In this age of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, when the stakes regarding teens and sex are often life and death, the best policy is to have an informed teen public. Unfortunately, many people, including 39th District Sen. Val Stevens, who recently wrote the op-ed (“Myths from the 1960s question abstinence,” May 11), consider abstinence education to be a viable alternative to sex education.
Abstinence education is an integral part of sex education curriculum, but by itself is of little use to those who have already had or will have sex. A recent sociological study, printed in Context magazine shows that around 48 percent of 15- to 17-year-olds have had sex. What use is abstinence-only education to them? Given the preponderance of teen sex, is it not then best to inform youths about sex, including the methods of protecting themselves and the possible consequences of the failure of that protection or of not using protection at all? The alternative is an ill-informed youth population that will be at much higher risk to the consequences, including AIDS.
While abstinence is something we should urge teens towards, it is irresponsible to allow teens to engage in sexual activity without at least giving them the knowledge that could possibly save their lives. To do otherwise and promote a program that fosters ignorance is not only irrational, but also lacking in common sense and compassion. I can only hope that Ms. Stevens, and others like her, will eventually come back to their senses.
Snohomish
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
