In the article “Parenting education prevents teen pregnancy,” Robin Johnson promotes “safe sex” education as the most effective means of preventing teen pregnancy. Her argument is based on the premise that most teens will have sex and, consequently, it is unrealistic to expect all teens to remain abstinent. While her argument may appear reasonable, it is actually invalid in its structure and would have undesirable implications if the logic were applied in any other realm, let alone sex.

In addressing methods of lowering teen pregnancies, it seems safe to say that Johnson perceives such pregnancies to be, at the very least, undesirable. Despite her attempt at a realistic solution, she offers one which fails to address the actual problem. If we were to apply her argument to the unfortunate reality that sometimes people die in bank robberies, the conclusion would be to provide education on executing safe bank robberies because it is unrealistic to expect that every person will never rob a bank. Yet, we find such a notion to be plainly absurd. So why do we find it so irrational to address the root of teen pregnancies, namely irresponsible sex, by forming self-controlled people when we rigorously seek to form morally responsible persons in other aspects of life?

While it is unlikely that every person will practice abstinence before marriage, it is an invalid reason to become complacent. If we really do care about teen pregnancies, we ought to support the only completely reliable means of prevention. Moreover, despite Johnson’s portrayal of the matter, abstinence-based programs have shown a correlation to the self-control it seeks to promote, as reported in a recent article by Rob Stein in The Washington Post. As long as everyone possesses an intellect and a will, no person is incapable of practicing such self-mastery.