today, and this why we should adopt abstinence only sex education programs that have been proven to decrease sexual activity among teenagers. There has been a 29% decrease in teen pregnancy rates for 15-17 year olds between 1991 and 2000 has been attributed to the new higher number of abstinence only programs.
Also, I believe that the public is in favor of switching to a abstinence only curriculum. This is shown by congress and the government's support of abstinence only education: In 1996, Congress passed a welfare reform law allocating $50 million annually to states offering abstinence only sex education. These funds cannot be used for programs that endorse birth control, but rather programs that show that sex outside of marriage is likely to result in “harmful physical and psychological effects.” And avoidance of extramarital sex “is the expected standard” of human behavior. In May 2002, congress voted to extend this provision for an additional 5 years.
Post a Comment