Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

To me, the debate seems quite ridiculous.

States should all have sex education-but obviously not to Congress seeming as though Congress has poured 1.5 billion into what is essentially anti-sex ed, abstinence-only programs. Yet, a growing number of states are turning down federal funds for abstinence-only programs. States are turning down money! Texas leads the nation in two things: the spreading for abstinence-only programs and the highest teen birthrates in the country. Fascinating, huh? So if abstinence-only programs is the best way to conduct less teen pregnancies, then how can this fact be argued?

Texas also has the second highest population and loads of illegal aliens who more than likely don't attend any sort of school. And even if they did, most don't care. You seem to forget teenagers are stupid regardless of what they are taught.
That's how it can be argued. Population plus undocumented population - which becomes documented once the kid pops out. And being from Texas i see more teenage girls who can't speak a word of English pregnant for the second or third time before 17.

The programs, regardless of what they are, should be optional and should be the parents decision as well. Honestly, i think it's best if both programs are offered and people could, you know, choose instead of having one or another forced upon them.

That being said I believe the state shouldn't reinforce illegal behavior. And that's why it should be the parents job in the first place. Or at least it should be their choice.

So really, quite frankly, it's stupid to debate because the choice is obvious. And the choice is, well, a choice. Offer both, teens and parents agree on which class to take. Problem solved. However it's not the Federal Governments job as to how many stupid-ass teens out there are fucking other stupid-ass teens. No, that's the State Governments concern. So if a state turns down money, good for them. I don't care which program it is, they should be turning down the money.

The state should suck money from their own residents, not from residents nation-wide. Tax money goes to both you know.

The answer is simple, feds should butt out, leave it to the states, and a wise state would offer both options and let people decide. I'm surprised no one has had the brains to think of this yet?
Options are always a good thing.

You're really ignorant.

Illegal aliens is not a legitimate argument to this. If they are illegal aliens, they would not be allowed to go to school period. They are not allowed to be here. They are not SUPPOSE to be here. Which means, it's a secret...and they would not be put into consideration when doing any type of statistic. Plus, what the hell makes you think that they would have enough money to go to a hospital, have regular check ups, etc? What makes you think that if they did sign up for some sort of healthcare that they wouldn't be asked for proof that they are an American citizen.

And when you said teenagers are stupid and don't care anyway, well that's exactly my point of WHY abstinence programs would not be effective. Instead, we need sex ed education that informs teenagers about sex and informs them the best and safest way to do it.

Also, about the choice thing....um, it's school! It's about getting an education so that you can know what sex is. Abstinence is forcing a belief, sex ed is simply information. And regardless of your argument that teenagers are apathetic and will do it regardless, it's right to an extent, but what about the sex education that actually benefits some teenagers? The thing is, Texas has a significantly higher teenage pregnancy rate, which means SOMETHING should change.

And last, the turning down money thing. I never said it was a bad thing. It is a fact to simply demonstrate that abstinence-only programs are so stupid that even states are turning down money for it.

I think absitinence only program is the most stupid thing ever. Teens are going to have sex, period! It's the age where sexual exploration is natural and teaching teenagers to be safe about sex is smart, teaching them to abstain is ignorant and ineffective.

If a teenager participates in sexual education, they know how to use a condom and diseases/infections that can occur as STI's, and when jumping in the sack they can be like "oh yeah right I should use a condom" where as abstinence only (who are still going to have sex) will probably just do it, then you get unwanted pregnancies and STI's.


To me, teaching abstinence is ignorance!!

I think that sex ed programmes are a good way for people to learn, bacnk in the uk everyone had sex ed classes and they were interesting but fun at the same time so that we can learn and absorb the information about safe sex.

as a general point teenage births are increasing all over the world because of lack of education so why would any goverment want to reduce it further? in my opinion we should be increasing sex ed classes not just to combat teen pregnacies but also to educate teenages of the dangers of one night stands, std and sti's etc other wise we will find ourselves in trouble later on down the line.

I'm from Texas too and it is not the illegal aliens running up the teen pregnancy rates. I have seen lots of girls from every race pregnant before they graduate myself included. I will agree with you on offering both though.

I never said it was just them, I said it adds to it. If you factor out that then it would be lower. Plus the whole second highest population thing.



Geez, you people can't fucking read, can you?

Yes, it's school, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have choices. It's the same way you can choose an elective.
Oh, insulting me right off the bat, real mature argument there. People make choices everyday, so they should choose what they have to suffer through.

You don't need money right off the bat, you can pay it back in installments if necessary. If it's an emergency then doctors have the obligation to help you. As for the secret thing, it doesn't matter once they have the kid. If the kid is born in the US, it's a citizen and so is the mother at that point.
Who said anything about check ups? I was just talking about going to the hospital once she's ready to burst.

Don't act so fucking pissy because my opinion is different. Either way, choices are the better option. That way everyone gets a say in what the students learn. It may be unfamiliar to you, but it's called compromise. Instead of forcing people to take one or the other, you force them to pick one. You also give them the option to opt out if they so desire. If consequences follow then that's their problem, not yours.

Point is, choices are more important. If they're going to choose to have sex or not then they should choose what class they should take. Besides, that would make students and parents a little bit more pleased. I mean, at least they get a choice that way. You can force them into the class, but you can't force them to listen or pay attention.
Think of it this way, you have to take a language class, but you get to choose which language to take. Same thing. Less options.

Consequences are the responsibility of those who make choices. However those are not your concern, they're the concern of those who make those choices. Life is full of choices, there's no need to force anything on them. It's just a waste of money. Options give them the choice of learning the way they want to. School, contrary to belief, isn't a dictatorship - nor should it be run like one.

If you want to teach your kid about sex, by all means go for it. But it's the parents choice, that's not a decision for the state, government, school, or you to make for everyone else. That's just the reality of life. Which is why choices are always good. Some simply have no need for the information, some don't want it, others already know it, and there are other less common reasons I'm sure. So really, it's the parents and students decision.

Sorry you can't control this aspect of everyone's lives. But you can control this aspect of your own childs life, that's your right as a future parent. As is mine with my future child. As with everyone else as well.

Telling people not to have sex will only make more people do it, teach them about safe sex and leave it at that.

Why do we have to pick between the two? I don't think abstinence-only is wise, because teenagers are going to have sex... but surely abstinence can still be advocated whilst sex education is given?

I also think we should be given more details on the risks of pregnancy and STIs and stuff than on sex and the relationships themselves... but then I've only been in my own sex-ed classes so you guys might already get this ha. So yeah, sex-ed with the focus on risks and potentially the promotion of abstinence if individual states so desire!


Also, Runna, your point about Texas and the abstinence programs... cause and effect, my friend; cause and effect! Are the abstinence programs causing higher pregnancy rate, or did they implement abstinence programs to combat the already higher pregnany rates? Or is there another factor that we haven't considered that affects both of these variables? We don't know, so this case can't really be argued as evidence that abstinence programs don't work.

Teens aren't going to believe that abstinence is the only way. Honestly, we're going to listen to our hormones and subliminal/not so subliminal messages from the media and society more than what teachers try to tell us, so teaching safe (excuse me, safER) sex is a much better idea. There WILL be teens doing it whether Congress likes it or not.