The Texas Republican party is
calling for the promotion of abstinence and an abstinence-only education in our school systems. It’s nice to know that finally Republicans are pushing for a realistic campaign when it comes to the practice of teaching our future, our children.
Are these Texas Republicans serious?
To actually disagree with the
distribution of condoms because it’s the parents responsibility to speak to
their children about sex is such a crock. With shows like “16 and Pregnant” or
“Teen Mom” that glorifies teen pregnancies, those parents that don’t talk to
their children about the facts of life are going to think that, ‘this is my
shot at fame, that could be me on those magazines.‘ It is up to the parents to speak to their children but it
should also be reinforced amongst teachers, staff, or even councilors that a
child may look up to for advice.
According to the Washington Post this “long awaited national study has concluded that Abstinence-only
sex education… Does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it
increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a
condom.” Texas is among the most restrictive states to attain birth control for teens. Even if a teen has had a child already she still needs parental consent to obtain birth control, that make's sense right? It seems like these adolescents are trying to protect themselves but the government is forcing them to suffer.
Teenagers need a
comprehensive understanding of sex education, not to be shielded with the idea
of an abstinence-only education. I don’t think abstinence shouldn’t be
promoted, but it shouldn’t be the only means of education with such a controversial
subject. According to Texas on the Brink, Texas has the third highest teen birth rate in the nation. I
understand that Republicans may or may not be trying to improve that statistic
but is this really the answer?
To shove abstinence, a
religious based ideal that says you should wait till marriage to have sex, down
our throats is unethical. We need to stop wasting our tax dollars on these
obviously failed programs. Yes, the only way to prevent
pregnancy is to not have sex. But the realistic thing to do is to teach these
raging hormonal teenagers ways to prevent sexual transmitted diseases as well ways
to prevent pregnancies with the help of contraceptives, because in the end it
is their choice to have sex, not their parents or even politicians that try and
control them.
I think more then ever we
should institute more knowledge upon America’s preteen and teenagers especially
since tweens are growing up faster than ever. Scientists are even studying why we're seeing alarming numbers of 7-year-old girls and 8-year-old boys
hitting puberty. So you tell me why we should try and satisfy a state in which
pregnancy is already running rampant with an abstinent-only sex education, especially
with children growing up faster than ever.
It has been a long-kept tradition in Texas to not teach our children much about sex. We tell them the basic mechanics of it, that it produces children, that there's a variety of STDs you can catch if you're not careful, and that the only way to avoid all of this mess is by abstaining until marriage. While the idea of staying celibate before getting married may be nice for some people, it's certainly not what everyone does. As Chloe Yates points out in her recent post "Re-Education," this policy of abstinence-only education has failed Texas, but our elected representatives and the GOP have refused to let it go.
ReplyDeleteYates brings up some good points in this respect. She provides a link to a study showing that abstinence-only education does not decrease the likelihood of teenagers having sex or using condoms if they do have sex. She points out that Texas has the third highest teen birth rate in the country. This is a very serious issue in our state, and the GOP is still supporting a policy which has been proven to do nothing to fix it. She also points out that this policy is completely based in our politicians' religious ties and has nothing to do with trying to lower the teen birth rate. As she states, this is an unethical policy. Religious doctrine should not determine public policy. Period.
In my opinion, this is a perfectly sound dismissal of the GOP's abstinence-only policy. It shows that it doesn't work, shows that there is a very big issue which this policy is letting become even worse, and shows that the policy is entirely based in religious conviction. Therefore, we conclude that our politicians are doing the wrong thing and should reverse their policy immediately. I agree with Yates. We should fight the GOP's policy for the betterment of our state.
In browsing through a number of my classmate’s blogs I came upon one that caught my attention. It is by Chloe Yates, and is a critique of the current system of sex education in Texas-- which Chloe points out is currently failing to deter teens from having sex.
ReplyDeleteThe critique begins with Chloe putting Republicans under the limelight for the current policy of abstinence-only education, which is odd considering the teaching of abstinence is more so an issue divided by conservative and liberal ideologues. If you continue to read, you quickly learn Chloe’s disdain of Republicans and their policy of abstinence-only education comes from the fact that as of current it “does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.” Chloe then embodies the ideologue of a pragmatic liberal in wanting “to stop wasting our tax dollars on these obviously failed programs”, and in advocating to teach “raging hormonal teenagers ways to prevent sexual transmitted diseases as well ways to prevent pregnancies” as the solution. This is a great idea, however most schools do in fact already teach how to prevent STDs and pregnancies—my high school being one of them.
Overall, I can agree with Chloe that under our current institution of abstinence-only education we are in-fact not deterring teens from having sex or becoming pregnant, but is there even any way we could? I believe not.
However, I disagree with Chloe in that I do not see the expansion of schools teaching sex as the solution. For such a change is wrong, in that it would deprive parents of their right to choose how to educate their kids about sex. But let’s not forget that Chloe argued earlier in her critique that it “is up to the parents to speak to their children but it should also be reinforced amongst teachers, staff, or even councilors.” Wait, but weren’t you just trying to indirectly do away with the need for mom and pops’ birds n’ the bees talk? And not to mention, wouldn’t teachers and other school officials speaking to students seeking advice about sex lead to a number of issues? I know I for one wouldn’t want someone in a position of authority that is supposed to be teaching my child Math giving them advice over sex—which among other things could be advice contrary to what a parent would have given.
In the end, Chloe did a great job of highlighting an issue of importance to the reader, regardless of their party affiliation. Yet in offering her solution, Chloe hindered her own argument by devoting a large amount of her critique to pointing fingers at Republicans, instead of elaborating and reinforcing the solution she offers to the problem at hand. Thus, by the end of Chloe’s blog I for one found myself still siding with our current system of abstinence. For sex education is not something the government should have any role in, it is a matter only parents should have a hand in. Which is exactly why the distinct line abstinence draws over sex works, in that it leaves room for parent’s to elaborate and instill their own opinions on sex while not giving teachers the range of motion to instill possibly biased opinions.