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

Mr. Debater, you want US schools to teach sex education to students because you believe that it is effective in reducing unwanted pregnancies and preventing the spread of STDs; however, you failed to explain what is “effective” in this debate, you should show certain measure that would support the effectiveness of sex education, not simply stating its noble purpose. You have to show me real evidence that shows the effectiveness of sex education, but you didn’t. Facts (abstinenceworks.org) 1. Comprehensive sex education purports to promote both abstinence and condom use, yet we see no evidence that school-based CSE programs are effective at improving both of these outcomes. 2 School-based CSE programs have shown no evidence of effectiveness at decreasing teen pregnancy or STDs, or increasing consistent condom use. 3 Only a few school-based CSE programs have increased any type of condom use (e.g., at first or last intercourse) for a significant period of time. 4 Four school-based abstinence programs have produced broad-based and sustained increases in the percentage of youth who remain sexually abstinent. Rebuttals: In conclusion, comprehensive sex education is the only reasonable course of action if we want to prevent and reduce teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs. I will concede that abstinence is the best way to truly prevent teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs. Thank you for conceding Condoms and other contraceptives do fail, and nothing can be guaranteed to work correctly 100% of the time. But while abstinence is the best option, it is almost completely unfeasible. Again, thank you for saying that abstinence is the best option. 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. We live in a highly sexualized society where there is constant social and cultural pressure on teens to have sex, and often. Don’t believe me? Then you’ve been living under a rock. I don’t want to be harsh, but this is a serious problem: very few things are as dangerous as a lack of knowledge. Ad hominem! Teaching them sex education will only increase their desire to have sex, and since you said that there is no 100% effective contraceptive, then it’s like encouraging them to have sex without a full guaranty that they are safe. This is the real dangerous scenario. But sex is a powerful biological drive, even if you don’t ever want to have children. The best way to reasonably prevent the spread of HIV is with condoms. How can it be the best way to prevent the spread of HIV when you said that there is no 100% accurate contraceptive- no guaranty of safety. But in abstinence, there is no chance of failure, it is 100% effective in preventing the spread of HIVs. Points There are many different groups across the United States advocating for abstinence-only sex education in the schools. They include Concerned Women for America, the Eagle Forum, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (MISH), the National Coalition for Abstinence Education, and STOP Planned Parenthood International. These and other proponents of abstinence-only education argue primarily that sex before marriage is inappropriate or immoral and that abstinence is the only method which is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and STIs.1 Many such groups emphasize that condoms are not fool-proof in preventing pregnancy or STIs, and that sexual activity outside marriage can result in “serious, debilitating, and sometimes, deadly consequences.”2 In addition, many abstinence-only advocates are deeply concerned that information about sex, contraception and HIV can encourage early sexual activity among young people.63 These advocates credit the decrease in teenage pregnancy largely to the advancement of the abstinence-only message.3 An article on the Concerned Women for America web site states that “[t]his is not simply an issue of morality, but a matter of public health. 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. … As research clearly indicates, America is not suffering from a lack of knowledge about sex, but an absence of values.”4 Abstinence-only proponents point to studies concluding that the abstinence-only education message has played a central role in the decline of adolescent sexual activity, and related negative health outcomes, over the last decade. One study reports that “…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.”5 Sources: [1] Concerned Women for America. Abstinence: Why Sex is Worth the Wait [Internet]. July 1998. Available at: www.cwfa.org/library/family/1998-07_pp_abstinence.shtml. Accessed October 16, 2001. [2] Ibid. [3] Abstinence Clearinghouse. Data confirms that the abstinence message, not condoms, is responsible for the reduction in births to teens [Internet]. May 17, 1998. Available at: www.abstinence.net/ArticleDetail.cfm?ArticleID=168. Accessed October 16, 2001. [4] Concerned Women for America. Abstinence: Why Sex is Worth the Wait [Internet]. July 1998. Available at: www.cwfa.org/library/family/1998-07_pp_abstinence.shtml. Accessed October 16, 2001 [5] Jones JM, Toffler W, Mohn JK, et al. The declines in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates in the 1990s: What factors are responsible? A special report commissioned by The Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils [Internet]. January 7, 1999. Available at: www.abstinence.net/ArticleDetail.cfm?ArticleID=224. Accessed October 16, 2001.