Abstinence-Only Is Consistent with the Law
Terry L. Mitchell
June 04, 2009
I´ve read a lot criticism lately about abstinence-only sex education for teens. Much of it is justified. It does indeed seem futile to focus only on abstinence when there´s no doubt that a certain number of teens are going to have sex anyway.
However, despite all of this, the abstinence-only mentality is consistent with the laws in most states that set the age of consent at 18. The way I see it, if we are to say that is unlawful for anyone under 18 to have sex, then the abstinence-only approach should be the exclusive way that sex education is taught to minors.
It seems funny to me that most of those who disparage abstinence-only sex education seem to be okay with laws that are consistent it. If they are going to argue against abstinence-only, then they should be consistent themselves and also be in favor of lowering the age of consent to the age where they believe kids should first start learning about safe sex. Otherwise, they should just shut up.
For example, if you are going to assert that it is inevitable that a sizeable number of 15-year-olds are going to experiment with sex, then why turn around and agree with laws that make it illegal for them to do so. How much sense does that make? And if you still think it should be illegal, then why teach someone how to break the law safely?
Bottom line, if you are going to oppose to abstinence-only education, then, while you´re at it, work to have the age of consent in your state lowered. If you agree with the age of consent being at 18, then either learn to like abstinence-only education or hold your peace.
However, despite all of this, the abstinence-only mentality is consistent with the laws in most states that set the age of consent at 18. The way I see it, if we are to say that is unlawful for anyone under 18 to have sex, then the abstinence-only approach should be the exclusive way that sex education is taught to minors.
It seems funny to me that most of those who disparage abstinence-only sex education seem to be okay with laws that are consistent it. If they are going to argue against abstinence-only, then they should be consistent themselves and also be in favor of lowering the age of consent to the age where they believe kids should first start learning about safe sex. Otherwise, they should just shut up.
For example, if you are going to assert that it is inevitable that a sizeable number of 15-year-olds are going to experiment with sex, then why turn around and agree with laws that make it illegal for them to do so. How much sense does that make? And if you still think it should be illegal, then why teach someone how to break the law safely?
Bottom line, if you are going to oppose to abstinence-only education, then, while you´re at it, work to have the age of consent in your state lowered. If you agree with the age of consent being at 18, then either learn to like abstinence-only education or hold your peace.
Print
Email
