Why are we funding abstinence-only programs in schools when these programs don't prevent teen pregnancy?

Question

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7351/1426

Edit: Do you people not read? "Traditional" sex education programs are also called "abstinence-plus" - they promote abstinence as the only 100% way to avoid pregnancy and disease, but they also teach effective contraceptive use.

They do not promote sex. Quite the opposite, in fact, if you read the article.

Answer 1

Right now the religious conservatives, unfortunately, have more political pull especially among the southern and mid-western "bible-belt" states. They set up policies that threaten to pull educational funding if anything other than an "Abstinence-Only" program is taught in school. The rest of us pay to fund education, but the policies and political hacks are the ones that redirect the money into these religious-based programs.

Abstinence-Only programs should not be in public schools. The purpose of public schools are to teach an educate students with knowledge, not feed them partial and erronious information to keep them ignorant. Public schools should teach proper sex education information on puberty changes, venarial diseases, pregnancy, and safe sex (INCLUDING the abstinence option) so that students have a decent knowledge of what's really out there. The course should be voluntary and parents that don't want their child in a sex ed class should opt-out rather than trying to keep everyone else's kids ignorant. The only school that should have an Abstinence-only program is a private school or religious school.

Public schools are meant to provide knowledge that will allow students to become potentially productive members of society. How that knowledge is used is determined by the student's personality the same education could be a stepping stone to become a doctor, engineer, police officer, criminal mastermind, or terrorist.

Teenagers are going to have sex or abstain from sex depending on the relationship with thier parents, not what the school teaches them. If a student has taken a sex ed class at least they will be prepared when the time comes, but a student that has only an "Abstinence-Only" course will never be prepared no matter how old they get.

Answer 2

Because we are a purtanistic society and cant disassociate ourselves enough to realize that kids have sex and if we dont want them to have children then we need to educate them. Abstinence only programs dont work, full sex education will work but only if it is complete. No one wants kids having sex but realistically for centuries women have been having children in the teen years, now childhood lasts until college is over and so we have a lot of problems with it.

Answer 3

Because it IS an option and should be presented as such. Between teen pregnancy and STDs, don't you think it's responsible to tell teens that they don't HAVE to have sex? They didn't teach abstinence when I was in school, but I don't think that was a good thing. ALL options, including abstinence, should be presented so that people are fully informed. I realize it should be obvious, the benefits of abstinence (can't get pregnant, no STDs, the emotional baggage that goes along w/having sex before you're ready) but they aren't. For pity's sake - we live in a society where RV manufacturers have to tell people that "cruise control" isn't auto-pilot - I don't think we should trust "common sense".

Answer 4

Nothing it's going to stop teen pregnancy. We can teach them birth control and abstinence but that isn't going to alleviate the rates of teen pregnancy. Abstinence doesn't work and neither does birth control. I think schools should just warn the children of the danger and encouraged parents to talk to them. Other than that, there is nothing else that can solve this problem. Teenagers are going to have sex but it's up to them to use birth control.

Answer 5

Seriously i think abstinance programs.. and any others like them are a total waste of time.Like health class teaching about std's and aids.. and all this drug awareness nonsence. If kids want to have sex and do drugs they are going to do it and thats that. No program at school is going to change their mind.

Answer 6

It's a bone being thrown to the lunatic, fundamentalists so they continue on as the foot soldiers of the neo-con wing of the Republican Party. Actually, it's quite a creative strategy. Offer the nitwits a program that makes them feel that they're being taken seriously while insuring that the issue (teen sex) being used to manipulate them doesn't go away.

Answer 7

First of all, would you rather they hand out condoms and tell the kids its OK to mess around?? Abstinence is not being taught in all schools. Many schools have a group who sign pledges not to have sex until they are married, but the ACLU throws a fit and says, " its not separation of church and state.

If a kid isn't having sex, they cant get pregnant. If they have a bunch of condoms, they will thing sex is OK at any age. You figure it out, which would you prefer.

Answer 8

It's so funny that people think teen pregnancy is a new thing. It isn't, we just don't send girls off to the convent when they are pregnant. To answer the question, it is because some republicans felt that children who made mistakes deserved to get pregnant or die from AIDS. That's what they get for not doing the right thing. They believe the same thing for women...

Answer 9

HAHA I loved those pledges they had us sign. I'll wait till marriage it said. I'm not in my twenties and don't know anyone who waited until marriage to have sex.

Conservatives are not living in reality. We've been teaching abstinence for the last 2000 years. Condoms work better.

Answer 10

I think abstinence should be a choice not an obligation.

"No abstinence means promiscuity" Why everything must be extremes?