The Abstinence Paradox

Hi there!

     Today I'm going to talk about something touchy, so don't be offended. The other day in school, my class was assigned an essay on why abstinence is the best, safest, most effective contraceptive method. Bull crap.
     The point of an actual contraceptive is to lower the risk of pregnancy while being sexually active. To be sexually abstinent, you wouldn't really be using a contraceptive. Abstinence is a state of being, not a tool.
     I'm not saying that everyone should just decide to have sex, but I am saying that abstinence is not necessarily the most "effective." You have to ask yourself, "What kind of result am I looking for?"

     One might say that abstinence can always be used and is therefore the best and most helpful, but really abstinence is as much there as when it isn't. Technically, anyone who isn't having sex this second is abstinent. Abstinence is transient, and while someone may be abstinent for longer than another person, once you have sex abstinence isn't there to prevent you from having a baby.
     Contraceptives such as condoms and "the pill" are real, tangible contraceptives that help you prevent pregnancy when you have sex. Abstinence leaves you once you have sex. Really, the idea of abstinence as a contraceptive is contradictory, because it's never used to prevent pregnancy during sex. "Abstinence is 100% effective." No, once you have sex it's 0% effective.
     And ultimately, the entire evolutionary goal for humans is to reproduce, so from an evolutionary standpoint, abstinence is terrible. Look at the Shakers, who never participated in sexual contact. Yeah, waiting for the immaculate conception didn't work out for them.
      Am I advocating for teenagers to have sex? No. But I'm also not in a position to tell others what to do with their lives, and I don't believe that my teachers are either.

Signing off,

Colm McNeil