A lot of time I agree with Sully, but he gets this way wrong. Perhaps it’s my past public health education creeping out here.
I had thought that the main problem with abstinence-only sex-ed was that the victims of that misguided policy were no less likely to engage in sexual activity, but also more likely to get (or get someone else) pregnant. The problem with this take on sex ed, that it’s better to emphasize abstinence than pass out Trojans is fine from high level moral perspective. But the reality of it is that it effectively means that some students will die who would not have under a more balanced approach.
Wouldn’t it be better to say, “You should not have sex until marriage, but if you do please wear a condom to help protect from STDs and pregnancy. Condoms are not perfect, but at least offer some protection.” And of course this would be in a voluntary opt-out segment of normal classroom time. Parents who prefer to teach children that Jesus will punish them by causing their nasty bits to rot for failing to abide God’s law are free continue to allow their sons and daughters to die because it’s so obviously God’s will. Gotta have freedom for that old timey religion.
To simply ignore the whole issue or continue the abstinence only approach seems grossly irresponsible, morally reprehensible and blind to the reality of the the world around us. It’s of a piece with those who believe that preventing the spread of HPV and death from cancer is tantamount to encouraging promiscuity.
