Since abortion has been an option for women to escape problematic and unwanted pregnancies, there has been debate over both the legality and morality of the procedure. Far before abortion was safe and fairly simple, pro-life activists have fought to take the right to choose from a woman. These activists fall into the same demographic as those promoting abstinence-only education in schools. In all this, it comes as no surprise that young women and men don't know how to protect themselves in their sexual relationships.
Abstinence-only education acts as the double-edged sword when it comes to women's reproductive rights. Women can't protect themselves from pregnancy and disease, simply because they've never been given the tools to know how. Once pregnant and pushed into a corner, pro-life activists look to take away one of a woman's very few options. The activists push her into the corner of motherhood, with no regard for the effect on the life of both mother and child, post-delivery.
On September 20, 2007 New York State Governor Elliott Spitzer's office canceled funds designated for education programs for teens teaching abstinence-only-until-marriage education. In the past, the governor has rejected federal funding for abstinence-only programs, rejecting the endowments until comprehensive-education plans are allotted under the funding conditions.
The Bush Administration has appropriated this funding for abstinence-only education across the country. Should he have his way, the President would take away some of the most basic reproductive rights women of the 21st century value.
There is a direct correlation between unwanted pregnancies in teens and abstinence-only education. Call these young mothers careless, but a half-comprehensive education at 12, 13, 14 and 15 can't lead to anything good when the average American girl becomes sexually active at age 17, the average age a girl will lose her virginity, according to the Washington Post.
Moreover, teens saddled with children cannot lead to a prosperous life for both mother and child-to-be. By telling teens that they should abstain and not provide all information for young women to make their own reproductive decisions, how in good conscience can we later chastise them for choosing abortion?
In the past, reviews of abstinence-only education programs have proven them to be ineffective in preventing teen sexual activity, according to the 2006 Journal of Adolescent Health.
And yet, despite countless sources rejecting the usefulness of teaching abstinence-only education, the community can still see television and radio commercials with children saying, "Mom, dad, talk to me about sex and tell me you want me to wait."
When even some of the most conservative news outlets, including Fox News, have conceded that abstinence-only education in schools is somewhat ineffective, it's time to get our heads out of the sand.
Age-appropriate and medically-based information should be provided to students as they grow older. By telling today's children that they should abstain from sex until marriage and not provide the tools they need to make an educated decision, young adults are far more likely to make mistakes and put themselves in potentially dangerous situations.
School isn't the only source of information for students - they'll hear about sex from their friends, who will be just as confused as they will. Teaching students appropriate sexual education should be a way to clear up these misunderstandings and inaccuracies, not to perpetuate them by pretending all students will remain abstinent.
Instead, when teaching abstinence as an option in conjunction with sound materials geared only at educating, not at stimulating or provoking sexual activity, students are far more likely to know the risks they're assuming when hopping into bed.
Teaching our children that abstinence is the only way isn't only counter-productive, but it's unfair to these children. As they grow into young adults they will be unable to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, rather than able to make informed and healthy relationships about sex and relationships.
Abstinence-only education also provides little outlet for young men who would want to have sex and not have a child - in a sense, we're ensuring that at a young age, these youths will be burdened with child-support payments, enabling yet another generation of absentee fathers. Teens of both sexes can use condoms, take birth control and have the knowledge to make informed sexual decisions, whenever they decide the time is right.
In exchange for a reality check, we can prevent a young woman from becoming impregnated at age 16 - a young man from contracting HIV - and give students the option of choosing to wait or choosing to protect themselves.
We should applaud Governor Spitzer's decision and reject those who believe in allowing confusion rather than education to dictate the sexual relations and decisions of today's youth.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
