Statistics regarding the success of abstinance based sex education are mixed. Some go in favor of safe-sex based sex education, some go in favor of absinance based programs. From a related topic, one that I believe sheds light on abortion, AIDS prevention campaigns in third world countries have shown far more success when they are based on abstinance and monogomy than safe-sex.

But the point I really want to make here is that both sides are just as concerned about reducing the pregnancy rate as the other, they just have very different strategies than the other.

The safe-sex side makes pretty much the argument you make: If kids are going to have sex (and they are), let’s at least get them protected from pregnancy and STDs. Seems reasonable enough. But the risk of the argument is two-fold: 1. Does the education actually work? i.e. do more guys slip on a condom before sex because of the education? and 2. What effect does the education have on the sex-rate? Does it go up because of the education?

The abstinence side argues that the risks of safe-sex education as listed above don’t work. They argue that more people have sex as a result of the education and that only a minimally increased number actually use that protection. Their argument is that it is wiser to focus on reducing the sex-rate and that will by effect reduce the pregnancy and STD rates particularly if the protection use rate remains the same for those that do have sex. The risk to this argument is just the opposite: 1. Kids won’t listen and will have just as much sex as they would otherwise. 2. Even worse, they won’t use protection because the education they had didn’t focus on that.

Who’s right? Well, as I said above, studies show mixed results. But what I think it is key to remember that both sides have the same noble goal in mind: reduce pregnancies and STD. They just have very different strategies.

As for what I prefer, I think that this education doesn’t belong in schools, particularly public ones. The reality is that both safe-sex and abstinenece programs don’t work when taught in a public school forum. It’s too impersonal and too easily dismissed by the students. I would say, however, that the safe-sex programs are far more capable of causing harm (because of the possible increased sex-rate) than the abstinence programs (which at worst are just a “placebo” and a waste of money).

This matter would be far better handled outside of tax funding. I’m fine with Planned Parenthood investing in safe-sex education as long as it isn’t funded by my tax dollars (which most of it currently is). If they want to invest in that, that is there right. Similarly, I’m thankful that I have the right to invest in abstinence programs and don’t feel the need to have the government tax others to pay for programs I support.

But anyway, back to the topic of the day, I whole-heartedly agree: GO BEARS!

I think the problem here, at least for the right, is to pick your battles. Planned Parenthood not only performs abortions, but they also provide free sexual health exams and free contraception, most notably condoms and the birth control pill. Now, I am not going to argue about whether abstinence until marriage is right or wrong, as that isn’t a factual issue, but a moral one, and therefore there is no “correct” answer as people have differing opinions of morality. The facts on the ground, however, are that right or wrong, many many people, from all walks of life and from all areas of the country, do have pre-marital sex. With that in mind, there are two options: 1) make that sex as protected as possible, in order to prevent the need for abortions, or 2) have abortions. The problem is, the right wants to destroy both of those options. So, technically, by restricting access to contraception and not teaching children “about every sexual practice available out there,” you are inadvertently increasing the number of likely abortions.

Therefore, in my opinion, if the right is serious about abortions being morally wrong and serious about wanting to put an end to them, the obvious solution would be to do whatever it takes to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and it has already been statistically proven (unfortunately I don’t have a link to data to back this up, although I have read it, and I’m sure it can be found) that abstinence-only education doesn’t achieve this end. The Christian right are only shooting themselves in the foot by opposing all that PP does, rather than just focusing on the abortions themselves. Sons and daughters in small town Christian America are having pre-marital sex just as much as anyone else, and I feel that, while sharing with them your values of abstinence until marriage is perfectly commendable – and hopefully they will listen and follow that advice – on the off chance that they don’t then discussing and supporting proper protective measures would certainly be a logical and responsible backup plan. Planned Parenthood engages in this activity, often in place of parents who won’t, as as a result I would wager that they prevent far more abortions than they preform.