Teach Abstinence Or Teach Contraception?

The act of abstinence is taught by many teachers in American high schools nowadays as the correct and only way to educate teenagers on pre-marital sex, but does this education method actually benefit students or is it sending them a bad message? To me, I believe that schools, which are teaching abstinence as the only way to approach pre-marital sex send the wrong message to teenagers because contraception is also a vital part of the education because not everybody will want to take part in abstinence. Nowadays, teenagers are more exposed to sex on mass media such as the radio, television, the Internet and many other sources. There are myriads of advertisements that contain sexual innuendos and subliminal sexual messages and this has led to teenagers participating in more sexual intercourse in the 90's more than any other decade. Abstinence should not be the only method that schools use to educate teenagers on pre-marital sex, they should be taught the alternatives to abstinence, which includes safe sex, and the potentially fatal effects of sexually transmitted diseases.

The newspaper article used was titled "One in three schools skip talk of birth control, promote sexual abstinence". Written by a member of the associate press in Washington, This article as the title suggests, discusses how one out of three American schools do not even bother to teach anything about contraception and the prevention of pregnancy, whereas they are taught that abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy. Talks of birth control, pregnancy and transmission of sexually transmitted diseases are left out except to talk about its shortcomings. The people who promote abstinence teachings are mainly the conservative and religious groups.

The abstinence only programs seem to be most prevalent in the southern states and seem to be not very common in the northeast and there is a mandate by the American government saying that fifteen states require schools to teach abstinence until marriage while thirteen states require lessons about contraception and abstinence combined. These groups say that if abstinence is taught, a message saying that pre-marital sex is acceptable in society and wouldn't be considered deviant. The remaining two thirds of schools in the United States, which educate with both abstinence and contraception according to the article teach that abstinence is the preferred option but do go on to talk about how to prevent pregnancies if one does decide to engage in sexual intercourse. The newspaper article goes on to say that most American citizens are in support of programs that promote both abstinence and contraception taught together but it is still important for society to send teens a message that abstinence is the most conventional method. Sixty six percent of teenagers said that they have had sex by the time they graduated from high school. This goes to show that teenagers have been exposed to more sex in their everyday lives and sex before marriage is considered harmless by today's society as opposed to what the norm was twenty years ago. The article is also saying that abstinence only programs have not yet proven their usefulness because studies have yet to show their usefulness because research is inconclusive.

The tutorial discussion was primarily about whether to promote the teaching of abstinence or to teach teenagers about contraception and safe sex. Almost all of the class members favored the teaching of contraception and safe sex over the teaching of abstinence. We came to a consensus that teaching abstinence would cause the kids to rebel and pregnancy rates would still be just as high, whereas if contraception was taught, teenagers would know of the alternatives to pre-marital sex and the repercussions that it may possibly bring. Another member of the tutorial had also said that teaching the teenagers that abstinence was right would not decrease the number of single mothers because the teenagers do not have to listen to everything that their teachers say. On a functionalist perspective, we agreed with my original argument, which stated that abstinence only programs are put on because they serve a purpose in society, with the purpose being to reduce the number of births and to keep society functioning without fluctuations which teenage pregnancies and pre-marital sex may possibly bring. Abstinence programs should not be put on without the teaching of contraception too because society and its individuals have a mind of their own and will most likely engage in sexual intercourse without much regard to what they have learnt in high school classrooms.

Sociologically speaking, functionalism is defined as "cultural elements by showing how they contribute to social stability" The conservatives and religious people would most likely believe that providing abstinence only education would preserve society into keeping the status quo because they believe that by teaching students about contraception would promote the perception that pre-marital sex is accepted by society and there would be no repercussions with having sex at a young age. Abstention from sexual intercourse by a Christian perspective is needed because sexual intercourse is supposed to be seen as something, which helps society function and is beneficial. According to the article "Christian Sexual Ethics and Teleological Organicity", the goal of man and woman when having sexual intercourse is to ultimately reproduce in the end. "The unnatural sexual acts such as using a condom do not at all have a biological union because in them there is no united organism striving towards reproduction as an end".

To a Christian, the goal of sexual intercourse is to procreate, and by using any contraception methods (condoms, birth control pills, diaphragms etc.), the user is preventing reproduction from happening, which is anti-functional. Abstinence, as Christians would say, is biologically inert and being abstinent has no moral significance, whereas usage of contraception would be an intrinsic evil because of acting against natural reproduction. In conclusion, contraception methods are shunned by Christians in a functionalist society because firstly, they do not benefit society in their eyes because sexual intercourse is supposed to be about reproduction rather than just pleasure and unity. Secondly, contraception will not advance society in anyway according to Christian rules because as stated before, Christian thought in regards to sex is that sex should serve the purpose of reproduction and contraception is counter productive.

The concept of functionalism could also be reversed in saying that pure abstinence is not a good way of promoting teenagers to not have sex. Teaching abstinence at schools may just ask kids to do the opposite and rebel against their teaching and form a counterculture of their own. On a functionalist point of view, the promotion of abstinence could be a bad thing because without the teaching of contraception, teenagers are less educated than the ones who have been educated about both contraception and abstinence if an accidental pregnancy occurs. The teaching of contraception is a good alternative to teaching abstinence because information is given to those who do decide to go and engage in sexual intercourse. This information includes how to prevent pregnancies and what to do in case one becomes pregnant. Society does not have to constantly stay in a equilibrium as the conservatives and religious groups suggest, a very important part of functionalism involves the concept of development. Society is constantly experiencing changes and changes to the education system are also necessary.

Teenage minds should be taught both abstinence and contraception because in my functionalist perspective, this creates a healthier whole because it allows teenagers the freedom of choice. Teenage pregnancies may not necessarily lead to dysfunctional to society, stereotypes cannot be given before evidence is presented. Contraception teachings are beneficial to society because if these teachings were completely abolished, any female who became pregnant without wanting the child would not know firstly, how she could've prevented this from happening and secondly, how to prevent this from happening again, providing she did not want to abstain from sexual intercourse. In a functional society, people should have choice as to what they want to do with their lives, including when and how old they decide to engage in sexual activity, by teaching abstinence as the only policy, the educators are limiting the students in their thoughts and teaching them what THEY think is right, as opposed to letting the students know of all the potential choices they can make and allowing the students to make their own decisions.

I would just like to say that I support the abstinence plus program, which involves the teaching of abstinence plus the teaching of contraception. I think that this is the best method to educate the teenagers because they are given a choice of which road they would like to take and the potential burden that a baby could bring to a student if they are not careful during sexual intercourse. The class also agreed with me on this point because they also felt that teaching of abstinence does not leave the students with a back road in case they become pregnant. I respect the Christian ideologies but they should not limit their teachings to just abstinence because not everybody follows the rules. The teaching of contraception is not by any means detrimental to society, in fact I believe that it benefits society because pregnancies are possible if a woman decides to become sexually active and she and her partner should be educated before they decide to engage in sexual intercourse so they know what are the possible outcomes they may have to face.