Emma Elliott, a writer for the Concerned Women for America organization, compiled a pamphlet in 2005 in support of an abstinence-only based sexual education system. Elliott establishes her argument in a unique countering organization. She presents a popular claim about sexual education and then refutes it with a reason supporting abstinence. In general, she includes eight mainstream beliefs. The first one is rather general where she refutes that “Abstinence education doesn't work”, and she continues to say that is does and backs up her argument with multiple studies, such as the program “Best Friends” caused 80% less possibility of sexual activity.
The Illinois Family Institute is just as the name says. It’s a family-based organization with conservative views, who promotes “marriage, family, life, and liberty”. Among this organization is Laurie Higgins, the author of the article “Parents Should Fight ‘Comprehensive’ Sex-Ed”. Initially from the title, the article looks like she would be in support of abstinence-only education, since it’s the opposite approach of comprehensive sex-ed. However, Higgins takes the conservative approach one step farther and alludes to the idea that public schools shouldn’t even teach students about sex.
One argument the anti-educator and anti-sex groups have is that they are doing it “for the children”, but in reality they are only doing it for themselves and using the children as an excuse. On page 8 Klein states that these groups claim that by providing their children abstinence only education they are protecting them from being interested in sex, hearing about a variety of different sex practices, having sex (resulting in emotional devastation, pregnancy or diseases), ruining future marriage, and liking or enjoying sex too much to the point it gets out of hand. But, in reality they are only damaging their
Linda Lowen writes about both sides of the abstinence education debate in her article “10 Arguments for Abstinence - Pros and Cons of the Abstinence Debate.” Ms. Lowen has discussed each side thoroughly before moving from one topic to the next and presents herself as unbiased for most of her article. She briefly states her stance about contraceptive after discussing the data for a logical solution. Throughout her paper she uses logic and statistics as a baseline for the issues while building upon them with other rhetorical strategies for an unbiased and compromisable approach to sexual education.
Leukemia kills an average of 157 per 100,000 a year as of the latest count in 2017. In 1950 however, the five-year survival rate for children was between 1-3%. Every year hundreds of families were affected by the death of one of their children. For many this felt like an epidemic and was traumatizing for the siblings in those families. J.D. Salinger writes about a boy named Holden who was one of the siblings to one of these children that was lost due to leukemia.
So many different conclusions could be drawn from the same facts. Some people believe that their children should not know about sexual topics. “ I think there is the idea that children should not be exposed to the things that are all troubling and disturbing to them.” - (NY Times), but its not true, if this generation has no knowledge about sex and its bad effects then how could they ignore these mistakes. We need to teach about sexual effects t present generation so the could learn something about it and try to avoid it.
Professor Ross Government 2306 8 February 2015 Is Abstinence-only education the correct approach for Texas? Owning one of the highest rates of teen pregnancies in the Union, Texas has an abstinence only approach in sexual education to try to reduce pregnancies? In addition to this, Texas ranks first as being the top spender in sexual education, but can’t get solidified results out of its spending. Texas doesn’t teach anything about contraception, how the Texas Department of State Health Services has said that the mission of the program is to delay sexual actions among teenagers until they are old enough, and the use of abstinence only education to protect children from explicit content only to find out in their own way leads to curiosity
In this article Pamela Druckerman makes a point to say that kids in today’s society have questions about sex at early ages and those they deserve correct answers. Druckerman did research about different cultures and their sex education compared and contrasted to the ones we have in the U.S. She believes sex education for the appropriate
Colleen McKee, Kathleen Ragsdale, and Linda H. Southward. “What Do Parents in Mississippi Really Think About Sex Education in Schools? Results of a State-Level Survey” Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice Volume 7, Issue 1, Special Issue, Spring 2014, pp. 97 –
On a larger scale, a conservative “think tank” The Carter Center, works in advancing international human rights and ending suffering. A large part of what the members of the Carter Center work for is to improve education including sexual education. The founder of the Carter Center wrote a collection of papers for the Carter Center titled Promoting Positive and Healthy Behaviors in Children and included in this collection, a paper titled A Developmental Strategy for Lifelong Benefit was written by David A. Hamburg, a member of the Carter Center. His paper touched upon the essential requirements for child development and what education providers need to be teaching to guarantee that students have a healthy development. The Carter Center's beliefs that sexual
Sex education is taught between 7-12 grade, which the students’ parent is legally still responsible at that age. Whether its is because of conservative view or culture belief, it tires back to the parents. Jonathan Zimmerman, the author of Too Hot to Handle: A Global History of Sex Education, talks about the worlds views on sex and how it effects the sex eduction. Zimmerman introduces Mr. Marish, a Muslim immigrant from Kuwait. Mr. parish gives his opinion on sex education stating, “I preserve my right to raise my children following my cultural and religious beliefs, and the curriculum compromises my rights.”
This idea of being ‘open to new ideas’, has only shown students of comparisons from each, and undermining their understandings of the scientific community. Another article establishes, “In 2004, however, Holt and two other publishers offered four new high school textbooks that lacked any information on family planning and disease prevention except through abstinence.” (Fighting Textbook Censorship) Since another action has been made, this has eliminated information of prevention of the effects of sexual relations. Both of these instances have only been made because of the school board’s religious beliefs.
The first reason abstinence-only sex education should be abolished in schools is because its excludes a variety of important information and distorts the information it does share. According to “Abstinence Education,” those who disapprove of abstinence-only sex education “feel that the program fails to provide enough facts for young people to make an educated decision about losing their virginity” and doesn’t teach “teens how to protect themselves against disease and unintended pregnancies, by using contraceptives, such as condoms and birth control pills.” Even if abstinence-only programs wanted to share this information, they “are required to withhold information on contraception and condom use, except for information on failure rates.” Additionally, “Abstinence-only curricula have been found to contain scientifically inaccurate information, distorting data on topics such as condom efficacy, and promote gender stereotypes.” Finally, “Abstinence-only policy violate the human rights of adolescents because they withhold
The concept of sex education in American public schools has been an ongoing controversy for quite some time now. In an article from the New York Daily News, author and NYU professor Jonathan Zimmerman provides the argument that sex education will not work for American youth regardless of method. Zimmerman elaborates in his article the inefficiency of teaching sex education in a universal manner as well as the ideal that Americans need to “show much more solicitude” to the parents who oppose sex education in public schools in the United States. Zimmerman begins his article by analogizing the teaching of sex ed in schools to teaching religion publicly; he poses a hypothetical situation in which a person says that children aren’t learning religion
Introduction 1. Attention Getter: The provision of sex education in schools has been a controversial subject matter among different education stakeholders ranging from parents to educators. A focus, however, on the prevalence of adolescents’ abortion, pregnancy, and HIV and AIDS rates indicates significantly high rates.
