Zach Poss-4/14/11-Abstinence Only Ed

When originally assigned the “yes” position to this argument, I thought it was pretty cut and dry, pretty clear that abstinence only education (AOE) was an ineffective, futile program that the government wastes money on as opposed to the comprehensive or abstinence plus viewpoint. Of course, having looked into it, perspectives change somewhat.

Proponents of AOE tend to take a more logical viewpoint, largely pushed by religious and hegemonic ideals of heteronormativity and the nuclear family. They point to the fact that teenagers, specifically younger teenagers, are mostly not capable of dealing with the possible negative consequences associated with premarital sex and point to abstinence as the only 100% effective means of contraception and protection. I agree with both of these points. Where I think that Bridget Maher and most other proponents fail in their arguments is that they focus so much on proving effectiveness of these programs using numbers, mostly because that’s the same way that opponents argue against it. The problem with numbers is that they can be spun to support any viewpoint.

Supporters of comprehensive education (CE) tend to try to approach the evaluation of AOE from a realistic viewpoint. Why, if so very few people actually want to remain abstinent until marriage (most everyone doesn’t), do we continue to pump money into such a futile program. They try to push numbers too and point to evaluations of the AOE programs that quite frankly, aren’t there. There has been no concrete evidence supporting one way or another. Both sides point to the drop in teen pregnancies in the last two decades as a testament to their own curriculum.

Both sides of this argument fail to look at the bigger picture in defining the success or failure of a program. The goal of both is to protect kids from negative consequences that their maturity levels don’t quite grasp. Kids can’t look back with hindsight and regret what they haven’t done yet. Everyone knows that not all sex is bad, and that a girl doesn’t get pregnant every time, that you won’t always get an STD. Both programs are successful even if they put off sexual activity for a short period of time, giving kids a chance to mature and make better decisions, to be in a better position to handle any of those negative consequences I just listed, should they happen. The problem with the programs is that they are being taught by 40 to 60 year old nurses and teachers, by generations of people who don’t remember what it was like to be a kid. Kids need to know that abstinence is the best route to take, and they need to know what kinds of contraceptives are available, but they need to know how often those methods fail too, and they need to hear it from someone they respect.