Don't you get it? The problem is not in the word "abstinence". The problem is in the word "only". That means witholding information that can potentially save their lives. THAT is hurting young people. Yes indeed.
The claim is that the abstinence-only position INCREASES the incidence of sexual behavior. How is that the result of withholding information? Obviously the accusation is that the philosophy of abstinence is to blame for this result.
No such acusation! The point is that the more information they have, the better prepared they are to make good choices. In other word, the best that can be done is to trust them with the ALL the information, and let them make their own choices and mistakes. It's their lives afterall.
And my point is: Even by taking a moral stance to the program, the only right thing to do is to drop it. A government program that hurts young people is an imoral program.
Again, the only proof that young people are being hurt is that they ignore the teaching of the program. I find this accusation absurd that it's the program's fault that they do so.
Revert to answer above. The program is witholding information that would help them make better choices for their lives. By doing that, it reduces the chances that they will make good choices and, therefore, is hurting them. That makes the program an imoral thing