
This research question interests me because I received abstinence-only sex education from fifth to twelfth grade and personally understand the ineffectiveness of these programs and recognize the need for improvement. I remember being "scared" into not having sex by being shown disturbing photos of severe and rare STDs as well as overly dramatized diagrams. I found this very unhelpful, and I know a number of my peers did as   well. We were told to simply not have sex. Our differing beliefs and stances on sex were not acknowledged, instead they were ignored. Therefore, when some of my peers began to become sexually active, they were unaware of how to protect themselves. In our sex education classes, birth control, condoms, and other methods of contraception were briefly acknowledged, but not explained. This topic affects me and my values because I believe teenagers are educationally unprepared for sex when they are only taught to just "not have it" and that is not fair or effective. This approach is completely ignoring the emotional aspects of sex and the differing views and values associated with it. Furthermore, such classes place a negative connotation on sex that shames students that believe differently. I am qualified to write about this because I feel strongly about this subject. I think kids deserve a more effective sex education and that older generations should want an effective sex education for their children. In addition, I have had personal exposure to the negative effect of abstinence only sex education. I am educated and have done and will continue to do extensive research on the topic.

In "Comprehensive Sex Education for Teens Is More Effective than Abstinence" by David Carter, he analyses the sex education laws and policies in 48 states. Each state was given a value using a scale from 0-3. These values were assigned according to the emphasis on 4 categories: "no provision (0), abstinence covered (1), abstinence promoted (2), and abstinence stressed (3)" (Carter 10). These results showed that the "more abstinence was stressed, the higher were the rates of teen pregnancy" (Carter 10). Level 1 approach was the most effective, "which included comprehensive sex education and covered contraception, condom use, and abstinence" (Carter 10). This study negates the argument that teaching contraception harms the goal of reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates. The main value in this article is the value of health for our generations and future generations. In addition, the value of women's health is important because these article discuses the best ways to prevent teen pregnancy. Research was needed in order to find out what is more effective and teens all over the country are at stake. If they don't learn how to protect themselves, the STD rates and pregnancy rates are going to continue to be alarmingly high. In addition, teens will be raising children they aren't ready to raise, have to put a hold on their future, put their babies into adoption, or get an abortion because they were not planning these pregnancies. The health of students is at stake when they are not properly educated on sex and how to protect themselves. Carter is credible because he received his Political Science degree from Princeton University and this article is peer-reviewed. In addition, David Carter is not bias in this article because the research he did is based on facts and statistics. He analyzed the numbers and drew a logical conclusion which lacks any bias at all. 

In "The Effectiveness of School-based Sex Education Programs in the Promotion of Abstinent Behavior" by Monica Silva, she discusses the many sexual education programs through schools that are "designed for the sole purpose of delaying the initiation of sexual activity" (Silva 471). Silva points out that the two most popular methods of sexual education, abstinence-only and safer-sex, have different goals and values, yet they both are attempting to help students with problem solving and decision making (Silva 472). She explains that the effectiveness in delaying sexual relations was shown to be inconclusive when two studies contradicted each other. 

Some believe that comprehensive sex education encourages sexual relations. Those who believe this misconception also believe that the value of abstinence until marriage is being undermined by comprehensive sex education. For example, many Christians believe in waiting until sex until marriage. If these people also believe the misconception that comprehensive sex education encourages sexual relations, then they would believe that their values are being undermined. In contrast, teenage students who are receiving abstinence only sexual education are at risk for pregnancy because they are not informed. 

The author, Monica Silva, writes for Health Education Research, which is an academic source. She is credible because she has researched this topic and used many experiments to support her information. Silva references to a number of other doctors, academic sources, and researches. She has little to no bias because her article is strictly informative in relaying the information from others' research.

In "Effective Sex Education" by Brigid McKeon, she argues that "comprehensive sex education is effective and does not promote sexual risks" while "abstinence-only programs are dangerous, ineffective, and inaccurate" (McKeon). She references to research to research that shows that not a single abstinence program has been proven to prevent teenagers from having sex or have they helped to protect them. McKeon argues that the U.S. government should stop spending money supporting ineffective programs while ignoring the rights of teenagers to efficient sexual education. She backs these claims up with statistics and presented research conclusions. The values and interests at stake include the government spending money on programs that do not have any benefits and the health of teens who are not getting the information they deserve. Teens are at a high risk for pregnancy and STDs because they are not properly educated on sex if all they are told is to remain abstinent. When teens are not properly educated, the result can be unwanted pregnancies, adoption, or abortion. These consequences can be avoided if teens are properly educated on sex. The author, Brigid McKeon, is credible because she is writing for a peer-reviewed academic journal and uses strong facts and cited evidence to support her claims. This article has some bias because it is obvious that the author prefers comprehensive sexual education over abstinence-only programs because she does not acknowledge studies on abstinence-only sex education or address the opposing side. Yet, her bias and opinions are supported by evidence and research so this article is still reliable.

This research question is arguable because people have conflicting sense of right and wrong. It is reasonable to take moralism out of the debate and rely on the facts. One of my sources stated that no form of sexual education was effective, yet another source said that comprehensive sex education is effective and abstinence-only sex education is not effective.  These different perspectives strengthen my opinion on the debate because of the clear research that has proven that the current popular abstinence-only sex education is not effective in helping students remain abstinent or in protecting themselves when they choose to engage in sex. In my research question revision, I may be able to explore the type of sex education that students most prefer and the type that parents most prefer. In addition, I could explore the best combination of abstinence and comprehensive sex education.

