Thesis: Public school systems in the U.S. should adopt an abstinence only sex education curriculum.
Reason: The current comprehensive approach of sexual education is not work- teen pregnancy and STD levels are a huge problem among today’s youth.
Evidence:
• Congress sees a clear problem with the existing sex education: in 1996, Congress passed a welfare reform law allocating $50 million annually to states offering abstinence only sex education. These funds cannot be used for programs that endorse birth control, but rather programs that show that sex outside of marriage is likely to result in “harmful physical and psychological effects.” And avoidance of extramarital sex “is the expected standard” of human behavior. In May 2002, congress voted to extend this provision for an additional 5 years.
• Teen pregnancy is much more prevalent in the U.S. than any other industrialized nation.
• Three million teenagers become infected with an STD each year.
• Concerned Women for America “... America is not suffering from a lack of knowledge about sex, but an absence of values.
• Gonorrhea and Chlamydia are more common among teenagers than adults.
• Simply increasing knowledge about sex does not teach students to make responsible decisions
• Over 1 million teenage girls become pregnant every year
• Current program focuses on self defeating idea of “teens are going to do it anyway”
Reason: The abstinence only approach leads to decreased level of sexual activity among teens.
Evidence:
• 1995- 101 pregnancies per 1,000 women between ages 15 and 1, decreased from 117 in 1990
• 29% decrease in teen pregnancy rates for 15-17 year olds between 1991 and 2000 has been attributed to the new higher number of abstinence only programs
• 10 SPECIFIC ABSTINENCE ONLY PROGRAMS WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN SPECIFIC STATISTICAL DECREASES (Research complete with numbers) IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY--- include in paper!
Reason: The comprehensive sex education curriculum sends students mixed messages.
Evidence:
• Amy Stephens, spokesperson for Focus on the Family, “..if you’re going to have sex, use a condom, but oh, also we don’t think you should have sex.”
• Robert Rector of the heritage foundation: “Clearly, the caveat that says ‘ and if you do engage in sex this is how you should do it’ substantially weakens an admonition against non-marital sexual activity.”
• Been compared to saying: we don’t want you to drink and drive, ut I you decide to, we’ll bring vodka to Drivers Ed so you can practice
Reason: The comprehensive sex education curriculum only informs students of safER sex; the methods of contraception and STD prevention advocated by such programs are not effective enough to be taught to teenagers as fool proof methods.
Evidence:
• Amy Stephens: “Why are we settling for risk reduction when we can have risk elimination?”
• Birth control pills do not protect against STDS.
• The idea of “safe sex” gives students a false sense of security – sex is never really risk free.
• Condoms, considered the best STD protection after abstinence, have failure rates of 12- 40% in preventing pregnancy.
• John Kerry, exec directed of NY STATE Catholic Conference: “Because of the false sense of security it conveys, because of the unacceptable levels of failure associated with condom use, the policy of promoting condoms is more likely to bring about an increase in teen pregnancies and HIV infection rather than a decrease
6 comments:
I think that the thesis of your paper is very relevant, saying that it is written by someone who is at the age where you have recently experienced these sex education classes. It is also an interesting topic that will be directed towards not only your peers, but also to the United States government and school districts. There is a lot of good evidence, especially in the form of statistics and quotes, to prove your argument. I feel like a lot of the evidence that is used in the first reason could also be used to argue against your thesis, though, and more towards the fact that ‘safe sex’ practices should be taught. I would just watch how you arrange and word these facts into your paper. I would also focus on being able to refute any rebuttals that may come up against your argument. One of the biggest rebuttals that I noticed that could be brought up has to do with the fact that these classes are usually not taught until high school. By this age for most teenagers, family, religious values, and their upbringing will have influenced them to or not to abstain from sex, so it might not be that effective to just have someone keep telling you to abstain from sex. Some random teacher telling me not to have sex is not going to change my opinion on the subject, when I have already established my own values on the subject while growing up.
Alison, here are a few points in your paper I disagree with: You are using the facts that one million teenage girls become pregnant each and three million teenagers become infected with an STD each year to argue that abstinence only should be taught. But if adolescents were taught about proper birth control and STD preventative methods, as they are in comprehensive sex education, these numbers would be lower. The scientific studies you had, where they found that abstinence only programs work, cannot be generalized to all populations. I also disagree with the condom failure rate percentage of 12-40 you included. That rate includes improper condom usage, which is due to adolescents not properly being taught proper condom usage.
Alison, I think you are on the right track. You have many reasons that support your evidence. I also like how you have quotes and statistical evidence as further support. I personally agree with your debate and the fact about the sex education curriculum sending "mixed signals." Keep up with the good work; your brief is full of information and I am positive your debate will be one worth reading.
-Justine Pinda
I think that you have a good argument. You have good reasons and good evidence to support them. The statistics that you added are good. They show just how big the issue is of teen pregnancy and the amount of teens with STDs. In public schools abstinence only sex classes are important since in high school we were taught simply to make sure if we had sex we took birth control and used male and/or female condoms. We were not taught to not have sex, just to have protected sex. And their methods of teaching were ineffective since one girl had a baby in the 8th grade and I can't count how many other girls had babies throughout my high school years. Good Brief!
Alison,
You have solid support for your reasons. Make sure you are reading back through your posts for grammatical errors. There are a few words missing letters, etc. Let me know if you have any questions, but it looks like you are on the right track.
To slow down the pregnancy rate, adolescents need to be taught on proper birth control methods. The general public supports this idea, “proportion who believe that young people should be given information about how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease is 84%” It is unfair to only tell kids to wait until marriage. Where does that message leave the kids who are not religious, homosexual, or choose not to marry? Adolescents in America also grow up in very different cultures. The scientific study that showed that abstinence only worked was done in a rural southern town. The same method cannot be generalized to work in urban Philadelphia. Inner-city schools are already lacking money, and now they have to pay to teach their students sex-education. The government needs to start funding comprehensive sex education since, “abstinence-only programs, while a priority of the federal government, are supported by neither a majority of the public nor the scientific community.” A study by the CDC found that when condoms are used properly and consistently, there is only a 2% failure rate. This is way below the 12-40% you found.
Post a Comment