Should ‘safe sex’ be promoted in schools through sexual education classes? Or are lessons that stick strictly to human biology or use abstinence-based programmes to be preferred?
All the Yes points:
- Parents don’t have absolute rights over their children, society has an important stake in their upbr…
- Safe sex should be promoted in all schools; the more teens who are informed the better. Not all sch…
- We have to accept that for a wide variety of social reasons teens are now more sexually active than …
- In the USA one out of every four teenage women between the ages of 14 and 19 have at least one of th…
- Safe sex education is a right, regardless of your religious background. Religious groups should not…
All the No points:
Parents don’t have absolute rights over their children, society has an important stake in their upbr…
Yes because…
Parents don’t have absolute rights over their children, society has an important stake in their upbringing and this is primarily carried out through the school system. The costs and social impact of unsafe sexual practices that result in STDs and teen pregnancy are carried by society as a whole, not just the parents of those involved. So education about safe sex is entirely justifiable. In any case, many parents do not feel able to talk to their children about sex, leaving them in a dangerous state of ignorance.
No because…
It isn’t the place of schools to sexualize our children in this way. Many people believe that sex education should be left to parents, who are best placed to decide what information their children need and when the best time to tell them is. Even if human reproduction has a place in the biology classroom, that is very different from courses of “safe sex” education that promote promiscuity in a way that often undermines the values parents are seeking to impart at home.
Safe sex should be promoted in all schools; the more teens who are informed the better. Not all sch…
Yes because…
Safe sex should be promoted in all schools; the more teens who are informed the better. Not all schools promote safe sex and a few schools don’t even give sexual education, so is it right to say that the amount of STDs amongst teenagers and pregnant teens is due to the promotion of safe sex? It might also be good to consider that the amount of pregnant teens and teens with STDs are due to lack of information given to all teenagers in the whole nation. After all, the Netherlands, famous for its very frank sex education, has both a higher age of first sexual experience, and much lower rates of teenage pregnancy and STD infection than countries such as the USA and the UK. And research shows that abstinence education often fails – inevitably many teens who sign chastity pledges do end up having sex, and because they have not been taught about safe sex methods, they are much more likely to become pregnant or infected as a result.
No because…
Instead of continuing with the promotion of safe sex, why don’t schools just give teenagers sexual education and tell them about the options like condoms and pills, instead of actively promoting them and making them every time more and more attractive to use? Shouldn’t they be promoting the best and most secure options? The best way to prevent STDs and pregnant teens is ABSTINENCE. So why don’t schools start by promoting that? Not strictly abstinence until marriage, but just abstinence. If students wait at least until their bodies are done developing fully and until they are not in puberty, the amount of STDs will be reduced dramatically, not only because the human body is better developed for sex at an older age, but also because we are more mature when we are in any kind of relationship.
We have to accept that for a wide variety of social reasons teens are now more sexually active than …
Yes because…
We have to accept that for a wide variety of social reasons teens are now more sexually active than ever – a development which preceded widespread sex education and which cannot therefore be blamed on it. Keeping children in ignorance about sex will not stop them having sex, but it will mean that the sex they have is riskier, resulting in unplanned pregnancies, abortions and STD infections. Condoms, while not perfect, are widely recommended for the prevention of STDs. They have been shown to be effective in reducing infection rates in both men and women. So it is important to make the idea of safe sex more attractive to these teenagers to prevent STDs and for teens to get pregnant. This is why at schools teenagers should be told and encouraged to use condoms if they are going to have sex.
No because…
Condoms, while better than nothing, should not be promoted so much in schools. It is one thing to inform children of their options and a complete different thing to promote safe sex as a lifestyle. By making the idea of safe sex more attractive to teenagers you are also making sex itself more attractive. You are in a way telling them that they can be safe having sex and this has an encouraging effect to start. By making them feel that by using these products they are protected from any risks it only makes them more eager to start having sexual relations. They are physically not prepared for that and the medical reasons for why they are at greater risk is specifically related to females. A 15-year-old girl has a 1-in-8 chance of developing pelvic inflammatory disease simply by having sex, whereas a 24-year-old woman has only a 1-in-80 chance in that situation. And pills and condoms are not as effective with teenagers, mainly because teens are more apt to forget to take the pill or to tear a condom. Between 9% and 18% of teenage girls using the contraceptive pill become pregnant.
In the USA one out of every four teenage women between the ages of 14 and 19 have at least one of th…
Yes because…
In the USA one out of every four teenage women between the ages of 14 and 19 have at least one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases (not including AIDS-infected teens). That is 3.2 MILLION WOMEN, according to research into the most common STDs amongst teenagers that was presented last year at the National STD Prevention Conference for the first time. Ignorance is not a solution and therefore teens should be better informed and learn more about how to have safe sex. A good way to inform them is through their education. This is why safe sex should be taught at schools.
No because…
There is without a doubt an STD epidemic amongst teenagers at the moment, but for quite some time the media and schools have been teaching these teenagers about how to have safe sex. We must now take a hard look at the message of safe sex which is being taught to these teens. People believe that if the teens can be taught how to have safe sex, the number of pregnant teens and the rate of STD infection will reduced dramatically. But they’ve been teaching them this for some time now and the statistics and our own common sense tell us something different. What if the increasing number of teenagers that are sexually active and that have STDs are actually the consequence of promoting safe sex to them?
Safe sex education is a right, regardless of your religious background. Religious groups should not…
Yes because…
Safe sex education is a right, regardless of your religious background. Religious groups should not be able to dictate the curricular of state-funded schools. Teens must have access to a range of viewpoints on human sexuality, including biological, religious, ethical, and health perspectives, in order to help them make up their own minds as to the right way to act. A choice for chastity until marriage is much more meaningful, and much more likely to be kept, if it is a positive and informed decision.
No because…
Safe sex education promotes values and practices that are offensive to many religious groups. For example, most safe sex education focuses heavily on condom use, which is directly counter to Catholic teaching. And promotion of “alternative sexual practices” can encourage people to see homosexuality as normal, which is offensive to many Christians and Muslims. In this way “safe sex” education forms part of a wider liberal attack on religious belief. Not only is this unacceptable to many parents and local communities, it is also an assault on teenage believers who are forced to sit through these classes.
We would love to hear what you think – please leave a comment!