Abstinence in Schools

An abstinence-based approach to sex education focuses on teaching young people that abstaining from sex until marriage is the best means of ensuring that they avoid infection with HIV, other sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy. As well as seeing abstinence from sex as the best option for maintaining sexual health, many supporters of abstinence-based approaches to sex education also believe that it is morally wrong for people to have sex before they are married. Abstinence approaches are represented in programmes such as Aspire and True Loves Waits, which teach kids that they should commit to hold off on sex until marriage.1

Many supporters of abstinence-based sex education have a background in or connection to Christian organisations that have strong views about sex and sexuality. Not only do they often believe that sex should only take place in the context of marriage, but some are also opposed to same-sex relationships and abortion.11 As a result of the strong faith basis for their beliefs about sex, supporters of abstinence education see the main objective as being to equip (and encourage) young people to refuse or avoid sex altogether, and they may exclude from their programmes any other information that they believe conflicts with this view. This may result in an abstinence-only course failing to include basic information about what activities transmit HIV and how such transmission can be avoided. 2

Abstinence programs for schools today have almost tripled in how much they talk to the students about the use of birth control. Although abstinence programs are about not having sex until marriage, some schools have decided that it is important to at least touch the subject with the students.

• Abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage is the expected standard for all school-age children
  



• Abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems
  



• A mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity
  



• Sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects
  



• Bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society
  



• How to reject sexual advances and that alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances
  



• The importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity1

Citations

1. http://www.avert.org/
2. http://www.heritage.org/
3. http://www.guttmacher.org/

Comprehensive Sex Ed: To Teach or Not To Teach

"The vast majority of U.S. parents, teachers, and leading medical groups believe that students should receive comprehensive sexuality education"(1)

It's been an ongoing debate of whether comprehensive sex education or abstinence focused programs should be taught in schools to children and teens of various ages. As Elizabeth Bosley mentions as she lists 10 reasons to support comprehensive education in schools, "Presumably parents and educators want adolescents to be as healthy and happy as possible, even if they're not managing to conform to the standard of behavior that those adults would consider to be the ideal"(2). In order for everyone (those who choose to abstain and those who choose to have sex or try sex) to get the proper information about STIs, contraception options, and the practice of safe sex comprehensive sex education is the only option to fully prepare everyone for any option they decided to choose.

What are some of the issues comprehensive sex education can better?

• More than half of all teens aged 15-19 years old in the U.S. have had sexual intercourse (3). In fact, according to Elizabeth Boskey, Ph.D., "1 in 2 high school students have had sex"(2). Whether parents and staff are willing to acknowledge this reality it is important to be aware that comprehensive sex education is the most fitting curriculum type for the statistics at hand. It is inevitable that some but not all teens are choosing to be sexually active regardless of if they are taught anything in sexual education but with the preparation of comprehensive sex education the teens would be equipped with the proper knowledge of safe sex practices, how to avoid or deal with STIs and so on. Abstinence only programs do not prepare teens for the alternative at all.
  
  

• Nationally each year, almost one million teenagers get pregnant, and more than three-fourths of all teen pregnancies are unintended (3). Comprehensive sex education can educate teens on the proper use and importance of contraception and the consequences if they are used inappropriately. With the knowledge of contraception options and availability unintended pregnancies could reduce significantly. Abstinence only programs do not mention contraception options nor do they inform students on the proper use and the severe importance of these practices. Students therefore are adventuring into actions and consequences they are unfamiliar with which could devastate their futures and lives in the long run.



• Annually in the U.S., three million teens are newly infected with a sexually transmitted disease, and one in every three sexually active individuals will contract a STD by age 24 (3).



• One in four new cases of HIV infection befalls someone younger than 22 years of age. (3). Comprehensive sex ed is the key to educating youth about the transmission and dangers as well as frequencies of sexually transmitted diseases, without this type of sex ed students are left with abstinence based teachings which frequently exaggerates STI and contraceptive failure statistics if they are even mentioned at all.
  
  

How is comprehensive sex ed better than abstinence based curriculum?

• In the Netherlands, France, and Germany, adolescent sexuality is regarded as a health issue, rather than a political or religious one. An overwhelming majority of the people and institutions in these countries support sexual health. In all three countries, but most notably in the Netherlands, teens are educated about safer sex and have access to both birth control pills and condoms if they have sexual intercourse.(4)




• Consider these simple comparative facts, According to data from the United Nations Population Division, the teen birth rate per 1,000 girls 15 to 19 years old 64 in the United States, 13 in Germany, 9 in France, and 7 in the Netherlands. (4)




• Teen abortion rates are also profoundly lower in Europe that in the United States. comparative data compiled by Advocates for Youth shows that the abortion rate per 1,000 women 15-19 years old is 17 in the United States, 7.9 in France, and 5.2 in the Netherlands. Additionally, in the countries studies, teens begin having sexual relations more than one year later than American teens and have fewer sexual partners during their teen years than their American peers. (4)



• For a third of our nation's public school children, sex education focuses on a single theme: no sex outside of marriage. Period. Some of these children hear about contraception in class, but only in terms of its ineffectiveness in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Others don't hear about it at all--at least not in a class room setting. (4)
  
  
• With abstinence-only programs "sexually active teens cannot protect themselves from disease and pregnancy without full and accurate information about the transmission of sexually transmitted infections, their treatments, and the effectiveness of contraception" (4)

• Sexually active teens cannot protect themselves from disease and pregnancy without full and accurate information about the transmission of STI's and the effectiveness of contraception. Abstinence-only education programs jeopardize the health of sexually active teens and leave those who become sexually active at high risk for STIs and pregnancy. (4)

• One popular program for abstinence only education exaggerates condom failure rates, thereby minimizing their effectiveness in preventing pregnancy and STIs. (4)

All in all, as mentioned by The National coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), "Sex education programs that teach only abstinence fail to educate students about responsible sexual behavior and deny students their right of access to important medical information about sex. The abstinence-only approach has led school boards to censor material in textbooks. Furthermore, teachers have been disciplined or threatened with lawsuits for speaking candidly about sexual matters. As a result, teens are engaging in sexual activities without a basic knowledge of contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, safe sex practices, and abortion.".(5) Sex education that covers diseases, safe sex, and contraceptives helps everyone in whatever they decided to do in their life and prepares them for any scenario which is why this type of curriculum is better than abstinence based material taught in schools to the curious youth today. But it is important to remember that "a parent needs to be aware of his or her own family or religious beliefs and values and know their child's intellect and maturity levels"(6).

Sources/Links you might be interested in:

1. Abstinence-Only Programs Do Not Work. American Civil Liberties Union.
Teenage Sexuality. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. Opposing Viewpoints®. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006.

2. http://std.about.com/od/prevention/tp/toptencompsexed.htm

3. Abstinence-Only Sex Education Cannot Reduce Teenage Pregnancy. National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.
Opposing Viewpoints: Teenage Pregnancy. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003.

4. Sex Education Can Prevent Teenage Pregnancy. SIECUS.
Current Controversies: Teen Pregnancy and Parenting. Ed. Helen Cothran. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001.

5. Abstinence-Only Sex Education Endangers Students. National Coalition Against Censorship.
At Issue: Teen Sex. Ed. Christine Watkins. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005

6. http://www.essortment.com/family/sexeducationch_saqs.htm

Smirking or Non-smirking?

Stem Cell Research- Cons

There are three main sources for obtaining stem cells - adult cells, cord cells, and embryonic cells. Adult stem cells can be extracted either from bone marrow or from the peripheral system. Bone marrow is a rich source of stem cells. Some painful destruction of the bone marrow results from this procedure. Peripheral stem cells can be extracted without damage to bones, but the process takes more time. And with health issues, time is often of the essence. Although difficult to extract, since they are taken from the patient's own body, adult stem cells are superior to both umbilical cord and embryonic stem cells. There is always an exact DNA match so the body's immune system never rejects them. And as we might expect, results have been both profound and promising.1

Stem Cell research is very controversial due to the argument that use of embryonic stem cells for research involves the destruction of blastocysts formed from laboratory-fertilized human eggs. For people that believe that life begins at conception, the blastocyst is a human life and to destroy it is immoral.2 Mice treated for Parkinson's with embryonic stem cells have died from brain tumors in as much as 20% of cases.1 If stem cells are stored over a long period of time they have shown signs of developing cancer cells.

CONS

• Some people think of embyos as having the potential for life and that potential should be preserved.


• Some people think the embyos have dignity which should be preserved.


• Some people think embryos have a soul.


• Some people think that stem cell research constitues murder.3

Citations

1. Answers.com


2. allaboutpopularissues.org


3. About.com

Stem Cell Research Holds the Potential to Change Medicine

"Over 100 million Americans suffer from diseases that eventually may be treated more effectively ever even cured with embryonic stem cell therapy"

Stem cell research is a field that billions of dollars are being poured into in order to gain more knowledge and experience with the stem cells and their capabilities that could in the future benefit the human body greatly. By using stem cells damaged cells almost anywhere in the body that would otherwise be dead and useless could be replaced by these easily adapting cells. Cells that could be destroyed or damaged by chemotherapy treatments or other events and situations could be replaced by these cells so that the patient’s body can function correctly and fully with the number and types of cells needed in the affected area. These are all great reasons to use stem cells or fund the research of stem cells because of their ability to better human function and life in patients with damaged cells. Stem cells can be retrieved from adult cells, embryonic cells, and cord cells. Stem cells from adult cells are taken from the bone marrow of an individual and are superior to the other options of retrieving stem cells. Unfortunately, this process is the most time consuming in the extraction process. Stem cells from umbilical cords are next in line for the greatest source of these type of cells and is extracted during an individual’s pregnancy. Embryonic stem cells are extracted from a blastocyst after fertilization has occurred between a sperm and egg cell. Many believe this process with embryonic stem cells would require the destruction of human life as the trade off. This is most importantly a myth that has corrupted the viewpoint of many individuals needed to understand the correct and ethical process of extraction of embryonic stem cells in order to vote for this type of research to be funded. The concern with stem cell research regarding the use of blastocysts is a moral concern for many; is this process considered murder? This is the issue at hand.

Embryonic cells are cells derived from a fertilized egg or in other terms, the earliest human blasyocyst stage of an embryo. The stem cells inside each embryo hold vast possibilities of improving medicine and the overall health of many suffering from many diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, leukemia, and other types of cancers. According to Lawrence S.B. Goldstein, "decades of scientific research show the potential benefits of embryonic stem (ES) cell research. ES cells-which are derived from early-stage embryos that may have the ability to generate many types of replacement cells and tissues to help treat diseases which are the result of cell or tissue malfunction. Stem cells derived from adult tissue present exciting possibilities, it is too early to conclude that the potential use of adult stem cells eliminates the need for ES cell research. Therefore, ES research needs to be supported by federal funds to ensure that all the possibilities of this new medical technology are discovered"(4).

Why it isn't being funded/major issues:

Ethical considerations have caused the federal government to halt funding for stem cell research. (4).It is a popular misconception that in order for scientists to extract these stem cells a life must be sacrificed. Not only this, many believe that ES cells are taken from aborted fetuses as well as both of these issues are untrue and should be set straight for the record in order for support and understanding of ES cells to increase. These cells do not come from aborted fetuses. This misconception may come from the argument that unused extra embryos from fertility clinics should be used for ES cell research. As fertility clinics over produce the amount of embryos created for a hopeful couple eager to become pregnant in order to ensure a greater chance that one embryo will implant and become a successful pregnancy, many of the embryos are left unused or unsuccessful. While the unsuccessful embryos are ejected or dissolved naturally by the body, the remaining unused or extra embryos are without a human body to host their development and are often thrown away if not frozen or given away to another couple Instead of discarding embryos that are left over, why not put them to use for medical improvement? As mentioned by Lawrence S.B. Goldstein, even "legislators and many other citizens who oppose abortions, realize that it makes no sense to discard frozen human embryos without regard to the ethics of obtaining stem cells for potentially life-saving research"(3). Isn't it a tad bit unethical to just throw away those embryos that could potentially save lives instead? How about when the embryos are harvested in the body and then extracted? Does it take a life? No Way.

When embryonic cells are taken from the body, at the blastocyst stage the embryonic cells are not human form but are simply a mass of divided cells called the inner cell mass in the egg. As soon as the embryo is fertilized and becomes implanted the embryo is extracted from the body, the ICM (inner cell mass) is removed from the embryo's encasing and is placed in a Petry dish. Simple yet controversial as many are under the misunderstanding that ES cells are taken from a fetus. As political journalist Michael Kinsley states, "if embryos are human beings, it is not OK to kill them for their stem cells just because it is unethical to kill them, or knowingly let them die" (2) he continues making his point by sharing that, "if embryos are human beings, then the practices of fertility clinics are far worse--bother in numbers and criminal intent--than stem cell research". But fortunately, these embryos are not human at all. As mentioned above, the embryo is in the blastocyst stage that contains no human features of any sort. It is merely not human. Those supporting this statement such as ethics scholar and supporter of animal rights Peter Singer strongly express that "research on embryos should be prohibited if there is any possibility that the embryo is capable of suffering. A developed brain and nervous system is a pre-requisite for a capacity to suffer".(1)

Why it should be funded:

Margeret Haerens reports that "the use of embryonic stem cells should not be a dilemma" (2)

If ES research if funded scientists, government officials and/or other assigned regulators can come together to set appropriate rules for research proper ethical oversight, and public input. Full funding does not have to happen of course, a compromise can be met and funding can continue with the remaining two types of stem cells while ES stem cells can be less funded but still funded in the long run. There is a huge potential of curing and treating diseases as well as alleviating and reducing those that face or are facing premature death or disability. There the use of ES cells we will be able to gain a greater chance of defeating and curing deadly diseases that threaten and take the lives of many Americans of many ages. For instance take (source1s) friend Doug. Doug's son, like many other individuals suffering from a disease called diabetes. At the young age of seven years old Doug's son relies on him and his wife to monitor his blood throughout the night he sleep in order to prevent him from slipping into a coma and facing even harsher consequences once at that stage. Insulin comes in very useful but is not early a cure for the disease or condition but with the use of ES cells his condition stands the high possibility that his condition could be eliminated. How? Doug' s son's condition is caused by inadequate amounts of specific cells needed in the pancreas causing it to poorly function, if ES cells are able to adapt to any area of the body they are placed in and can form into specific cells needed to complete the pancreas then the condition would be eliminated or made less severe in any case.

It is important to know all of the facts about ES cell research before judging the importance of its research. Many legislatures and pro life individuals support the funding of ES cell research because they are well informed of the importance and high potential these stem cells hold. Not only that but they are well educated of all the facts regarding ES cell research such as the most important fact that the trade off of ES cell research is NOT the elimination or destruction of a human life in the process of extracting these cells.

Citations and links:

Pros and cons of embryonic stem cell research

1. Research Using Human Embryos Is Morally Acceptable. Peter Singer.
At Issue: The Ethics of Abortion. Ed. Jennifer A. Hurley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001.

2. Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is Not a Moral Dilemma.
At Issue: Embryonic and Adult Stem Cells. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009.
Viewpoint

3. Fetal Stem Cell Research May Improve Medicine. Lawrence S.B. Goldstein.
Opposing Viewpoints: Technology and Society. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002.

4. Embryonic Stem Cell Research Should Be Federally Funded. Lawrence S.B. Goldstein.
At Issue: Human Embryo Experimentation. Ed. Roman Espejo. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002.

Obama's Health Care Reform is the Change the U.S. Needs

"It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It provide insurance to those who don't. And it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government"

Although the Health Care Reform has many debatable topics and has extensive branches of categories regarding the problems the current status quo presents and the solutions the government has proposed by constructing a health care reform of Democratic and Republican ideas combined. In order to fix something we all are involved in we must all be involved in the efforts and endure the hard work and negative or positive consequences together as a whole, as a team, as a family.

What is the problem we are facing? According to the Wall Street Journal and many other sources "accelerating health care premiums and sharp revenue short falls due to the recession are forcing some small companies to choose between dropping health insurance or laying off workers--or staying in business at all". Big companies are shifting health care responsibilities to workers, requiring more workers to pay out of pocket, or are also laying workers off. Health care increases are forcing many to go uninsured and risking bankruptcy if a serious illness were to occur. Others are facing or undergoing bankruptcies due to the increasingly high premiums they are paying their insurance provider.

As President Obama acknowledges in his remarks to a joint session of congress on health care,

"Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can't afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover."

His health care reform addresses these many issues Americans are facing everyday insured or not insured. For those able to get or are currently with health insurance policies already through companies or through a private policy, insurance companies will not be able to deny access to coverage because of pre-existing conditions/illnesses. Individuals will live free of fear of being dropped from coverage if a sickness occurs and along with other benefits, citizens can be rest assured that large company employers will be required to provide insurance coverage for all employees. Those without health insurance will be able to be under a public health insurance option. This reform lowers the coverage cost for insurance making it more accessible for those whom otherwise wouldn't be able or willing to purchase a health care policy plan.

The problem of "30 million+ American citizens who cannot get coverage" and the "14000 Americans losing their coverage" daily will be significantly lower after the nation undergoes the health care reform. Another positive point about this reform is that the current insurance coverage may be kept if any company or individual chooses to keep it. No where in the reform does it state that chosen coverage needs to be changed; this is assuring to many citizens surely. With the decrease in the cost of health care insurance and the soon to be implemented free cost for preventative care comes decreases in many categories such as the number of deceases and cancers occurring or being caught quite late due to hesitations from patients regarding preventative care and routine checkups because of the extra costs added on to medical bills. It also will decrease the number of Americans struggling with monetary issues and those on the brink of bankruptcy because of illness, dropped, or denied coverage. It will decrease premiums and lower the statistics of uninsured individuals or families and lower the number of companies dropping insurance coverage or collapsing all together. these are many benefits of this Health Care Reform and these are just a few of the major benefits Americans (excluding illegal immigrants) will enjoy as it lifts the health care expense burden off of millions' shoulders and minds. Doctors will be able to focus on treating and preventing illnesses without the fear of malpractice suits and citizens of the U.S. are able to spend their money elsewhere instead of dedicating a large percentage of their paycheck to expensive and inflated health care insurance premiums. This reform is exactly what Americans are in desperate need for.

Links for further reading:

• The president's plan in a nutshell
• REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENTTO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESSON HEALTH CARE
• The Wall Street Journal
  

Health Care Reform

The United States currently spends 2.2 trillion dollars a year on Health Care. It is projected that by the year 2017 we will be spending almost double, approximately 4 trillion dollars. The Health Care Reform bill will tax the wealthiest citizens and specific health care savings in three areas: promoting efficiency and accountability, aligning incentives towards quality and better care, and encouraging shared responsibility.1 The main reason Obama is trying to pass the Health Care reform is because he believes that the current health care system is flawed and millions of dollars are being used selfishly and that the new health care plan will eliminate the need of wasteful spending. Obama's other concern with the old health care plan is that health insurance companies don't cover people the way they should, the new health care plan will not let the insurance companies drop certain individuals because their medical coverage is to high.





To transform the new health care reform bill the Budget department will set aside a reserve fund of more than $630 billion over 10 years that will be dedicated towards financing reforms to our health care system. The President recognizes that while a very large amount of money and a major commitment, $630 billion is not sufficient to fully fund comprehensive reform.1 If the reform is signed then what it will do for the citizens of the United Stated is basically try to cover all Americans citizens over time. What the reform promises is Guarantee Choice, Make Health Coverage Affordable, Protect Families’ Financial Health, Invest in Prevention and Wellness, Provide Portability of Coverage, Aim for Universality, Improve Patient Safety and Quality Care, Maintain Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability.1 All of these things are a lot to promise for one bill especially for how much most of these will cost in the long run. The new reform bill sounds pretty good but the aim for universal health care throws me off a little because of the cost of it. 50% is a lot of money coming out of any ones paycheck and if interest rate continue to climb then it will eventually lead to more taxes.

The House and the Senate both have different sides of what the reform bill should say. One issue is on employer financial requirements, the Senate says: employers that do not offer quality coverage pay an 8% payroll tax on wages for all employees and the total payment for the Senate is 135 billion. The House says: employers that do not offer any coverage pay 750 dollars per employee if any one employee receives a tax credit in exchange. Employees also pay a penalty if they are late on there coverage, the total payment for the House is 25 Billion.2 I do not agree with either of these proposals because the United States economy depends of small businesses and if they decide to tax small businesses more, then I believe that this will cause more problems for the economy.

Pros:

• Everybody can get health care if they want it
• In the long run it will reduce hopefuly reduce medical cost
• Health insurance companies can no longer cap coverage, which means they can no longer say they have spent enough money on you
• There will be increased competition in the insurance market, there will be a push for the insurance companies to lower their rates.

Cons:

• For the first 10 years it will cost about a 100 billion dollars a year
• The Individual Mandate, you will either have to buy health insurance or have a 2% tax increase
• There will be a very high tax increase on people making makeing over a half a million dollars a year 3

Citations

1. http://www.healthreform.gov/

2. HScomparison

3.www.squashed.tumblr.com

Cons of Universal Health Care

Universal health care is very controversial over weather or not the system can actually work. Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology are two of the fastest growing industries in the United States. Universal heath care funded by the government would limit the breakthrough of new medicine. The reason for this is because if the Pharmaceutical company's cannot make any money off new breakthrough drugs then there is no reason for them to invest. The competition of these companies to make better and newer drugs has really helped the economy in the United States and if they decide they cannot make any money in the field, then the economy will suffer.1



The Universal Health care programs in other countries not everything is as amazing as it seems. In Canada, wait times to see a specialist have sent many people with the money to buy private insurance. It takes 22 months for residents of Saskatchewan to get an MRI, this could be due to the lack of equipment as well. 57% of Canadians report having to wait a month just to see a specialist.1 If the United States were to get a Universal Health care program I believe that it would be very chaotic with the amount of people flooding into the hospital and eventually lead taxes to increase to the point were more than half of your paycheck would go to taxes. The amount of money will also rise due to people taking advantage of the system and going to the hospital for little minor things they would not normally go to the doctor for, so ultimately Americans would have to pay more because of people taking advantage of the free Health care.




One of the biggest problems of Universal Heath care is that the Government would be in charge of how it is run. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are run by the government, both of these programs are on track to bankrupt themselves.1 What might eventually happen is that the government would try to borrow money from the system for other things and end up destroying the entire system, which is why people are very weary of the system because it is a social program.



If Universal health care were to be set in to place then there would be no need for health insurance anymore. The workers at the hospitals that deal with the insurance companies would loss there jobs. The idea behind the health care program is more jobs would be created because of it but the increase would only be about 15% of Americans without health insurance. 15% compared to 100% working with health insurance.2 In the United States there will be a huge loss of private practices which would in turn reduce the amount of jobs again creating more problems for doctors. The amount of future doctors would also decrease because many would have very inflexible hours and would also be overloaded with work because the hospitals are understaffed. The hospitals are already understaffed as it is and the Universal Health Care program would definately not help with that situation at all, what would probably happen is hospital would be so overloaded that doctors and nurses would quit.