No

Abstinence Saves Taxpayers Money

Emily:Well, teaching that abstinence is the only option is not going to lower taxes. You would have to change the teens themselves to lower taxes. You can't make teens not want sex. It's going to happen no matter what any teacher in any classroom chooses to tell them. Plus, saying that children of teen mothers are more likely to become teen mothers themselves is like failing them without even giving them a chance. Those kids will make their own choices, free of what their parents chose. No kid that I've ever met wants to end up just like their parents. You cannot blame a failing economy on the people who have a chance at saving it!

 Hayden: Teaching abstinence-only in schools is not going to lower the taxes because the students are not going to change their minds over what their health teacher says. I will admit that some students would listen to the abstinence-only message, but lets face it a majority won't. Thats why comprehensive sex ed should also be taught, so that the people that are not going to practice abstinence know how to protect themselves and slim down the chances of getting pregnant. This would lower the price of underage pregnancy.

Rachael:

@Hay - Teehee.  "Lower the price of underage pregnancy"  I thought it was funny... 

@The topic in general here - What you're saying is that PREGNANCY costs tax payers money, NOT SEX. While you are saying that ABSTINENCE saves tax payers money, then you could just as well say that CONTRACEPTIVES save tax payers money. From the economic standpoint, pregnancy is not a valid argument against teen abstinence when a 'Contraceptive' Sex-Ed could be taught in schools

Brittany:

This argument contradicts itself

You are arguing that less teen pregnancy saves taxpayers money by requiring less to be put into welfare programs that young parents often utilize, but then arguing that teens should not be taught about birth control methods in school, but instead only be taught abstinence. By not teaching teens (the ones who are choosing to have sex anyway, regardless of what they learn in school) how to protect themselves against unintended pregnancy, the teen pregnancy rate will INCREASE and therefore the need for tax dollars to fund programs such as WIC and welfare will also increase. Preventing teens from learning about contraception will only cause them to have sex without it. The way to reduce the number of teen pregnancies is to educate sexually active teens on how to PREVENT PREGNANCY.

Teens are at Risk for STDs, Unintended Pregnancy and HIV

Hayden: I agree with this. If kids are not taught the safe way, who knows what this world will become. Everyone would end up with a disease or a lot more babies. Even though some kids will pertake in the abstinence-only path, others will not. The ones that don't should know how to keep themselves healthy. Teaching the safe way would most likely lower the rate of unintended teen pregnancy.

• Kurtis

• Lucas

Rachael:

@ Kurtis:  You are really a bright fellow, you are. "Teaching abstinence-only sex-ed is like teaching republican-only government classes"  Very nice.

@The topic in general here: So let us say, that a teen has decided not to engage in sexual activity until after marriage. What happens when they are married and don't know the DANGERS in partaking in sex.  Even when you're married you can still get hurt from sex.  There are things that everyone should know and be able to take care of.  Such as having their partner tested for sexually transmitted diseases and knowing how to prevent the spread of such etc.

Hayden V.

Although in a perfect world, abstinence only could be taught and all high school kids would listen. This is not even close to the case, however. More and more teens are becoming sexually active at a younger and younger age. They must be taught about the risks and responsibilities of making these choices. These teens must know that if they are not careful they could get an STI or become pregnant. They also need to be taught to practice safe-sex, if they are choosing to avoid the abstinence only way of life. Teaching abstinence only is just not a practical way of approaching this situation.

Caitlin: In the article " What the American Public Wants" there was a line in there that I believe was a hasty generalization. The author wrote that it is ok for adults to partake in sexual activity because it has meaning, However, with spiraling divorce rates, I see it that even adults are losing the meaning of sex, marriage, and love. Here is the address to my Head to Head argument: www.opposingviews.com/comments/maybe-in-a-pefect-world

Teens Want A Strong Abstinence Message

Kurtis 

Shannon

CaitlinVogelHassenplug (Just moved it to correct argument-William)

Rachael:

@Kurtis:  You know, I wonder about that all the time.  "Where do these stats. come from?" 

@Shannon:  Loved your analogy about the police officer. 

I would just like to point out that this argument is from a purely CHRISTIAN stand point which is understandable seeing as Lifeway is a Christian organization, but the topic is "Should 'Abstinence-Only' Sex-Ed be Taught in Public Schools?" In PUBLIC schools. Perhaps CHRISTIANS should be taught 'Abstinence-Only' programs, but who says it is alright to push your beliefs on others? What of those who have grown up in a family of a different religion, or even no religion? Who are we to tell them what is wrong and what is right?

We live in AMERICA, an America where we say that "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." And as such a country, we should not be allowed to decide what is RIGHT and what is WRONG for anyone other than ourselves.

Hayden. @ Kurtis...I agree with all of what you said. Statistics depend on the auidence that is asked, so those people could have been all students that practice abstinence. The people who become depressed after haveing prematrial sex are probably more depressed because they thought they were 'in love.' I also agree when you say that a person's enviornment, gender, and religon effect the decison a person makes. A person makes the decison for themselves, unless of course they are taken advantage of. Because a person makes the decison for themselves, abstinence-only sex-ed shouldn't be taught. It shouldn't be taught because a person needs to know how to take care of themselves.

Caitlin: Although I do agree that abstinence is not the most effective way of teaching students, I do agree with Lifeway's article that parents want a strong abstinence message. Parents always want to coddle their little "babies" and protect them no matter how old they are.  It is that instinct they have had when they raised us from infancy. They have kept us safe when we were afraid of the closet monster, kissed our "boo boos", and and stood up for us when we were in trouble. Although, our concerns and problems are much larger as teenagers, parents still have that protection mode on to keep us from any possible trouble. For more info here is my link to Opposing views: www.opposingviews.com/comments/the-child-s-well-being-is-a-parent-s-concern

Abstinence Education Works

Alex A.  

Rachael:  Programs such as “True Love Waits,” in which teens pledge to be sexually abstinent till marriage, have good intentions, but 88% of teenagers who took such pledges admitted to having engaged in sexual intercourse before marriage.  So... "Abstinence Education Works?"  Hmm...

Hayden: Not all the kids that take the true love waits oath is going to keep it. I mean seriously. I have seen people take that pledge and turn around and break it. Some people just take it because they are thinking, "what will I look like if I don't take this pledge?" So I mean its not like everybody takes it seriously. Abstinence sex-ed is good, just not abstinence only sex-ed.

Caitlin: I have even seen a site (link above on my head2head page) that said that teenagers who take the pledges are the teenagers are most likely to have sex without contraception because they are uneducated about the use of birth control methods available. This means teens are not necessarily following through with their pledge of chastity. Why not reduce the risk of pregnancy and teach teens sex ed that emphasizes the importance of being abstinent, but also include methods of protection for those who do not want to be abstinent.

Kristie Abstinence-Only sex-ed is like telling only one side of the story.  As Hayden said, a pledge is no guarantee that someone will not engage in pre-marital sex.  Wouldn't it be better that everyone knew all the facts so that they do not make stupid decisions if they do have sex?

Caitlin: Yes, that method of teaching would certainly protect ALL students from possible harm. Those who wish to abstinent should also know about protection and how to protect themselves from a life changing incident that could happen. Learning about sex and protection is part of growing up and accepting the natural functions of the human body.  

Hayden V: @ Hayden. I think you bring up a very good point about the abstinence only plede.  I have also seen kids promise something and then break the promise almost right after, same thing with a pledge.  Just because someone says something doesn't always mean that it is true and that they will follow through with it.  I think abstinence education is very valuable and needs to be taught to teens to try to keep them from having sex before marriage,  but that cannot be the only form of education.  The teens need to be taught about the risks of being sexually active and contraceptives to use so that if they do choose to have pre-marital sex they can at least be smart about it.

Hayden V

If teens would listen to abstinence only programs then I would have no objection to schools teaching only abstinence. The problem, however, is that as said in this article 88% of teens will have sex before marriage. This is a clear indicator that teaching abstinence only will not work. If teens are going to have sex anyway wouldn't you want them well informed on how to use contraceptives and how to stay safe from STD's?

More Is Less

Emily:   Just because schools won't find teachers to teach the course correctly, doesn't mean the course doesn't work. These schools are just lazy. If the teachers don't teach right, it's there own fault and no one else's. Again, if parents aren't informed, that is their fault. I'm sure the school would be happy to tell them what was being taught if they bothered to ask. You cannot blame out-of-wedlock pregnancies on a class, just like you cannot attribute all the people who make it to marriage to the class they took. It is a personal choice not homework. Also, if a health teacher is embarrassed talking about sex, why are they teaching that class?

Caitlin:   Although I do understand where you are coming from, I believe it is a hasty generalization to say that "schools are lazy" when you are blaming the teachers for not teaching the class right. If it is truly the schools's fault, it's not the teacher's fault too. Teaching a sex ed class is a very senstive subject to talk about in a public school setting, and teachers have to closely abide to the school and state curriculum.

  Teachers follow a set of guidelines from the school. They just don't teach whatever they deem as right because if something was said that was seeb as innapropriate, a student may complain to a parent and get the teacher in very serious trouble.

Rachael: 

@Catlin: And that's what I hate so much about "The System."  You can't ever do what you think is right.  Nope.  You have to cover your butt and stay out of trouble.

@ Hayden: But alas... Red Herring.

@ Rachael: You are absolutely right about that. My parents are both teachers and they have to be extremely careful because students tell their parents everything. And if a parent takes offense, the teacher is basically crucified for teaching their opinion if it is not agreed with by a parent. Parents tell all of their bitchy opinions to the school administration, and the teacher pays hell for it. Teachers have one of the most difficult jobs in the world. They must be able to teach and educate without overstepping their ground. Sex ed is one of those very sensitive grounds where if you say the wrong thing, the sensitive nature of the material is so easy to go against a teacher.

  Especially because the problem is that an adult is teaching about sex to a student, a very easy way to be charged for harrassment these days. A teacher has to approach the material very seriously and maturely. In a way, if I were a sex ed teacher, I would be afraid to teach the material because of the fear of doing or saying something wrong.  As a parent of two teachers, I have heard horror stories about teachers getting in trouble.

Less Sex, More Contraception

Hayden:I agree with this. Abstinence and protection should be taught at schools. Because some kids will listen to the abstinence message, and some will not. Students should be taught how to take care of themselves if they decide to have sex because in the world we live in more and more kids are deciding not to practice abstinence. Since the teen pregnancy rate has gone down, this teaching seems effective.

• Haley
• Marly

Rachael:  When I got sex-ed, my teacher didn't take a stand point on either way. She explained about the boy parts and the girl parts. She told us about STDs and the methods with which to avoid them, and she said the best way was abstinence but also told us about condoms and such. It was an informative course without pushing the matter either way.

@ Rachael

   I liked my sex ed class because although she told us that abstinence was the 100% safe way, she told us the proper ways to protect both the male and female from possible harm.  And I think that is the way that will benefit both teens. if abstinence were the main method of teaching, teens would not abide. Not in a public school especially.

    In a Christian school, the meassage would be more strongly an abstinence education because of biblical and strict negative feelings towards premarital sex. But a teacher should not shove the Bible down a public school student's throat. They do not have the same point of view as a Christian school student. Some public school students may be Atheist for all you know. Schools need to overall protect their students with REALITY in mind. Kids are going to have sex. They need to stop dreaming in  a fairytale world that kids are going to not have sex. Humans are sexual beings, and sex is a very natural act. Schools cannot kill that natural instinct, they should learn to protect their students.

Hayden: @emarI don't think the reason kids are becomeing more expirenced at a younger age is because they are being taught about sex to early. I think that the media is showing a bigger influence to kids. The media doesn't really seem to care about the innocence of younger kids. For example,PG movies when I was little meant a clean no cussing movie with maybe a little kiss, but now PG movies even have the word "bitch" in with a little more heated make out scenes. This also has to do what the parents allow their kids to watch and listen to.

Comprehensive Sex Ed is Best Tool to Achieve Goals

Hayden V

"Several comprehensive sexuality education programs have been demonstrated, through rigorous evaluation, to delay the onset of sexual intercourse, reduce the frequency of sexual intercourse, reduce the number of sex partners, and/or increase the use of condoms and/or other forms of contraception among teens"

Doesn't this exert from the article describe the basis of what sex education should be teaching teens, other than abstinence only? Some teens are going to have sex no matter how much you preach abstinence or waiting until you are married. If that is the case, the goal is then to decrease pregnancies, STI's, and the number of partners. Teaching about contraceptives and other ways to stay safe seems to be the only logical way to do this.

Parents want a strong abstience message 

Kurtis

Lucas

Hayden: If a parent wants their child to have a strong abstinence base then they should be the ones installing that in their child. The children that have had that moral put in their life at a young age are probably more likely to obey it then somebody that learns about it at school. The kids that want to do it are going to find a way to do it.

Rachael:  "A Zogby International poll of U.S. parents also found that abstinence education is the preferred approach for the sex education of youth in America."  

If I am not mistaken here... as parents... these parents presumably already know about sex.  ...right?  And of course parents don't want there little darlings out getting down every night, but that's their duty to teach them not to, as Hay said.  But if the parents fail at that, would they rather that the heroic public school system taught them about condoms or have their fourteen-year-old daughter to be pregnant with twins and will be living with them till she forty (at the youngest) because her baby's daddy ran off?  Hmmmm?  Please, rents.  Have a little intelligence.

Emily: I see kids everyday who have no clue what's coming when they decide to "get down." There is definitely no stopping teens now. We need to know how to protect ourselves, not just hear teachers preach to us about everything we do wrong. Plus, if parents want their teens to change so bad, they should talk to them themselves, not leave it to some teacher, who's just interested in these kids from 8 to 3.

Hayden V

even though parents want it doesnt mean it will be true

Abstinence Education is Mis-Named 

William

Hayden: All the things listed under what is taught in 'abstinence-only' sex-ed seems to have nothing to do with sex? I mean I see how they might relate but thats not really sex-ed. It is true that a child under 18 doesnt have the capacity to raise a child *while some might*, but this is why they need to be taught how to not get pregunant. 

William: I think Teen-Aid is trying to make people think that comprehensive programs just hand out contraceptives, rather than teaching about risks and benefits.  The last paragraph is unclear, but I think they try to use this assertion to say that comprehensive programs are conducing towards statutory rape, which clearly they are not.  Any program that is truly comprehensive will give teenagers accurate and complete information on their options, so that they can make an informed decision, hopefully the wise one.  Teen-Aid brings up Planned Parenthood and the no-questions-asked dispensing of contraceptives, implying that the teenagers might have sex with predators, but it is irrelevant—dispensing does not involve teaching, nor should it, because if someone is seeking contraceptives, then, chances are, they intend to have sex.  If the reverend is standing by to preach fire and brimstone to anyone who gets a condom, no one is going to go through the trouble.  They’ll just have unprotected sex.  Now, addressing Teen-Aid’s contention, wouldn’t it be better for teens to have protected sex with predators than unprotected sex?  Even in horrible situations like that, the answer is clear.

Abstinence Education Works

• Lucas

Abstinence Education

Works Anywhere

• Kurtis

Haley's comments 

Sex Education Programs Are Not Enough 

• Haley
• Lucas

Rachael:  "Moreover, teen pregnancy and sexual activity is rooted in broad social phenomena, such as popular culture, the images portrayed in the entertainment media, and the values articulated by parents and other adults."

That really gets on my nerves.  Okay.  No.  It is not "the media."  Okay?  There were teens messing around in the 80's and there were teens messing around in the 70's and there were teens messing around in the 60's and 50's and 40's and 30's and 20's!!!  You know why everyone SAYS that there's more teen sex now?  Because its not as tabooed.  That's it.  We have these lovely 'freedoms of speech' so it's okay to talk about it now.  There was sex in Victorian times.  There was sex in Medival times.  Sure!  Even with all that lovely strict religious upbringing, the kitchen boy was still doing the milkmaid behind the haystack in the barn. 

Caitlin: @ Rachael

  I  do agree with you when you say that messing around has happened throughout the history of man despite the time period. The human population would not exist if there was not any debauching occurring to say in the least.

  However,  today the media I believe has a large influence on teenagers and their sexuality. Through many tv shows, sex is seen positively and is graphically shown, and is much less seen as a taboo in our day and age.  Going back in time, the act of sex was symbolized by something else, and they did not show the sex act itself, where as today the entire act and the scene of post coitalization is seen as well with both lovers star struck from the effects of their carnal escapade.

   Music today talks mainly about sex, and all of the benefits involved, which allows kids to idol the singer and what the artist values. Today, sex is seen  more socially acceptable because it is freely incorporated in the media. Since even young children are exposed to the media and watch tv and listen to music, they become exposed about sex much earlier. consequently, the media does influence teenagers today negatively.

Hayden V: @ Caitlin.  I agree with you.  From an early age kids are exposed to things in the media and through music.  Sex used to be viewed as more sacred than it is today and it also used to be a very touchy subject.  Many people used to not even talk about sex in public and now you can hear many people discussing sex in the hallways at school.  It has definitely become more socially acceptable in America and this could be a negative effect on teens because they choose to be sexually active at an earlier age.

Should 'Abstinence-Only' Sex-Ed be Taught in Public Schools?

Alex A.

What the American Public Wants

Hayden: I agree with this argument. The problem America has with abstinence-only sex-ed is the only. America is not against abstinence. This is why there should be a mix of information and an abstinence message. That way the bases r covered.

ABSTINENCE COSTS TAX PAYERS MONEY

Sarah C: 

I am definitely confused by this article. Like someone else commented previously, the article does not address the issue at hand, and the pregnancies cost tax papers money not teaching contraceptive methods other than abstinence. I think this is another way for this author to try and twist the truth to readers who are still on the fence. And in my opinion if the actually teaching of safe sex methods was more expensive then just teaching abstinence it would would probably compensate for the cost of the pregnancies, because if those women were taught the safe sex then they would not be in that situatuon!

Abstinence-Only Programs Don't Work

• Lucas

Abstinence Education is Mis-Named

Kurtis