Sex education reduces pregnancies and STDs

The argument

The argument for teaching sex education in schools is made here as a straightforward comparison between countries that do it and countries that do not, using the outcomes the subject is supposed to prevent. A look at teenage pregnancy rates among developed nations shows that the United States, which has no standardised sex education instruction, has the highest number of teenage pregnancies. The comparison countries are places where such instruction is established and long-standing. France, where sex education has been on the national curriculum since 1973, has a teenage pregnancy rate around a third of the American figure. In Holland, where children begin learning about the biology of sex at four years old, the rate is around seven times lower. The pattern holds across different systems and different starting ages, which makes it hard to attribute to any single national peculiarity: what the low-rate countries share is that the teaching is established and happens as a matter of course. The same pattern appears in sexually transmitted infections. In France, around 1% of adolescent females are likely to contract chlamydia; in the United States the figure is 5%. The conclusion drawn is that sex education in schools reduces teenage pregnancy and lowers rates of sexually transmitted infection. The test proposed is a practical one rather than a moral one. If the objective of sex education classes is to keep children safe by helping them avoid unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, then the relevant question is whether the countries that teach it have fewer of both — and on the available comparison they do. On that test, the classes clearly work, and sex education should be taught in schools.

Context

Teaching sex education in schools has a tangible impact on teenage pregnancy rates and sexual health.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The purpose of sex education classes is not just to keep teenagers safe and reduce unwanted pregnancies. It is to produce well-adjusted teenagers with a strong set of morals and a healthy relationship with sex. Exposing children and teenagers to sexual themes as early as four can warp and distort their attitude to sex and make them more promiscuous. They may be safe and free from sexually transmitted diseases, but they could become sexual deviants and have an unhealthy relationship with sex. The same applies to teenagers. The more normalised sex becomes, the more likely they are to have sex and become more promiscuous. Teaching children about sex in school normalises sexual behaviour and does not create a well-rounded individual who approaches sex with a moral outlook. There is also evidence that comprehensive sex education programs do not have a significant impact on reducing unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. One study found that 74% of comprehensive school sex education programs had no impact on teenage pregnancy and STD rates.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This is not the only purpose of sex education.