Is abstinence-only education better than a comprehensive sex education solution?

  • I oppose abstinence-only sex education, because empirical data shows that it is not as effective as comprehensive sex education.

    Studies have shown that students who have experienced abstinence-only programs are no less likely than peers who have received more comprehensive sex ed to engage in sexual behavior. However, unlike those peers, the abstinence-only group, having not received information about safe sex, pregnancy prevention, and STDs, has a higher risk of teenage pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases.

    Posted by: UriahDoom
  • Based on how things have been going no

    Abstinence-only education may help with some people, but based on the majority of people it has not been working out that well. Abstinence-only education may come off as a way to prevent people from having sex, but in reality it just keeps them from being educated on how to be protected and safe. Most of the times what happens is people will go off and have sex without any knowledge on the different types of protection or getting their partner tested for STDs. To some it all up, although it comes off as a good idea it actually just causes more problems than comprehensive sex education would.

  • Have to face reality

    Why would you hide the education of sex to your child?
    If you don't teach it to your child someone else will and not only that they will teach it there way in order to take advantage, if the they are the ones to be the first to introduce it to them.
    Is better as a parent to take control of comprehensive sex education, therefore you're capable to let them be aware of the consequences. Though I'm not saying you shouldn't talk to your child abstinence, of course you should. ( It will be like a push for them not to have sex until marriage). Then again you must teach them about contraceptives such as condoms, birth controls, and etc.

  • I believe comprehensive sex education is better than leaving students without all the options and consequences.

    I think comprehensive sex education makes more sense that teaching abstinence only. If telling a student not to do something always worked, we would have no cheating in schools, no kids with drug problems, and no disobedience. Obviously, this is not the case. Therefore, it is best to teach students how to protect themselves, and teach them the consequences of what may happen if they do not.

    Posted by: FoolishTracy47
  • I disagree with abstinence-only education, because it does not fully explain to youths the reasons for being sexually responsible.

    I work in the local health department, and I see youths as young as 12 years of age that comes into the STD clinic with multiple STDs and multiple sex partners. They admit that they do not know how to negotiate sex with their partners, do not understand that their partners can transmit HIV and STD to them, and do not think that these situations can happen to them. They only know that their parents do not expect them to be sexually active and, therefore, they don't give them the basic education and tools to protect themselves.

    Posted by: DraconianTroy80
  • Children are better prepared and protected if they know all of their choices.

    To me education is the most empowering thing. Kids today are under a lot of peer pressure and although you may hope your child makes the choice to abstain from sexual activity, I want my child to be fully educated should they make a choice otherwise. Better to be protected from sexually transmitted diseases and not be pregnant, than to stick your head in the sand and pretend like possibility could not exist.

    Posted by: RichJosue26
  • No, I disagree that abstinence-only education is better than a comprehensive sex education solution, because teens will just not listen to being told not to do something, and having options is a better approach.

    No, I disagree that abstinence-only education is better than a comprehensive sex education solution, because teens will just not listen to being told not to do something, and having options is a better approach. I think, if teens are told abstinence is best, many of them will be turned off by that idea and be curious about sex anyway. Being told "no" does not usually go over well, especially when it comes to curiosity about sex and teens. They will think abstinence is for punks, and do what they want to do. I think a better approach is arming people with knowledge about all things, regarding sexuality, so they can feel like they can make their own decisions, which will empower them. If teens know about the dangers and precautions of sex and all other related information, they know more than to "just avoid it", and will more likely make better decisions when it comes to their own sex life.

    Posted by: I33Iess
  • No, abstinence-only education is not better and is, in fact, worse, because it leaves the person undereducated in regards to their body.

    Abstinence-only education is the worst way to go about teaching kids about sex. While abstinence should be taught, it should only be taught as an addition to other forms of safe sexual behavior. Abstinence-only education leaves kids utterly uninformed about their body, and the consequences of unprotected sexual behavior. When people do mess up, and they will, this leads to unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

    Posted by: R4yAnych
  • Abstinence-only education is not a better solution because the education should be based on a life experience.

    Although abstinence-only seems like it might be a good idea, curiosity is human nature and teens are going to want to experiment anyway. It is more important to teach children and teens about things that they are going to use all their lives and not just something for the moment or prior to marriage.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • Abstinence-only education has never worked to prevent teenagers from having sex, therefore sex education is necessary to keep our children informed and safe.

    Many have been led to believe that teenage pregnancy and STDs are new phenomenon created by an American culture. This simply is not the case. In the past, the ones that didn't get caught were the ones that had tools to prevent pregnancy. Sex is a natural part of development. And as a teenager, the hormones in our bodies have more control than at any other time in our lives. Therefore, we need to give teens the tools to make safe, wise, educated decisions about sex.

    Posted by: daveyxh
  • No, because abstinence-only education is basically teaching ignorance.

    Comprehensive sex education instruction is far more important and beneficial than abstinence-only education. It teaches about biology, birth control, disease control, and other health issues. Abstinence is but a very small part of a much larger education requirement, and teaching only the abstinence part is restricting knowledge and information required for people to make informed and educated decisions.

    Posted by: SlyHymie

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.