Introduction
Background for your chosen topic
At present a debate exists in United States over preferring Comprehensive Sex Education or Abstinence only education strategies and which one is more beneficial for youth in school. Abstinence is considered a fundamental part of comprehensive sex education, thought they are characterized as polar opposite of each other. In 2002, the teen pregnancy rate in United States was significantly higher in comparison to other western nations.
Example: the rate of US pregnancies was 7.5% or 75 in every 1,000 which is substantially higher than other Western European nations which reported the number 14-23 for every 1000 teen girls (Kirby, 2007).
The Opposition
Currently, United States is ranked number one in developed nations in both STDs and teenage pregnancies. To reduce the rates of high teenage pregnancies and STDs United States government funds programs for abstinence-only sex education for more 10 years now. Though there is public controversy over this investment and its success due to the high rate of teenage pregnancies and there are doubts if any such program should be continued in future.
Strengths and Weakness of AOE
In 1996, Section 510 of Title V of the Social Security Act mentioned a passage which mandated the United States government to fund state-level program for AOE (abstinence-only-until-marriage education) in their public schools. There are advantages of AE program which serves as motivational and instructional medium as it has an exclusive purpose to teach psychological, social and health benefits from abstaining from any sexual activity. This program also teaches all school age children that abstaining from sexual activity outside of marriage is an expected standard. It also teaches that abstinence is the only way for avoiding STDs, health related issues and pregnancies out of wedlock. In addition, students are also taught that a faithful monogamous relation in marriage is an expected standard for sexual activity and any sexual activity outside marriage leads to harmful physical and psychological effects. Finally, the AOE program teaches that child bearing out of wedlock will have harmful effects on the child, the parents and the society, it teaches students how to reject any sexual advance and increased vulnerability to sex caused by usage of drugs and alcohol and self sufficiency has to be achieved before engaging in sexual activity. In addition to these guidelines and benefits of AOE the federal law forbids the schools which receive AOE funding to teach the methods of contraception and emphasize of their failure rates (Jeffries et al, 2010).
Despite all these advantages there is a disjuncture between the local and nationalized agenda of AOE. This is due to understanding issues which is brought by the local organizations which focus on abstinence education. The nationalized movement is focused on disclosing issues like scientific legitimacy and morality for framing AOE. The local practitioners fail in embracing the frame of scientific morality; rather they express substantial ambivalence to their commitment towards AOE. They are also resistant to few major provisions of federal legislations but they are quite committed to their work (Hess, 2010).
Claim: Comprehensive Sex Education
With the high rates of teen pregnancies and STDs in the United States, many youth serving organizations and schools have developed many programs for Sex and HIV/STD education for reducing the rate of teen pregnancies and STDs. Comprehensive sex education programs which encouraged both contraceptive use and abstinence did not lead to increased sexual behavior and positive impact was seen as 2/3 of them was successful delaying sex, increase use of contraceptive/condom and reduce the number and frequency of sex partners. These programs are highly likely to change the behavior and be effective than AOE. Other kinds of interventions include effective programs but showed weakened evidence. CSE is a very comprehensive, intensive and long-term project which had the most dramatic results in reduction of rate of teenage pregnancies which was reported by female teen by around ½ for 3 years (Kirby, 2007). The advocates of CSE possess a different philosophy on the issue of sex education. They believe that sex education should be built of knowledge which has been scientifically generated. Due to this fact the advocates of CSE are in opposition to the AOE program. The supporters of CSE cite the usage of methodologies which are biased by AOE practitioners for benefits of teaching AOE to adolescents. They also criticize the curricula of AOE for presenting distorted and false information about few gender stereotypes like Men aren’t capable of any emotional intimacy. It is not a surprise that advocates of CSE oppose the religious overtones which appear in programs of AOE as they might result in feeling of embarrassment and shame by students. The most solid critique is the failure of AOE programs in delaying sexual activity debut, reducing STD incidences and decreasing frequency of sexual partners (Jeffries et al, 2010).
Warrants of AOE and CSE
Researchers have found that CSE programs have resulted in 43% increased use of condoms and a 40% increase in use of contraceptives. Some studies have helped investigators recognize that teenage pregnancies could be reduced by increasing the use of contraceptives of reducing the sexual activity. Some findings have suggested that CSE programs are more likely to have a positive influence rather than a negative influence. Some studies like ‘Becoming a Responsible Teen’ lead to increased rate of abstinence, reduced the frequency and number of sexual partners, reduced unprotected sexual activity and increased use of condoms. Also, the intervention of ‘Safer Choices’ delayed the initiation of sexual activities in Hispanic youth and led to increased used of contraceptive among both girls and boys from all ethnicities. Finally, the use of CSE program indicates that it is possible to increase the use of condoms and reduce sexual activity (Kirby, 2007).
The AOE proponents claim the exclusion of ‘abstinence-only’ from the CSE program will fail in long term. They suggest that AOE is the only solution to solve the issue of teenage pregnancies as it helps in delaying the sexual activity debut and maintain positive attitude to the issue of abstaining from sex. These advocates of AOE believe that by teaching the topics of safer sex to students will compromise their ability to abstain from sex and also encourages the act of teenage sexual activity. Above all, the endorsement of AOE curricula is based on the belief of abstaining from sex until marriage as morally preferred over the act of pre-marital sex (Jeffries et al, 2010).
Common Ground
This political divide between both these programs will remain prevalent in coming years. The significant role in this case is of teachers who provide sex education to students. The instructions of Abstinence should not be ‘abstinence-only’ as teachers should teach the instructions to safer sex and contraception and CSE should not underscore the importance of
Abstinence in their program rather gives it an important role as an preventive act especially for pre-teens and younger children. Both these programs have their own measures and importance in the field of education as both have been found capable of delivering results and reducing the rates of teenage pregnancies (Jeffries et al, 2010).
Conclusion
The issue of Teen pregnancy has important influence on the education of teenagers. The reasons for these high rates of teenage pregnancies among urban youth are multidimensional and complex. Nonetheless, educational programs taught in school have the potential for helping teenagers in understanding the skills and knowledge for postponing sex, practicing safer sex, avoiding unplanned pregnancies and in case a teen pregnancy happens understanding and ensuring completion of high school education and pursue further education. Another advantage of teaching and education students in school of the harms of teenage pregnancies is development of moral compass in them which helps them become more intelligent and knowledgeable adults.
Works Cited
Jeffries, W. B., Dodge. F. B., and Michael, R. "Beyond Abstinence-only: Relationships between Abstinence Education and Comprehensive Topic Instruction." Sex Education 10.2 (2010): 171-85. Print.
Hess, A. "Hold the Sex, Please: The Discursive Politics between National and Local Abstinence Education Providers." Sex Education 10.3 (2010): 251-66. Print.
Basch, C. E. "Teen Pregnancy and the Achievement Gap Among Urban Minority Youth." Journal of School Health 81.10 (2011): 614-18. Print.
Stanger-Hall, Kathrin F., and David W. Hall. "Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S." PLOS One (2011): n. pag. Print.
Kirby, D. “Abstinence, Sex, and STD/HIV Education Programs for Teens: Their Impact on Sexual Behavior, Pregnancy, and Sexually Transmitted Disease”. Annual Review of Sex Research 18.1 (2007): 143-177. Print
Santelli, J.S. “Abstinence-Only Education: Politics, Science, and Ethics”. Social Research 73.3 (2006): 835-858. Print
