U.S. schools should teach comprehensive, sex-positive sex education instead of abstinence (Part 2)

In response to your request to post what I believe is effective, I will compare the two options(as there are currently only two main ways in which this subject can be taught) and measure success relative to each other. With that in mind, I intend to show that contraceptive based education is more effective than, or at least not as damaging as, the alternative. My arguments are results-based and hard data focused; I look directly at per capita teen pregnancy and birth rates to form my conclusions. I also noticed that in your sources, you cite no data beyond the early nineties. I have found many flaws in your assertions based on your data, and I request you post more up to date information for future arguments Facts: (Guttmacher Institute [2013 report]; HHS studies [2007, 2008]) By the age of 17, more than half of all teenagers report having sex.[8] This is the period of time when decision making skills are the poorest, and decisions are based more on the “here and now” rather than the vague future. [6][7] Contraceptive use is up considerably; both condoms and hormonal birth control are used more frequently individually and in tandem. While neither on their own is 100% effective, studies have shown a failure of around 6% for condoms and 9-10% for hormonal contraceptives. This is when each form of contraception is used separately. Used together, chances of failure that result in unwanted pregnancy are less than .2%. The rates of dual contraceptive use are up as well. [8] My previous argument showed that the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy are the states restricted to an abstinence only education. The states with the lowest per capita rates of teen pregnancy are the states that provide comprehensive sex education. This shows that CSE does have a positive effect. [2][3] As one of my sources stated in my last post, abstinence is ineffective in its stated goal: to reduce sexual activity through abstaining from sex. It may even be counterproductive.[5] Rebuttals …many abstinence-only advocates are deeply concerned that information about sex, contraception and HIV can encourage early sexual activity among young people. Abstinence only advocates may believe this, but the department of Health and Human Services and a recent study conducted by the University of Washington has shown that this is false. Providing information on sexual activity does not encourage teenagers to have sex.[4][5] The problems that have become so entrenched in our country, such as AIDS, illegitimate births, poverty, increasing crime and the breakdown of the nuclear family, can all be attributed to the debilitating effects of a public policy that condones sex without love or responsibility. Crime is not increasing. This is a public misconception; violent crime has been decreasing since the early nineties, and is continuing to decrease today. I have no data on the breakdown of the nuclear family, but illegitimate births and the spread of HIV have all been on a downward path in recent years. Your claim regarding “sex without love and responsibility” is also misleading. The majority of teenagers who report having sexual intercourse claim that they have done so with a steady partner. [8] …abstinence and decreased sexual activity among sexually active adolescents are primarily responsible for the decline during the 1990s in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. Attributing these declines to increased contraception is not supported by the data. Contraceptive use decreases the chance of pregnancy by upwards of 94%. Use of contraceptives has increased relative to previous years. As contraceptive use has increased, pregnancy and birth rates have gone down. The decline in abortion rates is due to a lack of access, with many states restricting the rights of underage girls to obtain an abortion procedure. [10] Clarifications Huh? What’s not feasible? Abstinence has been there for many years now, so what’s not feasible? Please provide evidence how abstinence is not feasible. Perhaps “feasible” was not right word. It would be better to say that it is unreasonable to expect constant adherence to the principles of abstinence, especially when drugs and alcohol enter the picture. It is well documented that teenagers lack the ability to make accurate decisions and consider the real consequences of their actions[6][7]. That was the point of my fifth paragraph. For a significant minority of teenagers, the decision to engage in sex is not thought out, impulsive and done in the heat of the moment, often under the influence. Wherever there are teenagers seeking alcohol or drugs, it will be provided. Combine this with the effects of peer pressure and you have the conditions for a bad decision. [6][7] Points The American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Guttmacher Institute, Advocates for Youth, and many more organizations have all stated official support for comprehensive sex education. These organizations cite the failure abstinence only programs to delay or reduce sexual activity, as well as the relative success of comprehensive sex education programs in the states where such programs are part of the curriculum, as the reason for this decision. There is no evidence, at all, to suggest that providing sex education increases sexual activity.[4][5] What has been shown to encourage risky sexual activity is exposure to peer pressure, which only increases as time wears on. The effects of peer pressure and social status incentives are one of the highest motivators for developing adolescents. [6] In the medical and psychological communities, sexual activity after puberty is considered to be inevitable and unavoidable[9]. It is the position of the advocates for comprehensive sex education that teenagers need to be taught how to correctly prevent the spread of STI’s and reduce the risk for unwanted pregnancy. As I said in the beginning of this argument, I measure the success of these programs relative to each other. An absolute measure of success is vague, and has the potential for erroneous results. I can and have shown the relative benefits of CSE through the lower per capita teen birth rates in states that teach CSE compared to the higher per capita teen birth rates in states that teach abstinence only education.[2][3] Using the metric of relative success, it is clear that abstinence only education has failed[4][5]. It has been shown not to delay sex, or reduce sexual activity in any measureable way. Evidence shows that the majority of adolescents engage in sexual activity before marriage[8]. It is already happening and continuing to happen. It is morally, ethically, and socially irresponsible to not instruct these sexually inexperienced teens in proper use of contraception, which does reduce the rates of pregnancy and STI’s. Sources http://www.unicef-irc.org... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.siecus.org... http://www.mathematica-mpr.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://suite101.com... http://science.howstuffworks.com... http://www.guttmacher.org...