Pros And Cons Of Abstinence-Only Sex Education

Abstinence-only sex education should not be taught in schools because it leads to teenagers being less informed and making dangerous decisions when they finally do have sex. Abstinence-Only sex education has been taught in schools for years- in response to an epidemic of teenage pregnancy and high STD rates. The Government leaves the decision up to the states, and the states usually leave it up to the schools. "National and local state polls have consistently found that a majority of parents want school to teach comprehensive sex education such as AIDS/HIV, abstinence, and STD's...many states mandate that some or all of these topics are covered in classes...Educators and schools are often left with the difficult choice of trying to determine

Data from the CDC in 2013 show that the state capital, Montgomery, had the highest STD rate in the nation. That year the state ranked 3rd in the US in numbers of chlamydial and gonorrheal infections." (Cleek). This is very dangerous; no state should have an STD rate higher than a national average; it’s horrendous. And it’s mostly within the years of adolescence and young adulthood. Cleek has also stated that "Between 2004-2011, according to the Alabama Department of Health, people age 13-24 were the only age group in the state to have an increase in HIV diagnoses. in 2013, they accounted for almost half of new HIV infections." (Cleek)., which is completely unacceptable. It’s clear that abstinence-only programs don’t work, otherwise they would not have such high STD rates within their states. and it’s not just STD rates, it’s also condom use, or in this case, lack of condom use, as Cleek has stated in her article, "According to the most recent National Youth Risk Behavior Survey administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 50 percent of high school students in Alabama have had sex, and nearly half have had sex without condoms." (Cleek). This proves that states--typically republican-- who mandate Abstinence-only programs are

Abstinence-only programs have been proven by many studies, typically done by universities or other organizations, that it does not work, but despite all these facts, schools still teach abstinence-only programs. One example is Becca Andrews who states that "Another study published in the journal Pediatrics in 2009, showed that young people who took virginity pledges (a common practice in abstinence only programs) were less likely to use protection when the time came" (Andrews 4:1). This is a dangerous thing to teach kids. By teaching them that condoms are the worst and lying about how “condoms don’t work”, teenagers will be less likely to use protection when they finally do have sex. She also wrote "A University of Washington found that teens who went through comprehensive sex education had a 50% less likely to get pregnant than kids who had abstinence only" (Andrews 41:). If this is not proof enough to stop teaching abstinence-only, then nothing ever will be. The fact that comprehensive sex-ed is safer than abstinence-only speaks volumes about abstinence-only ineffectiveness. Ashley Cleek also claimed that "Dr. Keith Abrams believes that the Deep South's high rates of STD's, unwanted pregnancy, divorce, and sexual abuse can be directly linked to the lack of sexual education" (Cleek)., as well as "A 2007 study commissioned by the federal government shows that abstinence only education does not keep teenagers from having sex