Sex education debate settled!

Here is the first post of 3 that, logically, would settle the RH debates of sex ed, contraception and abortion for all eternity. Of course, ultraconservatives have never been known for their rationality, so I think I'll spell it out to them. The series will work in the order of preventing unwanted pregnancies: first sex ed, then contraception, and finally a part me, part guest post from Bay of Fundie on abortion.

First-the debate. In in the Right* corner, there is the conservative, abstinence-only ed, which is the idea that people should remain virgins until they're married, and only then should they have sex. In the Left corner, there is comprehensive sex ed, which is just that-comprehensive. It features the ins and outs of sex, (lame pun intended) the biology, STDs, and various ways of 'safe sex' to prevent pregnancies.

Now: what are the arguments against comprehensive sex education (CSE)?

1. It will cause more young teens to experiment sexually.
- The premise for this is simple: if we teach kids (ie young teens, say early secondary school) about sex-especially if we tell them that, under the right circumstances, it's perfectly alright-then logically these kids will want to have sex. Therefore, we have more kids having sex, which will increasing STDs, increase unwanted pregnancies, etc etc.

However, this argument suffers from the fact that it is scientifically wrong. On page 8, Collins, Alagiri anf Summers write

The weight of the evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals clearly shows that some comprehensive sex education programs can reduce behavior that puts young people at risk of HIV, STIs and unintended pregnancy, and that these programs do not promote earlier onset of sexual activity or an increased number of sexual partners among adolescents. By contrast, little if any credible research exists to substantiate the claims that abstinence-only programming leads to positive behavior change among youth.

...

Abstinence-only programming runs the serious risk of leaving young people, especially those at elevated risk, uninformed and alienated.

Wikipedia also has information. But there you have it: CSE is more effective then then AOE at preventing pregnancies. So round 1 to the the Left.

3. It's morally degrading.
- I first saw this on Fundie Watch, where Rebecca, a spokewoman for the CWN, writes that teaching sex ed is the equivalent of saying to young people (who, more often then not ar experiencing a drop in self-esteem) “You have no self-control, and we don’t expect you to. We know you’re going to ‘do it,’ so just make sure you’re ‘safe’ when you do.”
Naturally, saying just that would probably be demoralising. Ironically, however, that's that the Right is saying: that teens have no self-control. Think about it: the whole point of abstinance education is that if you touch a guy/girl between the legs, you'll become a raging sex addict doing the nasty 20 times a day.
CSE is the opposite; it recognises that, teens, with the right knowledge, teenagers can be emotionally mature about sex and do it knowing what will happen. Besides, I still can't figure out what's so 'moral' about chasity in the first place (aside from successfully suppressing a 500 million year old instinct, which would be great if hard-Righties could also suppress that more recent instinct of hating minority groups).

So far, that's all the arguments against CSE. Certainly, there are those "IT'SAGAINSTHEBIBLE!!1!" arguments, they're so ludicrously full of sh*t and easy to counter** I don't consider them proper arguments, at least not when compared to the above ones.

Next up: the contraception debate settled!

*Yes it is inaccurate to refer to opinions on social issues as Left vs. Right when Left vs. Right is in fact about economic issues. However, most Righties and Lefties are conservatives and progressives, and Right corner and Left corner has a better ring to it.

**EG: Australia isn't a theocracy. Laws aren't made based on a book written by people who thought the