Sanders uses words that create a negative connotation to exaggerate how great moving is in order to show that the idea is absurd. He says that people believe that if they stay in one place “[they’ll] die.” Death, of course, causes a drastic order of events because if a person doesn’t move, he isn’t going to die. He then moves on to say that Americans are “drunk on driving.” Sanders says this to show that people just want to get up and go all the time. Later in his passage, he uses historical issues to show that bad has come out of migrating. One of these is how when the “colonist” came they brought “slavery with them.” They also brought “small pox” and “Norway rats.” This shows that migrating doesn’t always bring happiness.

 In the beginning, Sanders uses parallel phrases to describe American migraters. He describes them as “rainbow-chasers [and] explorers.” Explorers always want to find something new, such as “a new stream.” Explorers are never happy with what’s “under [their] feet.” Because Sanders describes Americans as “rainbow-chasers,” he is insinuating that what they are searching for is kind of absurd because it’s hard to find. In the end, Sanders juxtaposes ideas that contradict each other. He does this to prove that migrating is not better than staying put.

 Sanders argues with the fact that migrating is better than being rooted. He thinks that people are in better shape if they are rooted “in places” instead of in “ideas.”

For the kids that do not get an abstinence message from their parents, they need to learn how to protect themselves from getting pregnant and STDs. Even the children that are taught abstinence need to know how to protect themselves when they decide to become sexually active. This makes me think that the real question is, “Why would schools teach abstinence-only sex-ed?”

Teaching abstinence-only sex-ed, would take care of the confusion that rises about safe sex. The safest sex is no sex. Many kids grow up believeing that if they use a condom or take birth control that they will not get pregnant or get an STD. The truth is that neither of those protections have a 100% chance of working. According to Teens Health, “only complete and  consistent abstinence can totally prevent pregnancy and protect against STDs.” (Teens Health) Because of the confusion, teaching protection should not be taught. Only abstinence should. Another reason that abstinence-only sex-ed should be taught, is for religious reasons. Haveing sex outside of marriage is commeting adultry, which is one of the Ten Commandments. Teens need to be taught abstinence so that their minds will remain pure and focused on falling into peer pressure and the media. Many church groups perticapate in programs like “Worth the Wait.” (Worth the Wait) These programs teach students to take an oath to remain pure until after marriage. Becuase purity needs to be kept, abstinence-only sex-ed should be taught.

Teaching safe sex sex-ed would cause teens to think that haveing sex before marriage is okay. This is why abstinence-only sex-ed should be taught at schools.

Abstinence is the best way to prevent from getting pregnant and getting a STD, but teaching abstinence-only sex-ed isn’t going to prevent people from getting a STD when they decided to have sex. According to Arthur Caplan of msnbc, “teens who took pledges of virginity as part of abstinence-only sex-ed classes [were] less likely to use contraception [or] other forms of protection when they did become sexually active.” (msnbc.com) Not teaching people how to prevent getting STDs can cause diseases to increase drastically. Teaching contraception would help lower the underage pregnancies and sexual diseases, but Debra Hauser argues that teaching “contraception contradicts [the] message of abstinence-only [teachings.]” (Advocates for Youth) This is why there needs to be a balance between abstinence teachings and comprehensive teachings. This way that people that won’t listen to the abstinence message will know how to protect themselves when they decide to become sexually active.

If schools began teaching a median of abstinence and contraception, things would run more smoothly. There would be less STDs going around and less underage pregnancies. In this way everyone wins.

Data: “Declining teen pregnancy rates are thought to be attributed to more effective birth control practice and decreased sexual activity among teens” (healthcommunities.com.)

Warrant: Just because kids are taught abstinence, they won’t always practice it.

Backing:  Because kids are taking sex-ed not just abstinence-only sex-ed, teen pregnancy rates are going down. This means that sex-ed works better than abstinence-only sex-ed.

Qualifier: Abstinence-only sex-ed might work for some teens.

Rebuttle: A balance of abstinence and protection sex-ed should be taught because the people who are not going to practice abstinence should learn how to practice safe sex.

Examples of Rhetoric:

• Anaphora: “I need help…I need sleep…I need warmth…I need a buzz…” [Glass by Ellen Hopkins]
• Onomatopoeia: “Sleep hovers, just there, and I reach for it so I won’t hear the girls’ good-byes, the Mustang’s rev the tink-tink of its chains against the pavement.” [Glass by Ellen Hopkins]
• Rhetorical question: ”What made you so scared?” [Act Appalled by Circa Survive]
• Parallelism: “…Ignoring what we’ve felt, overlooking what we’ve done…” [Baby You Wouldn’t Last a Minute on the Creek by Chiodos]
• Personification: ”The sky is calling, and the stars point to this.” [The Words ‘Best Friend’ Become Redefined by Chiodos]