Opinion Question
Argument
Posted by:

NO!

  No, abstinence should not be taught in school. Instead, SAFE SEX should be taught in school. Come on, It's the 21st Century, most kids aren't going to engage in abstinence anymore, It's outdated. Teach safe sex so that students will know the precautions to take when they decide It's time to engage in sexual activity.
Rafe says2013-09-22T00:38:46.293
If you teach safe sex only, aren't you taking the choice away from them?
Jingram994 says2013-09-22T05:10:37.560
No, because they still have the option to not have sex. Whereas teaching only abstinence takes away the knowledge necessary to have safe sex.
Rafe says2013-09-22T13:39:52.230
This is not about "abstinence only" but presenting them with both methods, so they can choose. How will they know they can abstaing, if all they hear is "have safe sex"?
I will present you wil another point. There are several transport methods. Let's say, walking and bicycles. But you not teach your children how to balance themselves in a biclycle, because you think walking should be enough. Would you say they are still free to choose either one?
Jingram994 says2013-09-22T14:55:30.953
Except that's basically abstinence-only education, rather than safe-sex education, that your bike analogy describes. That argument advocates deliberately withholding information/training, rather than giving it. Like if you don't teach children any sort of sex education, are they still free to choose? Your analogy simply does not equate to my argument.

You fail to recognize that teaching abstinence as 'sex education' only works if you withhold information on how one would go about 'doing' safe sex. Otherwise, that entirely defeats the purpose of teaching them not to have sex. Even then, it still doesn't work. You also fail to recognize that 'teaching abstinence' is not really 'teaching' as such, but essentially just saying 'don't do this'.

Even if one teaches safe sex, there is never any implication or obligation for them to engage in sex at all. It is simply giving them the information required to have intercourse in a safe, mature and responsible manner, should they *choose* to do so.

Like how teaching your child to ride a bicycle doesn't then mean that you expect them to ride their bike at every opportunity, or to not walk anywhere ever again. It is nothing more than giving them the skills to ride safely should they *choose* to do so.
Rafe says2013-09-22T15:05:00.273
You are missinterpreting me. In my example, I supported we should teach them both to walk and to ride a bicycle. If you terach them only one method of transport, you are taking the chooice away from them, along with their freedom.
By teaching safe sex only, you are preventing them from being truly free, as they will not know they also have the option of abstaining from sex. Their only option will be engaging in it.
In teaching safe sex only, you give them one option only. Unless abstinence is taught in their homes, wich is not likely if their parents also were taught safe sex only, they will never learn they have another option.
Jingram994 says2013-09-22T15:15:17.220
Not true. What kind of idiot would assume that they *have* to have sex after being taught how to do it safely, and explicitly told of the dangers of doing it unsafely? My point is that 'teaching' abstinence is similar to showing a child a bicycle, and then saying that they shouldn't ever ride it until they're 18 and have their drivers license. It's not 'teaching' something separate, it's just saying to specifically *not* do something.

Your basic argument, that in being taught to have safe sex they then don't realize they are allowed to *not* have sex, is completely ridiculous.
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)