paresh

Mere som dette

Progressive Era- Unit Plan

af Robert Martin

Group Assignment

af Neo Kian Heng

Civil Engineering

af Shaun Bunch

Medicine and Public Health from Roman Britain to c1350

af Anthea Pryde

The objection does not really counter the statement "Sex carries with it..." The sentences below the reaon: Im not sure what their role is meant to be.

This box has 2 reasoning steps here. Can you untangle them?

This is evidence, ie a reason, not an assumption. Assumptions are most commonly general principles

Your assumption is evidence, ie a reason

The reason is each box has 2 reasoning steps here. Can you untangle them?

There is little evidence that abstention-only programs delay the initiation of sex. A range of studies have demonstrated that they do not delay the onset of sexual activity or reduce the frequency with which sex occurs once a teenager has become sexually active.

The reason has several reasoning steps. Can you untangle them? The Assumption here is good, because it has the nature of a general principle, and it helps create a logical connection between the reason in its own box and the reason in the box above.

This could be atomised a lot.

In regards to Sex Education in schools, "abstinence-only education" is better than "comprehensive sex education".

Because: Parents, not schools, should teach their children about sex

But, more importantly, the problem with relying on parents to teach their children essential sexual information is that many children do not have parents, or responsible ones. These children need a holistic education more than anyone, and it is unfair to prevent them from learning about sex just because they have no one willing to talk to them about it

Telling students to abstain ensures that no one is taught anything more than their parents want, and leaves room for parents to give a more extensive education if they so desire. ASS: A Zogby International poll of U.S. parents found that 78% of parents think sex education classes in public schools should place more emphasis on promoting abstinence than on condom and other contraceptive use

Given that cultural and social attitudes towards sex are so variable, it should be up to the family to decide how to broach this sensitive topic.

A suitable argumentative claim.

It is irresponsible to teach anything but abstinence to children too young for sex.

Sex carries with it a multitude of risks and responsibilities. All sex – even protected – has the possibility of leading to Sexually transmitted infctions or pregnancy, both of which have huge psychological, emotional, and physical impacts. ASS: Young people are simply not emotionally or physically mature enough to take such risks, or accept such responsibilities, and so it is irresponsible to teach anything but abstinence.

Telling students to practice abstinence does not mean that they will. Abstinence should absolutely be emphasized as an important method of staying safe, but teaching it alongside other information about sex and protection is far more responsible than pretending that these things do not exist.

Because: Abstinence-only education teaches young people that they do not need to have sex to fit in.

Abstinence programs teach teenagers how to have meaningful, age-appropriate relationships, and help young people fight the pressure of having sex before they are ready.

ASS: According to a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly 30 percent of sexually active teens said they feel pressured to have sex.