Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?

From Conservapedia

!

THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

There is no question about abstinence only sex education versus no sex education, or about Abstinance plus (condoms and pills) education versus education based just on condoms and pills, but I have yet to see any source that recommends that Abstinence only is better than Abstinence plus at reducing lifetime sexual partners, increasing age of first sexual encounter, decreasing unwanted pregnancies, or decreasing the number of abortions; Children who get abstinence only education are more likely to have sex with out a condom, why go with AO instead of AP? --Brendanw 18:05, 19 February 2009 (EST)

AO Hurts

Children reaching puberty should know all there is about sex. Not excatly EVERYTHING but only the essentials. Abstinence should always be taught but not the only topic. Abstinence is till the best form of birth control. It only failed once. ;) GordonF 19:05, 15 March 2009.

It hurts. ALOT. If abstinence only were taught only, without teaching the kids any knowledge of contraceptives and birth control, if they do decide to give in to their primal "urges", they have no other alternative to keep them from having an unplanned pregnancy. Abstinence is alright, but the kids need to be taught that there are other alternatives if they feel the need to do so. --MikeEtc 14:25, 2 April 2009 (EDT)