Moreover, sex and reproduction is a natural part of human activity that needs to be taught in Health classes along with other natural bodily functions.
In other words, abstinence-only sex education isn't education at all. Rather, it is misinformation, and a withholding of information, that is detrimental to raising safe, healthy, and productive members of society.
Ban abstinence-only education, not only in public schools, but in private educational institutions as well. Personally speaking, I went to a Catholic high school, where the only sex education we received was "Look at the pictures of these dead babies" and "Look at all these STDs you are going to get." Does that sort of misinformation produce citizens that are appropriately equipped to become a part of society at large? I think not.
Stop teen pregnancies, skyrocketing STD rates, and the self-esteem of young citizens across the country by banning abstinence-only sex ed.
Because if kids are only getting abstinence only teachings, then they would never be prepared or ready for any type of sex. And that in itself can be a bad message to kids. Sex is a natural part of life and no I'm not saying 5 year olds need to know about sex. But kids are becoming sexually active at younger ages and that is not a good thing. So as a precaution, middle schoolers at least should learn about sex. But teachers should also motivate and push for them to be abstinent. If 5th graders are getting the period talk which is something that is a natural part of life, then learning about sex should not be any different as long as adults are pushing for abstinence while still educating about sex in general.
A good documentary listed here: http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/The_Education_of_Shelby_Knox helped me form my already certain opinion that sex education is necessary. To deny that sex will happen is ridiculous. It has always happened......Just in the past, people were more secretive about it. In the documentary, people were secretive about it, until they were pregnant teens, which was rampant. Education on how to prevent pregnancy and STDs is very, very important to growing teenagers. Even if they aren't sexually active young, it may help them when they become sexually active as adults if it's taught to them at a young age. Ignorance is not bliss.
Abstinence only sex education programs fail on every level. Children exposed to them have consistently higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs, and lose their virginity at the same average age than kids who have comprehensive sex education. The difference between the two? Children who have comprehensive sex education are far more likely to use proper contraception and protect themselves from disease, are less likely to become pregnant or get an STD, and are less likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors like unprotected sex, anal sex, and oral sex.
"Abstinence only" programs are a waste of taxpayer money, a way to try and insert one religion's beliefs into public schools.
Abstinence-only education has repeatedly been shown to not work, regardless of who is doing the study or looking into the matter. The idea that people would be harming the children of the US because of their own ideological background is atrocious, and people should provide children the advice they need to be healthy.
Yes, other states should follow the Illinois ban on abstinence-only sex education. It is a violation of the separation of church and state for state sponsored public schools to teach the religious ideal of abstinence-only sex education. States should not teach any religious ideal. Thus, other states should follow the example of Illinois.
Sex education should be all-encompassing, including abstinence. However, the entirely other end of the spectrum also needs to be known. How to bring your partner pleasure in the act of sexual intercourse can be part of the discussion. Oral sex can also be talked about in addition to STDs, contraception, abortion, teen pregnancy and condom use are all a part of sex education classes. Abstinence alone isn't the answer as teens are going to have sex and explore their hormones before they turn 16 anyway.
States with abstinence only sex ed have the highest teen pregnancy rates. It just doesn't work. You can look up polls, it shows a really compelling trend. Kids need something other than abstinence only, because it might sound good, but it just doesn't work when actually applied in real life.
Abstinence-Only does not work. It has been shown to not work. It is nothing more than forcing your morality (and usually religious views) on someone else. If we want to best prepare our children for the future, give them knowledge. Teach them how their bodies work, and help to guide them through the difficult times. Nothing good can come from enforcing ignorance.
Children need taught that sexual intimacy [SEX] is God's Gift to mankind and is intended only between a wife and her husband. Out of marriage sexual intimacy not only violates God's precepts, but exposes those involved with negative economic and health consequences, up to and including disease and death. Teaching children, especially minor children, that such a thing as "safe sex" exists outside of marriage is teaching them a lie that will likely ruin their lives if not end their lives through fatal disease. No school nor teacher should teach such a lie.
I can tell you we've got the most corrupt, dishonest, foolish group of politicians running the state imaginable. I mean, our top export is corrupt Democrats like Blagojevich, Rezko, Madigan, Emil Jones, Obama... The state went bankrupt a while ago because they have no idea what they're doing. If Illinois is doing it, well, that's a good reason to question it.
I think as long as abstinence-only sex ed is simply taught or briefly mentioned in the sexual education class is not really a huge problem. The bottom line is, adstinence is something that should not be preached or felt like it is being forced upon a young teen. It is simply an option.
Banning abstinence only may be going a bit too far. I do believe that having full sexual education is the better way to go but to ban abstinence only is extreme to me. It should be at the discretion of the school district rather than the government deciding what is best.