Student
Melissa Favara
English 101 T
22 February 2008
Comprehensive Sex-Education Programs Compared to Abstinence Only Programs
As I sat in the O.B. waiting room at Vancouver Clinic, a young girl, no more than fourteen years of age, slunk deep into her chair, humiliated while her mother criticized her pregnant state ruthlessly. The young girl looked helpless, trying to unattach herself from the situation, as if she wanted to curl up into a ball and hide. Three out of ten teenage girls (31%) become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20 – more than 750,000 teen pregnancies a year (“Statistics” 8); as you can see, this young girl is clearly not alone. Teen pregnancies have risen three percent in the last year after a long fourteen-year drop (Kotz 1), and yet the method of sex-education programs in public schools remain the same.
Some health experts believe that the increased rate of teen pregnancies is due to abstinence oriented programs, while others remain confident in an abstinence approach (Kotz 1). An abstinence approach emphasizes the exclusion of any sexual relations before marriage, leaves out all essential sexual and reproductive health education, eliminates information on contraceptive use, or only supplies failure rates surrounding the use of all contraceptives (“Abstinence-only sex education” 1). Sarah Brown, chief executive officer of the nonpartisan National Campaign to prevent unplanned teenage pregnancies, feels that a really good sex-ed program should get teens involved through discussions circling relevant school culture, gang membership, and sex parties (Kotz 2). Brown’s idea of a more comprehensive sex-ed program was backed by a recent analysis released by the nonpartisan National Campaign to prevent unplanned teenage pregnancies. The study revealed that a comprehensive sex-education program delays a teenager’s first sexual experience, improves contraceptive use, and decreases the probability of unplanned teenage pregnancies (Kotz 2). So why do we continue to be the “leading industrialized nation for STDs and teen pregnancies” (Lottes 1) when clearly, we have the answer?
The federal law only permits funds to public schools that teach abstinence as the only way to avoid STDs and unplanned pregnancies, although two thirds of federally supported sex-ed programs provide students with miss information about contraception and abortion risks (Kotz 2). Abstinence-only advocates (conservative congress and religious groups) rally together to achieve a more reinforced abstinence-only program, while studies released by the Mathematica Policy Research have shown no difference in the rate of sexually active teenagers, STD contractions, contraceptive use, or teen pregnancies between abstinence-only taught teens and teens with no prior sex-education (Kotz 1-2). “Abstinence-only programs are ideology driven, and are not a good use of our public-health dollars,” says Marilyn Keefe, director of reproductive health and rights at the nonprofit National Partnership for Women and Families (Kotz 1). Fifteen states have declined federal funds for abstinence programs due to their inability to provide teens with sufficient knowledge on sex-oriented issues (Kotz 2).
When responsible adults do not educate teens, ignorance threatens their health and personal safety (Gaiter, Martel 1). Today teens frequently ask where their cherry is and if it really pops during intercourse; the majority of teenage girls do not know that the hymen, referred to as a cherry, can be broken through sport like activities; a broken hymen does not prove that your virginity has been taken, although many believe otherwise (Gaiter, Martel 1). Male teens believe/imply that their partner is not sexually satisfying unless they bleed during intercourse, implying that pain must be involved in order to reach ecstasy (Gaiter, Martel 1-2). This distorted male teen viewpoint dehumanizes females, implying inadiquacy towards those who wish to have a non-painful experience (Gaiter, Martel 2). Many teens believe that pregnancy cannot take place in a position called doggie style; high school and middle school age girls participate in oral and anal sexual activities as a way to preserve their virginity as well as a way of avoiding STDs and HIV/AIDS (Gaiter, Martel 2). When teens are asked about their probability of contracting STDs and HIV/AIDS, most feel that they are out of harm’s way if it is their first time or if they are in a current relationship and do not feel that they have promiscuous tendencies. If most teenagers share the above viewpoints, then it is easy to see how our education system’s abstinence oriented programs fail to meet our teenager’s needs. If abstinence-only taught programs aren’t sufficient, then what forms of comprehensive programs would better educate our teens?
According to Fabio Piccini, a doctor and Jungian psychotherapist, appropriate sex-education can prevent the spread of STD’s, teen pregnancies, and unnecessary abortions, build resistance towards peer pressures, build awareness between the differences in male and female views of romantic relations, and prevent some sexual problems in adulthood (Piccini). Without proper sex-education, teenagers would be learning about sexual relations through pornography, which gives a false sense of truth (Piccini). Even though teenagers should be getting the majority of their sex-education from parents, parents tend to lack the proper sex-oriented knowledge and are not comfortable with the topic; therefore, sex-education needs to be provided within public schools (Piccini). Sex-education needs to begin early in a child’s life, building knowledge throughout the following years where that knowledge will be entered into the category of common knowledge, such as reading, writing, and arithmetic (Piccini). If our children are brought up fully informed, the fight to lower STDs, HIV/AIDS, and teen pregnancies can succeed.
As parents, we are obligated to offer our teens a sex-education program that will meet all needs, answer all questions, as well as prepare them for adulthood. Our teens need to be fully educated on reproduction, emotional ties brought on by intercourse, opposite sex point of views, sexual relations, contraception, STDs, HIV/AIDS, pregnancy, abortion, prevention, resistance to peer pressure, as well as the obvious: abstinence is the only foolproof way to avoid STDs, HIV/AIDS, and pregnancy. Since abstinence-only programs have the same effects as a non-existent program, it is our duty to supply our teens with a more comprehensive sex-ed program that has already been proven successful.
Works Cited
Statistics. Feb. 2007. National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. 17 Feb. 2008
http://www.sadd.org/stats.htm#pregnancy.
Kotz,Deborah. “A Debate About Teaching Abstinence.” U.S. News & World Report 142.23
(2007): 28-28. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Clark College, Lewis D. Cannell Lib.17 Feb. 2008. http://www.clark.edu/Library.
Lottes, Ilsa L. “Sexual health policies in other industrialized countries: are there lessons for the
United States? - Statistical Data Included.” Journal of Sex Research (2002): 5. 17 Feb.
2008 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_39/ai_87080446/pg_2.
Gaiter, & Martel, Jatrice. “Let’s Talk About Sex and Health.” Essence 32.2 (2002): 214.
Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Clark College, Lewis D. Cannell Lib. 17 Feb.
2008. http://www.clark.edu/Library.
Piccini, Fabio. Sexual Education in Schools, Sex Education For Teens. Web4Health
Online 12 May 2007. Web4Health. 18 Feb. 2008
http://web4health.info/en/answers/sex-education-achools.htm.
“Abstinence-only sex education.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 20 Feb. 2008 Wickimedia
Foundation. 23 Feb. 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
The first paper!
Ruth Cassler
Melissa Favara
English 101
25 February 2008
Label Them or Not?
Mandating genetically modified food labels in the United States has been a big issue with the public. There are good arguments on both sides. Some people believe that they have the right to know what is in the foods they are eating. Other people believe that it shouldn’t matter whether or not the foods are labeled, and the amount of work it would take to do such a thing from here on out is unreasonable. There is another group that either has no opinion or is unaware of what genetically modified foods are. Let’s take a closer look at these opposing sides.
The public doesn’t always take news so well, especially when it involves new food and health studies. Introducing genetically modified foods to the public can be a little tough, because for one, the words “genetically” and “modified” don’t always make sense to everyone, and secondly, “modified foods” doesn’t sound the greatest, either. In fact, it sounds rather out of the ordinary. Genetically modified foods are foods in which the genetic makeup is altered during the time they are living plants. When foods combine genes from different organisms, they are said to be “genetically modified” (Genetically, par. 2). The steps to producing genetically modified foods involve taking DNA from one organism, modifying it in a laboratory, and then inserting it into the other organism's characteristic information that is transferred from parent to child, also known as hereditary information, to produce new and useful traits. Genetic modification has only been around since the seventies (Genetically), and we already have so much debate about it.
One side of the argument believes that labeling genetically modified foods would be too big of a hassle for the food producers and too confusing for grocery shoppers. Most food manufacturers that do use genetically modified organisms wouldn’t be able to tell us how many are included in their foods (Kintisch, Par. 1). Whether or not certain ingredients are genetically modified also needs to be taken in to consideration when thinking about labeling these foods, and whether it is feasible. Eli Kintisch, from the New Republic magazine, mentions that in order to label genetically modified foods, people would first have to segregate food production lines from field to factory to grocery stores (Par. 1). He also states, “The cost of such an operation would raise retail prices as much as 10 percent for some foods” (Par. 1). The only solution given from this article, “Sticker Shock,” is to label foods “GM-Free” or “non-GM,” and have anti-GM consumers pay for the cost of segregating these foods (Par. 1). My impression is that those who are not as concerned about labeling genetically modified foods are also not as concerned over whether or not the foods are safe for consumption.
The flip side to this argument is that many Americans feel they have the right to know what is in the foods they eat, according to Senator Barbara Boxer (qtd. in Kintisch, par. 2). This is a claim made by those who are worried about the safety of genetically modified organisms in the foods they eat. Environmental concerns are also considered when dealing with genetically modified organism and foods. Herbicides and pesticides are predicted to triple as a result of genetically modified organisms used in foods, causing the environment to gain more toxins in soils (Genetically). This could then cause extinction in certain seeds and plants, destruction of forest life, and bring poisonous plants that harm mammals. The spraying of pesticides that kill beneficial insects are expected to bring new, evolved “super pests” that can sustain the spraying (Genetically). Cross-pollination is also a concern for those who are growing crops nearby another farm. Farms that are growing organic crops don’t want genes from another farm with genetically modified crops to interact.
Potential human health risks are yet another concern for those against unlabeled genetically modified foods and the whole idea of modified foods to begin with. The biggest concern that I’ve seen from this side is the risk of allergens in the foods. Because labeling isn’t required by law, we really can’t be completely sure about possibly eating something that will force us to have to go to the hospital. But if this is being looked at in the argument, then shouldn’t other ingredients in foods that make people sick be looked at too? If we brought to the attention of food producers that their foods were making people sick, and they got rid of those foods and ingredients, we would then be limited to many fewer items in the grocery stores. We can’t suit everyone’s needs when it comes narrowing down foods that cause people to become sick, because many people can get sick from different things. People with allergies can read labels to avoid the ingredients to which they are allergic. But if a different ingredient includes a gene from the food they are trying to avoid, they have no way of knowing it.
There are also ethical controversies about genetically modified foods (Genetically). Genetically engineered crops are contaminating organic crops, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is doing nothing to stop it. Many people believe that by not labeling genetically modified foods, those producing genetically modified products are “violating natural organisms' intrinsic values” (Genetically). They also think it is wrong to “tamper with nature by mixing genes among species” (Genetically). These people are more in favor of at least letting others know about this contamination. Instead of sitting back and doing nothing, Americans are taking action against the FDA and the U.S.D.A. to make labeling mandatory (Organic). The busy activists are standing up for the organic farmers.
I found it very interesting that the same side who felt labeling G.M.F’s would be too hard, mentions that 86% of Americans feel they should be labeled (Kintisch, Par. 2), and still disagree. Why do they want to go against this big majority of consumers? Are they only trying to make a big profit? Another interesting fact stated by the same side was that, “during the presidential campaign, Al Gore and Ralph Nader promised mandatory labels on GM food” (Kintisch, Par. 2). After doing some research, I also found that other politicians such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton also support labeling genetically modified foods (GMOs). Even if the two aren’t favorites of some for the 2008 presidential election, they are both very smart, credible people, who know a whole lot in a number of subjects.
Labeling genetically modified foods would make it so every consumer has the opportunity to make an informed decision about what they are eating. Why shouldn’t American’s know whether or not their food is natural or genetically modified? We have the right to know what is in our food, even if it brings confusion to the shoppers. Food producers who have their minds set on money don’t have to worry about the risks of allergens in their foods, because they know more about what is being put in them. You would think that because people are trying to make certain foods healthier, those people would put a lot of consideration into the public’s health. It doesn’t seem like there is much consideration with all the controversy about labeling these foods. We shouldn’t have to go completely organic because of fear of allergens in non-organic foods. Health should be more important than money to anyone, and I personally think that we should save anyone a trip to the hospital and label these genetically modified foods.
Works Cited
“Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms” Human Genome Project Online. July 2007.
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program. 20 Feb. 2008..
Hart, Kathleen. "The FDA Should Require Safety Testing and Labeling of Genetically
Engineered Foods." At Issue: Genetically Engineered Foods. Ed. Nancy Harris. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Clark College - Cannell Library. 20 Feb. 2008.
.
Kintisch, Eli. "Labeling Genetically Engineered Foods Is Not Feasible." At Issue:
Genetically Engineered Foods. Ed. Nancy Harris. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Clark College - Cannell Library. 20 Feb. 2008..
Schauss, Alexander “Do You Know What is in Your Food?”
The Campaign Grassroots Political Action. 2007. 23 Feb. 2008.
Melissa Favara
English 101
25 February 2008
Label Them or Not?
Mandating genetically modified food labels in the United States has been a big issue with the public. There are good arguments on both sides. Some people believe that they have the right to know what is in the foods they are eating. Other people believe that it shouldn’t matter whether or not the foods are labeled, and the amount of work it would take to do such a thing from here on out is unreasonable. There is another group that either has no opinion or is unaware of what genetically modified foods are. Let’s take a closer look at these opposing sides.
The public doesn’t always take news so well, especially when it involves new food and health studies. Introducing genetically modified foods to the public can be a little tough, because for one, the words “genetically” and “modified” don’t always make sense to everyone, and secondly, “modified foods” doesn’t sound the greatest, either. In fact, it sounds rather out of the ordinary. Genetically modified foods are foods in which the genetic makeup is altered during the time they are living plants. When foods combine genes from different organisms, they are said to be “genetically modified” (Genetically, par. 2). The steps to producing genetically modified foods involve taking DNA from one organism, modifying it in a laboratory, and then inserting it into the other organism's characteristic information that is transferred from parent to child, also known as hereditary information, to produce new and useful traits. Genetic modification has only been around since the seventies (Genetically), and we already have so much debate about it.
One side of the argument believes that labeling genetically modified foods would be too big of a hassle for the food producers and too confusing for grocery shoppers. Most food manufacturers that do use genetically modified organisms wouldn’t be able to tell us how many are included in their foods (Kintisch, Par. 1). Whether or not certain ingredients are genetically modified also needs to be taken in to consideration when thinking about labeling these foods, and whether it is feasible. Eli Kintisch, from the New Republic magazine, mentions that in order to label genetically modified foods, people would first have to segregate food production lines from field to factory to grocery stores (Par. 1). He also states, “The cost of such an operation would raise retail prices as much as 10 percent for some foods” (Par. 1). The only solution given from this article, “Sticker Shock,” is to label foods “GM-Free” or “non-GM,” and have anti-GM consumers pay for the cost of segregating these foods (Par. 1). My impression is that those who are not as concerned about labeling genetically modified foods are also not as concerned over whether or not the foods are safe for consumption.
The flip side to this argument is that many Americans feel they have the right to know what is in the foods they eat, according to Senator Barbara Boxer (qtd. in Kintisch, par. 2). This is a claim made by those who are worried about the safety of genetically modified organisms in the foods they eat. Environmental concerns are also considered when dealing with genetically modified organism and foods. Herbicides and pesticides are predicted to triple as a result of genetically modified organisms used in foods, causing the environment to gain more toxins in soils (Genetically). This could then cause extinction in certain seeds and plants, destruction of forest life, and bring poisonous plants that harm mammals. The spraying of pesticides that kill beneficial insects are expected to bring new, evolved “super pests” that can sustain the spraying (Genetically). Cross-pollination is also a concern for those who are growing crops nearby another farm. Farms that are growing organic crops don’t want genes from another farm with genetically modified crops to interact.
Potential human health risks are yet another concern for those against unlabeled genetically modified foods and the whole idea of modified foods to begin with. The biggest concern that I’ve seen from this side is the risk of allergens in the foods. Because labeling isn’t required by law, we really can’t be completely sure about possibly eating something that will force us to have to go to the hospital. But if this is being looked at in the argument, then shouldn’t other ingredients in foods that make people sick be looked at too? If we brought to the attention of food producers that their foods were making people sick, and they got rid of those foods and ingredients, we would then be limited to many fewer items in the grocery stores. We can’t suit everyone’s needs when it comes narrowing down foods that cause people to become sick, because many people can get sick from different things. People with allergies can read labels to avoid the ingredients to which they are allergic. But if a different ingredient includes a gene from the food they are trying to avoid, they have no way of knowing it.
There are also ethical controversies about genetically modified foods (Genetically). Genetically engineered crops are contaminating organic crops, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is doing nothing to stop it. Many people believe that by not labeling genetically modified foods, those producing genetically modified products are “violating natural organisms' intrinsic values” (Genetically). They also think it is wrong to “tamper with nature by mixing genes among species” (Genetically). These people are more in favor of at least letting others know about this contamination. Instead of sitting back and doing nothing, Americans are taking action against the FDA and the U.S.D.A. to make labeling mandatory (Organic). The busy activists are standing up for the organic farmers.
I found it very interesting that the same side who felt labeling G.M.F’s would be too hard, mentions that 86% of Americans feel they should be labeled (Kintisch, Par. 2), and still disagree. Why do they want to go against this big majority of consumers? Are they only trying to make a big profit? Another interesting fact stated by the same side was that, “during the presidential campaign, Al Gore and Ralph Nader promised mandatory labels on GM food” (Kintisch, Par. 2). After doing some research, I also found that other politicians such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton also support labeling genetically modified foods (GMOs). Even if the two aren’t favorites of some for the 2008 presidential election, they are both very smart, credible people, who know a whole lot in a number of subjects.
Labeling genetically modified foods would make it so every consumer has the opportunity to make an informed decision about what they are eating. Why shouldn’t American’s know whether or not their food is natural or genetically modified? We have the right to know what is in our food, even if it brings confusion to the shoppers. Food producers who have their minds set on money don’t have to worry about the risks of allergens in their foods, because they know more about what is being put in them. You would think that because people are trying to make certain foods healthier, those people would put a lot of consideration into the public’s health. It doesn’t seem like there is much consideration with all the controversy about labeling these foods. We shouldn’t have to go completely organic because of fear of allergens in non-organic foods. Health should be more important than money to anyone, and I personally think that we should save anyone a trip to the hospital and label these genetically modified foods.
Works Cited
“Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms” Human Genome Project Online. July 2007.
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program. 20 Feb. 2008.
Hart, Kathleen. "The FDA Should Require Safety Testing and Labeling of Genetically
Engineered Foods." At Issue: Genetically Engineered Foods. Ed. Nancy Harris. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Clark College - Cannell Library. 20 Feb. 2008.
Kintisch, Eli. "Labeling Genetically Engineered Foods Is Not Feasible." At Issue:
Genetically Engineered Foods. Ed. Nancy Harris. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Clark College - Cannell Library. 20 Feb. 2008.
Schauss, Alexander “Do You Know What is in Your Food?”
The Campaign Grassroots Political Action. 2007. 23 Feb. 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Alright, English 101
Now we're live. Don't say I didn't warn you. I'll expect the essays to come rolling in now...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
