Abstinence Vs. Comprehensive Analysis

2328 Words 10 Pages
Abstinence v. Comprehensive
An Analysis of the Respective Results Sex education has always been a controversial topic, especially to which it is taught. The Reagan administration passed the Adolescent Family Life Act for abstinence-only education, based on the presumption that talking about sex in school would promote sexual activities among teenagers. The President quietly passed the two-point act 1981, as the House of Representatives did not vote on it. The government coded the act under Title XX of the Public Service Health Act. The first point was to provide at least two-thirds of funds to support pregnant teenagers, while the second point’s purpose was to use the remaining one-third or less to discourage sexual acts until marriage. Lawrence
…show more content…
Leyba (2014) detailed the story of her pregnancy at 18 years old, and how the struggle of sexual “sin” consumed her for years. She wished that her teachers had completely explained virginity pledges to children choosing to accept them, because she did not fully understand what she signed over. Leyba stated that she never considered abortion because it was taught as a terrible, awful sin, not an option that could have been considered. Though she does not regret her decision to keep her child, she wished that all sex education taught about contraceptives and condoms, because she does not want her daughter to go through the same thing she had to (para. 2-5). Leyba was taught abstinence-only education in a hyper-religious Christian school. She did not understand the serious importance that contraceptive-methods held, because she was never told anything about them, except for how much they failed and that using them would make her a sinner. Though most schools are not religious like hers, most principles of abstinence-only education are based in the Christian faith. There should be a separation of education and government, because not every student believes in …show more content…
In Stanger-Hall and Hall’s (2011) study, they discussed that states with legislation coded two or three, likely mentioned that medically accurate information need not be taught, because the state legislature would rather scare some children out of sex with some scary, but inaccurate statements. This shocked the team, since teaching inaccuracies like “birth control only works sometimes” or “STDs and STIs will ruin their life” was morally wrong. Since this was most likely an impressionable moment in a teenager’s life to first learn about sex, Stanger-Hall and Hall realized that the medically wrong information would stick with the children for some time, likely to be discussed among friends and therefore spread (p. 7). Stanger-Hall and Hall thought it was unfortunate that the government decided to scare children with misinformation, opposed to informing them on their bodies to delay sexual

Related Documents