Scott Klusendorf of the Life Training Institute has an interesting blog post with, in my humble opinion, a somewhat confusing title. Don't be put off by the title; just read the post. As I understand him, what Scott is saying is not that abstinence only sex education is incorrect but rather that for some reason too many pro-lifers he knows who get an opportunity to speak in high schools, Christian or public, are doing only abstinence sex education and not presenting the case for, say, the life of the unborn child and the humanity of the unborn child. Now, if so, that's a problem. Scott is quite clear that this is only his own anecdotal impression, but considering that part of Scott's life's work is making high school presentations giving the case for life and also that he spends plenty of time listening to other pro-lifers talking about what they are doing, his anecdotal opinion has weight.
Teaching abstinence is not a substitute for teaching about the nature and value of the unborn child. The two are just apples and oranges, different parts of what we need to be presenting to young people.
If Scott's impression is correct and pro-life education is being neglected, even when pro-lifers are expressly invited to speak, why is that? Could it be simply some sort of swing of the fashion pendulum? Perhaps we conservatives, given a chance to speak in schools, used to bring fetal models and show pictures of babies in the womb and the like, and then (this is conjecture) somewhere along the line someone told us that we needed to "back up" and "address the root problem" of sexual promiscuity, and from there the straight presentation of the humanity of the unborn child went out of style. Could that be it?
Do readers have any experience that tends either to support or contradict Scott's impression of what sorts of presentations are being made by pro-lifers to high schoolers?