Abstinence Teaching
The Trouble With America is that we are so hung up on the idea that teaching abstinence in the classroom is the best way to prevent preganancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. I simply disagree.
Teen sex is not a new phenomenon, and is certainly not the result of MTV or popular culture. In the 1770s, according to Cate and Lloyed in 1992, pre-marriage pregnancy in America hovered at a rate of around 30%.
Sex is natural of the human condition. It's just one of those things you can say about human behavior (along with the need for food, water, and socialization).
The result of teaching abstinence in the classroom is a teen population that is misinformed, resulting in dangerous behaviors. Teens will not stop having sex, no matter how much abstinence is preached.
Regardless of background, teen sex happens.
One of the interesting facets of American culture is that Red States (ie states that traditionally vote for republican or conservative candidates -- typically those who more strongly equate religion with culture) have a significantly higher rate of teen pregnancy (See Here).
In my opinion, the most pointed arguments for teaching abstinence is that, parents who teach abstinence in their homes have the right to have a consistent message sent to their teen son or daughter, while parents who opt for teaching their son or daughter to be more informed about sex can convey that message, regardless of school intervention.
However, the ironic thing about that is the abstinence issue is, teens who are taught solely abstinence will be more likely to either get pregnant or contract a sexually transmitted disease, and healthcare costs paid for by the part of the taxpayer will likely increase -- a phenomenon which, if repeated, raises taxes for tax payers - a phenomenon which conservatives fiercely object to.
On top of that, fiscal conservatives also object to having their taxes raised to pay for sex education. It's kind of a double edged sword, don't you think?
Teen sex is not a new phenomenon, and is certainly not the result of MTV or popular culture. In the 1770s, according to Cate and Lloyed in 1992, pre-marriage pregnancy in America hovered at a rate of around 30%.
Sex is natural of the human condition. It's just one of those things you can say about human behavior (along with the need for food, water, and socialization).
The result of teaching abstinence in the classroom is a teen population that is misinformed, resulting in dangerous behaviors. Teens will not stop having sex, no matter how much abstinence is preached.
Regardless of background, teen sex happens.
One of the interesting facets of American culture is that Red States (ie states that traditionally vote for republican or conservative candidates -- typically those who more strongly equate religion with culture) have a significantly higher rate of teen pregnancy (See Here).
In my opinion, the most pointed arguments for teaching abstinence is that, parents who teach abstinence in their homes have the right to have a consistent message sent to their teen son or daughter, while parents who opt for teaching their son or daughter to be more informed about sex can convey that message, regardless of school intervention.
However, the ironic thing about that is the abstinence issue is, teens who are taught solely abstinence will be more likely to either get pregnant or contract a sexually transmitted disease, and healthcare costs paid for by the part of the taxpayer will likely increase -- a phenomenon which, if repeated, raises taxes for tax payers - a phenomenon which conservatives fiercely object to.
On top of that, fiscal conservatives also object to having their taxes raised to pay for sex education. It's kind of a double edged sword, don't you think?
posted by Tim C at 9:55 AM
0 Comments:
View Stats
Post a Comment
<< Home