CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Condoms should be made available to high school students. First of all, if condoms were made available to students, the teen pregnancy rate would dramatically decrease. This in turn would cause both male and female dropout rates to also decrease because students wont have to dropout to take care of their children.
Schools should make condoms available because then more people might actually use them. Some people may be embarrased of buying condoms in a store because they may think that other people know their business, but if they give them out at school they won't have to go to a store. At a school they can make the transition in private; discreetly.
I completely (DIS)agree. I think kids should be able to be given condoms in high school because they are going to refuse to go out and buy them themselves. Kids will do stupid thing to keep from getting embarrassed.
I agree. I mean, after all, who would want to go spend money on somethin if you don't even really need it? I know that I will never think like that, but some kids, such as part of our Drumline, do. If the school gave out condoms for free, at like, one per day max, who's gonna say no? Free condoms? I mean come on. And it'll cut down the teenage pregnancy rate significantly. Love you Blayke and Venom! :-D
Exactly! No matter what, no one is going to turn down free condoms ESPECIALLY if you're part of our Drumline. Yeah, I think teenage pregnancy rates would go waaaaaay down if our school would do that. Love you SZ!!!!!! (haha...subway...haha)
Drumline? You think the drumline is bad? Have you met our guard? I'm on it! Haha. And you have a very good point there. The amount of people gettin pregnant here is at probably nearly 10%. I know that don't sound like much, but still. Haha. Subway, eat fresh! Zombies, eat flesh! :-D
i'm in middle school and i think they should give them out here i (thnk god) am a vergian but some kids are not and stds and kids it's sad 6th grade and you alredy have aids alright to make it wores 6th grade means 10-12 year olds. condems would at least get rid off some of the risk and taliking about it helps too this week we are acutaly having fam. life and std's were the topic and if they had added pictures i bet every one in that room would have never have sex ever/agian including the teachers!
Without condoms, poor young teenagers will be “knocked up”. Since, more than half of them do not have an abortion, that that more than half of them end up having a baby and taking care of it.
You may say that that is their problem... but it is not going to be just their problem. Not only do you have a handful of young mothers, we also have a handful of dropouts (not fully educated people)
Not fully educated people are much more expensive than condoms.
Therefore, condoms should be made available in high schools if money is the only issue here.
If condoms were made available in high schools then students would be more likely to use them because students are likely to get them because they are more comfortable in a school environment with familiar faces (school nurse, teachers, etc) rather than the neighborhood drugstore or the clinic.
Condoms should be readily available, if things are going to happen then they are going to happen. We were all young. Now we can be blind and forget our own pasts and blind ourselves of the future. That way everyone loses. We can still discourage sexual contact, yet we should provide protection..........you still lock your door even if you haven't been burgled before.
When I was at college condoms were given out for free, and there weren't many people who were pregnant but at school this facility wasn't available so loads of people, some younger than 14 dropped out because they were pregnant.
yes, I totally support this idea. Here (in Argentina) there was a time when they gave free condoms on the streets , on hospitals(they still do that) and on schools and that has helped A LOT of people. Many teens that I know are too shy to go to pharmacies and buy condoms (even boys), so they decide not to have safe sex because they don't have an easy way of getting condoms. Even a friend of mine who is still in her tweens was helped by the free condom at schools thing because in that way she understood the importance of safe sex and since then never had unsafe sex.
I have seen so many kids pregnant now or have some STD because they don't know enough on protecting themselves. HS should make condoms available for teens they are going to go out and do it regardless why not educate them on how to protect themselves.
yes becasue if teens really wanna have sex there going to do it with or without a condom. so why not offer condoms? less pregos in high school hopefully!!!!!
Either way, teen sex still ruins a lot. And it also spreads diseases (even with condoms) and if the teens continue to have sex with different people, the STDs are going to spread to other people and the STDs of someone can combine with that of someone else, if you have sex with someone who was not a virgin, you could be exposing yourself to the STDs of many people in a single act of intercourse, making the chances of you getting infected, higher.
Either way, teen sex still ruins a lot. And it also spreads diseases (even with condoms) and if the teens continue to have sex with different people, the STDs are going to spread to other people and the STDs of someone can combine with that of someone else, if you have sex with someone who was not a virgin, you could be exposing yourself to the STDs of many people in a single act of intercourse, making the chances of you getting infected, higher.
Yeah i agree, its very easy too go buy condoms on your own. Why do we need too spoil high school kids? If you cant spend sometime going to the store and buying a condom then your irresponsible.
no point in avoiding consequences. Kids learn from mistakes. People learn from mistakes.
This isn't a minor mistake like dropping a glass of water or bumping a car into a mailbox. This is about life-changing mistakes, catching a permanent disease or being forced to change your life because you get a woman pregnant. Try to exercise some concern here because your type of mindset is what contributes to this social problem of keeping our children ignorant and ill-equipped for sex, thus facilitating the poverty and disease associated with it.
no that is not true what so ever. Human beings in general have serious issues. You cant blame people like me for disease! what the hell is that? If you want to blame anyone blame atheists for trying to prove everything is meaningless and the point in life is too live for pleasure. Now thats a bad mind set that has led to povery and disease.
You cant blame people like me for disease! what the hell is that?
I didn't. I blamed your mindset that it's a mistake which people ought to learn from.
Let me put it another way: should we stop vaccinating kids against tetanus because they need to learn the hard way to not play in dirty, filthy areas with sharp objects?
If you want to blame anyone blame atheists for trying to prove everything is meaningless and the point in life is too live for pleasure. Now thats a bad mind set that has led to povery and disease.
Atheists don't. If anyone says that life is meaningless, it's the religious groups who constantly tell everyone over loudspeaker that their lives are worthless, hellbound if they do not follow their church.
It's also the case that in irreligious countries people seem to care more about public healthcare, matters of charity like this.
Actually, one can easily make a case that the more religious a society is, the greater tendency it has to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of the few, and the less charitable it is to the working class and poor. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Middle-age Europe under the Roman Catholic Church. These were all and are very religious regions and they also experience extreme corruption, and poverty.
How about hitler and Stalin? They founded their country off a no God beleif policy or your going to get shot, or brutaly persecuted. How bout the cold war and communism? Ideals of communism are an illusion. Atheist ideals were actually the power behind it. Of course religion had some false teachings and corruption, which some people were not apart of, but instead of pointing at religion look at what atheism has done to the world. More violent, more rebellion. Questioning ethnics questioning morals, quesioning and persecuting christians. I mean look at one of the debates in this webcite concerning homosexuality. Some atheists are even looking at animals to judge our moral ethics! wtf is that? And there are false religions, and i consider christianity not to be a religion but a relationship. Im tired of aethists coming up to me high and mighty blaming all the problems on the whole idea of religion! Look how more violent the world is becoming! Your going to blame religion? Excuse me?! The biblie clearly points out false prophets as detestable! So stop putting all religions in one box! There are huge differences!
Adolf Hitler was a Catholic, unorthodox. Your source lied to you in order to propagandise against atheism.
They founded their country off a no God beleif policy or your going to get shot, or brutaly persecuted.
Adolf Hitler founded his country upon a supreme breed of nationalism and antisemitism. Joseph Stalin took over the Communist Party. Both were fanatical totalitarian leaders.
How bout the cold war and communism?
Note: Communism.
Ideals of communism are an illusion. Atheist ideals were actually the power behind it.
I'm not in the mood to entertain conspiracies and propaganda. Communism is based on ending class differences, and is taken from Marxism, which was in turn a reaction to the class divides of the 19th century.
Of course religion had some false teachings and corruption, which some people were not apart of,
Like those you yourself are spouting here. Instead of getting your facts on Atheism from Christian apologetics and churches, try talking to atheists and learn what they believe about life.
look at what atheism has done to the world.
Such as? Atheism has no dogma or teachings.
More violent, more rebellion. Questioning ethnics questioning morals, quesioning and persecuting christians.
Being a free-thinker is by its nature rebellious. This is why you can enjoy the fruits of a free society now, preceding generations questioned old notions of morality and were rebellious against authority. If they weren't, you would be tilling fields for your lord and would have compulsory church attendance.
I mean look at one of the debates in this webcite concerning homosexuality. Some atheists are even looking at animals to judge our moral ethics! wtf is that?
We are animals, and the question was whether we could learn anything about the nature of morality by observing related animals. In other words, lower animals may help us determine the nature of the evolution and formation of morality.
And there are false religions, and i consider christianity not to be a religion but a relationship.
Christianity is a religion by definition. You have relationships with living things.
Im tired of aethists coming up to me high and mighty blaming all the problems on the whole idea of religion!
That tends to happen because our history is overridden with examples of sectarian violence. People killed and beaten because they worship a different man in the sky, or because they wear a different hat, or because they think an ambiguous book of prose can be read differently. If that isn't pathetic enough, religious people are actively trying to turn our country into a theocracy, are trying to destabilise the west, are plotting genocide, and in general holding back our potential as a species.
So yes, this all makes irreligious people very irritable. Wouldn't you be irritable over the same thing? Shouldn't you feel ashamed instead of angry?
Look how more violent the world is becoming! Your going to blame religion?
You mean the constant series of bombings that have been going on for over a decade? Or do you mean war? Much of the violence in the modern world is based on religion, there can be little other explanation for the rampant suicide bombings. Wars are a different matter, and you would need to be specific.
Excuse me?! The biblie clearly points out false prophets as detestable! So stop putting all religions in one box! There are huge differences!
They are different on paper but beneath the superficial dressings are generally about worshiping some sort of magical being. It's all superstition and people become much too fixated on the dressings, and so we have sectarian violence.
So because im christian Im more violent? Does this even make sence. And why dont you talk about the benefits, Red Cross was founded upon christianity. I live my life to serve others atheists seek out only to serve themselves and to live day to day in the moment, acting like theres no tomorrow. I live for Jesus and selfless serving falls into play. Why do you think our economy is so bad? People are looking after uno, lies, corruption, stealing, all fall in to play. Where does violence even come in this picture tell me that?
That relationship is difficult to ascertain. In population comparisons, a number of Christian sects seem to correlate with increased violent crime and corruption. However it is uncertain whether the religion causes this, assists it, or merely draws people who are already violent.
At the personal level Christian dogma can promote violent values, for example the rampant hatred towards Muslims, Jews, Atheists is reinforced by certain sectarian dogma.
And why dont you talk about the benefits, Red Cross was founded upon christianity.
There's no reason that such organisations need a religious origin. Indeed charity is common across different cultures, and belief systems.
I live my life to serve others atheists seek out only to serve themselves and to live day to day in the moment, acting like theres no tomorrow.
Have you talked with an atheist? Asked a variety of atheists what they live for? How about Secular Humanists? You need to experience more people. Your pastor is spreading misinformation if that is where you got this.
I live for Jesus and selfless serving falls into play.
Many atheists are selfless, others are not. Atheism isn't a believe system so it encompasses all kinds of people.
Why do you think our economy is so bad?
Faith instead of cynicism I would guess. People tend to trust authority rather than question it, and so they let corrupt people, in the case of business, get away with incompetence and selfishness.
People are looking after uno, lies, corruption, stealing, all fall in to play. Where does violence even come in this picture tell me that?
Religious people are not exempt from this form of thinking. Indeed it is common that Christians feel this way. Particularly Christian businessmen.
Violence comes when religious leaders use their position to sow anger and unrest towards a target, in order to achieve a political end. People wouldn't die if religious leaders didn't demonise abortion, for example.
there are again false prophets, and true prophets. The teachings of the christian doctrine do not whatsoever hint at christianity being violent. When the new testament came about, loving your enemies was one of the big shocks during that period of time. Being a true christian does not whatsoever relate to violence. I have talked to alot of aetheists. They live for themselves. Sorry but i cannot trust someone who beleives there is no purpose in life and the universe revolves around them. According to many aeithests we are our own Gods. This I cannot trust. It has no structure. People with no foundation will be washed away. Ive noticed speaking to aetheists, and many of them are arrogant. The way they live, there lifestyle, is centered around sin. Bad music, drugs, alcohol, sex, money. These are the Gods of those who do not have the holy spirit rested on them. Yes christians still sin, but from my experience not nearly as much. I hate it when aeitheists turn the tables and blame all violence on religions. This is just not true. Humanity in general is violent. Humans thirst for blood and power all through out history. There are also evil religions, but the foundations of christianity which is the salvation of Jesus christ is only pure and holy. Have you met a true follower/beleiver of Jesus christ? Ask them how they live their lifestyle. Ask me for instance. And remember, you said hitler claimed to be a catholic. Well tell me has he even mentioned Jesus Christ in any of his speeches? Do you not even realize people can lie through their tongue in order to manipulate the people? People can say there one thing in order for their own self interest and do another, you do realize this?
there are again false prophets, and true prophets.
It's easy to say this as a way to downplay people who profit from religion. One should think that if god existed, false profits would be cursed, but they are not. They succeed quite well.
The teachings of the christian doctrine do not whatsoever hint at christianity being violent.
It punishes disobedient children, homosexuals, adulterers, fornicaters, and witches with death. It condemns nonbelievers to hell, and encourages intolerance towards these parties. This is in the new testament as well. There is little tolerance for different beliefs or practices, and this has encouraged much violence over the last thousand years.
I have talked to alot of aetheists. They live for themselves.
You apparently haven't, because selfishness is frowned upon by most of humanity and atheists share this culture.
Sorry but i cannot trust someone who beleives there is no purpose in life and the universe revolves around them.
That's actually closer in line with the Christian belief, which teaches that the universe LITERALLY revolves around the Human Race, and that your only purpose is to give your mind and soul to Christ.
According to many aeithests we are our own Gods. This I cannot trust.
Atheists do not believe in gods, so your statement doesn't make sense.
It has no structure. People with no foundation will be washed away.
Did you try asking what the foundation for your atheist acquaintances is?
Ive noticed speaking to aetheists, and many of them are arrogant. The way they live, there lifestyle, is centered around sin. Bad music, drugs, alcohol, sex, money.
Of course it's sinful! That's because a sin is merely that which is disapproved of by your religion. The way you live is deeply Haraam to the Muslims. Did you know that? That doesn't make you bad, or of negative moral character, it just means you don't follow Muslim practices.
These are the Gods of those who do not have the holy spirit rested on them.
Atheists have NO gods. Do you understand what that means? It means that I worship none of these things but am instead master over them. Your theistic metaphors betray that you literally cannot think outside of your doctrine, and that is why you are making these wrong conclusions.
Yes christians still sin, but from my experience not nearly as much.
Of course Christians would sin less. That's because the eccentricities of Christian life apply to Christians only. Sins are no bad things. What you should look for is who follows the law better, or who has a more compassionate moral compass.
The way you examine the character of atheists now, you cannot help but consider them unchristian, which is tautological. You're just telling me that atheists are not Christians.
I hate it when aeitheists turn the tables and blame all violence on religions. This is just not true.
They don't blame all violence on religion. They blame religious violence on religion.
Humanity in general is violent. Humans thirst for blood and power all through out history. There are also evil religions, but the foundations of christianity which is the salvation of Jesus christ is only pure and holy.
It does not change the fact that for the last thousand years, Christianity was the banner of righteous war, oppression and genocide. You cannot hide from history.
Have you met a true follower/beleiver of Jesus christ? Ask me for instance.
Yes, many times. In fact I used to be one.
I've learned a lot from both arguing and talking with them.
And remember, you said hitler claimed to be a catholic. Well tell me has he even mentioned Jesus Christ in any of his speeches?
Probably, but I know for a fact that he references the creator, and one regiment of his troops wore "Gott mit uns" (God with us). He was a very complicated man, but of one thing I am certain is that he wasn't an Atheist, because his book Meine Kampf borrows from creationism.
Do you not even realize people can lie through their tongue in order to manipulate the people? People can say there one thing in order for their own self interest and do another, you do realize this?
Yes, I realise this, but I also look at things in terms of likelihood. The way he consistently used the concept of god and a creator throughout his life casts doubt on it all being a decades-long act.
I have talked to alot of aetheists. They live for themselves. Sorry but i cannot trust someone who beleives there is no purpose in life and the universe revolves around them. According to many aeithests we are our own Gods.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that either you haven't talked to a lot of atheists and are just perpetrating negative stereotypes based on what preachers have told you, or you have very poor listening skills (if your spelling is any indication). Perhaps some combination of both.
If atheists are telling you that they are Gods.......... then they aren't atheists.
Sorry but i cannot trust someone who beleives there is no purpose in life
Contrary to what your preachers are telling you, purpose in life is not contingent on whether you get to live forever after you die. The whole concept of an eternal afterlife kind of degrades any purpose in this life.
The way they live, there lifestyle, is centered around sin. Bad music, drugs, alcohol, sex, money.
no its just all around me everyday. I see it on the streets. Movies, music, language, drugs. Its all meaningless. Im sure you guys are just covering up the question aetheists long for to be answered. Why am I here? Atheists say they have read the bible but it is a lie. Most atheists I talk to dont know anything about it. How can you judge something you never looked in to. Im sure your going to say you have. But have you? Really? Mabye you just gave up, and you think its easier to live life the way you desire to. But to tell you the truth its not easier. It will only get harder.
John 12:43 "For the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge. For I did not come to judge the world but to SAVE IT."
I am not talking to you to judge you. I am talking to you because I love you. I want what God wants. I want the best for everyone.
John 11:51-52 Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, but not just that nation, but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.
no its just all around me everyday. I see it on the streets. Movies, music, language, drugs.
So you don't have any facts or evidence to support your statement, you just feel you know it based on what you see on movies and music, because they are such reliable sources for facts. I see.
Im sure you guys are just covering up the question aetheists long for to be answered. Why am I here?
I'm not covering up anything.
Atheists say they have read the bible but it is a lie. Most atheists I talk to dont know anything about it. How can you judge something you never looked in to. Im sure your going to say you have. But have you?
A new study shows that Atheists know the most about religion.
But have you? Really? Mabye you just gave up, and you think its easier to live life the way you desire to. But to tell you the truth its not easier. It will only get harder.
To be honest, it really hasn't made much difference. People hold different beliefs, this is just something you must accept.
I don't believe as I do out of convenience. I believe as I do, because of the totality of everything I've read, experienced and seen has persuaded me to hold my current beliefs. I have spent a considerable amount of time contemplating these beliefs, perhaps more-so than your average person.
What if you can't afford the condoms? I know they're cheap, but sometimes you have to spend money on other things, like bills and food. What if the childrens' parents can't afford to buy them any, and neither can the kids? I have a job, and do odd-jobs, and I barely have enough money. We are beginnin to go into a horrible recession, and that means money will be more tight. What if people can't even pay their bills because of taxes? What then? The schools have plenty of money, so why can't they keep some in the nurse's office and keep a control over them?
Many students are embarrassed to go to the drug store and buy condoms, which is why if they are made available at school, with familiar people, they would be more likely to use them
i do agree with that cuz i don't agree with teen sex anyway but. i would hate to have to spend for condoms for some one elase that's like paying for some one eleas's plesure and getting non of your own! but since they are gonna doit any way w/ or w/out a condom no need in spreading the desieas (how ever you spell it)
You are obviously a responsible person. A lot of teenagers are not. A good majority of young people that have unprotected sex do so while drunk or otherwise, as one time things at parties etc. The thing is most wont go with the intention of having sex and are not prepared as they wouldn't have the foresight to buy condoms.
If they were freely available I'm sure a lot more teenagers would carry and use them.
The thing is sex for a lot of teenagers having it, is a spur of the moment passion thing, obeying natural biological urges without an appropriate moral responsibility. The facts and figure speak for themselves. More and more younger people are having sex and getting pregnant or infected.
Tax payers are already paying for single mothers and their children and for the treatment of STDs in those not able to afford to pay for treatment. A cost I would assume greatly outweighs the cost of free condoms. In my University in the students union there are condoms that are given out for a charitable donation which could be anything from one cent to whatever you deem fit. This might be an option for other schools.
No... I don't think that tax-payers should pay for all of that. The idea that teens aren't going to use condoms JUST BECAUSE they're not free is lame.
As well, it's most likely more embarrassing to get a condom from a school nurse than to get a condom from a random store.
Either way, it's their problem, not mine. I had sex and bought my own condoms. I didn't need to pick shit up from a nurse to always be prepared for a moment of sex.
No... I don't think that tax-payers should pay for all of that. The idea that teens aren't going to use condoms JUST BECAUSE they're not free is lame.
Have you never heard of not having change on your person, or needing a condom quickly before you can buy one?
The point is to make them available freely and easily accessible. An increased accessibility would statistically lower the rate of associated sexual peoblems like disease and pregnancy.
I really cannot fathom the mindset of one refusing to pay for something so inexpensive relative to the much larger costs of abortifacents, abortion, gynecologist exams, STD panels, etc.
The point is to save tax payer money in the long run by providing cheap preventative protection. Do you LIKE paying for welfare, medicaid and unemployment?
As well, it's most likely more embarrassing to get a condom from a school nurse than to get a condom from a random store.
Because condom dispensers haven't been invented yet?
Either way, it's their problem, not mine. I had sex and bought my own condoms. I didn't need to pick shit up from a nurse to always be prepared for a moment of sex.
Well, in an ideal world, welfare and medicaid would not exist and everyone would have to make their own money.
That is the world I'm looking forward to. Just because we have a structure now-a-days that encourages bad behavior, doesn't mean that we should just build based on that structure. Tear it down and start again.
And anyway, free condoms do not stop irresponsible behavior. If a teenager decides "I should get condoms", he will buy just as much as he will go after a free one. I don't mind, however, a vending machine on school grounds for condoms. It's the tax-payers part that I do mind.
but, if you and other people feel that condoms should be available for free at High Schools, than you can merely donate to a cause of putting free condoms in a High School. you don't have to get other people, like me, involved.
Well, in an ideal world, welfare and medicaid would not exist and everyone would have to make their own money.
In an idea world dogs would have rubber teeth and cops would have wooden legs. We live in the real world. This means that applying your idealised notions has real consequences, like people starving to death or freezing in winter because they cannot afford to live.
This is why I get rather tetchy towards libertarians on this issue. People are dying and are the brink of death because libertarians have enough influence in the republic party that laws are opposed which might save them. To say nothing of working class families working two and three jobs per parent, while the rich have effectively plundered seven percent of their wealth in the last thirty years. Then one hears rhetoric like "redistribution of wealth is socialism! we can't just give free money to the poor, you communist!" all the while redistribution already occurred in favour of the wealthy. Where were the republicans and libertarians complaining then?
Aside from that rant, I'll give you a very real example which comes from my area of experience. Over at the state hospital where I live we have men and women who are insane, crazy, demented, psychotic, basically incapable of living in the free world. The hospital basically functions as a high-security storage unit for crazy people. They must be constantly watched, even when kept in four-point restraints. Some of these people are necrophiliacs, paedophiles, eye-fetishists, schizophenics, the malignantly narcissistic, deluded, etc. Almost all of them are violent offenders who have either killed people, strangled people, gouged out the eyes of children, molested little girls, etc. The point is, this is a full-time, endless job. Now I can tell you some stories of supreme state incompetence in handling these people, but I also am quite certain that without that additional support of the state many of these people would be on the street. I don't think the private sector is big enough to handle it all. My point is that this is part of what our taxes pay for, a lot of money goes to it, and it probably wouldn't fit in your ideal world.
That is the world I'm looking forward to. Just because we have a structure now-a-days that encourages bad behavior, doesn't mean that we should just build based on that structure. Tear it down and start again.
It exists because it is better than when it was absent. These are all imperfect, but still necessary steps to work towards better social conditions.
And anyway, free condoms do not stop irresponsible behavior. If a teenager decides "I should get condoms", he will buy just as much as he will go after a free one. I don't mind, however, a vending machine on school grounds for condoms. It's the tax-payers part that I do mind.
It's really a choice between paying for condoms or paying for public medicine associated with the consequences of lack of available condoms. If you charge students, and they cannot afford condoms (they're kids after all), then you pay for the consequences either way.
I'm just looking at this as a matter of numbers. It seems to me that just making condoms amply available would reduce the costs associated with pregnancy and disease substantially. It's kind of like how healthcare workers will make available free needles to areas where drug addicts live. Sure, it's bad behaviour to reuse needles and share them, and sure we're encouraging more of it by not putting them through rehabilitation, but at the end of the day it's cheaper to provide clean needles to reduce the health costs associated with treating the diseases.
but, if you and other people feel that condoms should be available for free at High Schools, than you can merely donate to a cause of putting free condoms in a High School. you don't have to get other people, like me, involved.
My ideal world would have clinics to keep the insane in... I believe in prisons, as well.
Once again... you are creating a straw man argument.
And even people living in poverty can afford a box of condoms... you're acting like condoms are the same price as insurance or apartments.
Well, there is a way to make condoms cost a shit load... have the government use tax-payer dollars to buy a shit-load of condoms. Most of which will be wasted. Prices will go up because condoms will become an inelastic demand, and government won't care because it's not their money.
And your last statement is exactly what our Founding Fathers feared. All of them feared the majority rule over minority rights, and Thomas Jefferson specifically said that forcing Americans to pay for furnishings that they will never use nor need is tyrannical.
My ideal world would have clinics to keep the insane in... I believe in prisons, as well.
They are hospitals, though, not prisons.
Once again... you are creating a straw man argument.
No it isn't. The libertarian position is that socialised medicine is bad.
And even people living in poverty can afford a box of condoms... you're acting like condoms are the same price as insurance or apartments.
No, I'm acting as if prices are barriers for certain people. I know that when I was in High School, I didn't usually have five dollars on my person. Most students didn't carry change, as a matter of fact, and some were so poor that the school cafeteria was their parents' only way of feeding them.
Well, there is a way to make condoms cost a shit load... have the government use tax-payer dollars to buy a shit-load of condoms. Most of which will be wasted. Prices will go up because condoms will become an inelastic demand, and government won't care because it's not their money.
Again: the price of government-issued latex, or the price of government-issued surgeries, tests, and abortifacents. Take your pick.
And your last statement is exactly what our Founding Fathers feared. All of them feared the majority rule over minority rights, and Thomas Jefferson specifically said that forcing Americans to pay for furnishings that they will never use nor need is tyrannical.
I don't treat the founding fathers as prophets or messiahs. I see them as intelligent men who had flaws like everyone else. I know that a healthy society is one that is interdependent and that services costs less per person when the total sum is divided amongst everyone. I also know that the top 1% of our nation could afford to shoulder the vast majority of the burden to alleviate the suffering of the bottom 80%, and that if health and social services were privatised it would just force that 80% into greater debt or inferiour service as the top 1% enjoys a premium tier. That's how capitalism works.
I meant straw-man as in you were attacking my ideals with examples that were not contrary to my ideals.
In fact, every argument that we've had about Libertarianism (except for the very first one) has started with you attacking my positions and later on turning into you stating that Libertarianism is a flawed ideology. Whether it is flawed or not is not my problem. My problem always stemmed from you using made up reasons on why the Libertarian Party is flawed.
First, you can't establish whether you're attacking the Libertarian Party or extremist Libertarians (and you then claim to be going after either one or the other, and then proceed to treat them synonymously when I no longer bring up that differentiating issue).
Second, as stated, my ideals do not equate Libertarian ideals. So yes, you were unjustly attacking my beliefs by saying "libertarian position is that [socialized] medicine is bad". I don't care about the Libertarian position on socialized medicine. I believe in clinics to keep the insane in. Just like how I believe in prisons to keep prisoners in.
As for poor students, boo-hoo. (i could elaborate; but your "want a cookie\" statement reflects how serious we should be in these debates).
And of course they were men with flaws. But that ideal is what keeps asswipes from voting in laws that force people to provide for what they don't believe in and hold no stake in. We can justify the police because even if a rich guy can afford private security to protect him from criminals, the poor can not afford private security to protect them from the rich guy. To fix this, they both are protected from each other by paying for the police.
The same can not go for wasted tax dollars based on ideology vs. liberty. The ideology of neo-liberals that "teens have sex, so they should have anything they need in order to have sex" has been okay in my book for the most part. Unfortunately, it has also resulted in this notion that now us taxpayers must pay for the teens actual sexual behavior. I will admit that when it comes to sex, neo-liberalism is far superior to neo-conservatism, but even so, the liberals have reached their limit in suggesting that teen sex must be payed for by Americans. Teens are not less likely to use a condom if they must be payed for. I am highly in favor of having vending machines or even free dispensers (so long as they are provided by a private organization and not accommodated for by taxpayers).
Most of the issues of teens not practicing safe-sex stems from insufficient education caused by Conservatives. But going from one extreme to the other is no good for our civil liberties. We are a free people. Free to buy our own condoms and free to have sex whenever we want with whomever we want.
I meant straw-man as in you were attacking my ideals with examples that were not contrary to my ideals.
In fact, every argument that we've had about Libertarianism (except for the very first one) has started with you attacking my positions and later on turning into you stating that Libertarianism is a flawed ideology. Whether it is flawed or not is not my problem. My problem always stemmed from you using made up reasons on why the Libertarian Party is flawed.
I think you may be correct. I haven't asked you to delineate your beliefs in full so that I could avoid arguing against the wrong positions. It's lazy but I believe I simply noted similarities in your beliefs you mentioned and assumed that the rest followed unless corrected.
First, you can't establish whether you're attacking the Libertarian Party or extremist Libertarians (and you then claim to be going after either one or the other, and then proceed to treat them synonymously when I no longer bring up that differentiating issue).
For example when you supported Adam Smith and the free market, I automatically assumed that your beliefs were of the unhinged libertarian variety. I never really cared about the libertarian party however, except as a case study a few months ago.
So yes, you are quite correct that I have been contradicting beliefs that were not specifically your own. I apologise for that.
Second, as stated, my ideals do not equate Libertarian ideals. So yes, you were unjustly attacking my beliefs by saying "libertarian position is that [socialized] medicine is bad". I don't care about the Libertarian position on socialized medicine. I believe in clinics to keep the insane in. Just like how I believe in prisons to keep prisoners in.
I don't understand how you can support a free market then, in this face of this. You will need to elaborate both positions because I see a big contradiction in it.
As for poor students, boo-hoo. (i could elaborate; but your "want a cookie\" statement reflects how serious we should be in these debates).
Your statement in which I replied with that was judgmental and while this is your right, I do not see how it helps the situation to expect everyone to be responsible as you yourself were.
And of course they were men with flaws. But that ideal is what keeps asswipes from voting in laws that force people to provide for what they don't believe in and hold no stake in. We can justify the police because even if a rich guy can afford private security to protect him from criminals, the poor can not afford private security to protect them from the rich guy. To fix this, they both are protected from each other by paying for the police.
You're really debating shades of grey here. It all depends on the degree of value one places on a social service. You are not intrinsically right because you invoke the founding fathers' positions, because even their own positions (which would be reflected in your police example) are more or less inconsistent with practice.
The same can not go for wasted tax dollars based on ideology vs. liberty. The ideology of neo-liberals that "teens have sex, so they should have anything they need in order to have sex" has been okay in my book for the most part. Unfortunately, it has also resulted in this notion that now us taxpayers must pay for the teens actual sexual behavior.
Besides the condom issue can you give more examples? If we're just talking condoms, I agree that we shouldn't be extravagant with how we pay for social programs. I believe however that that is why I supported condoms in the first place.
I will admit that when it comes to sex, neo-liberalism is far superior to neo-conservatism, but even so, the liberals have reached their limit in suggesting that teen sex must be payed for by Americans. Teens are not less likely to use a condom if they must be payed for.
Can you support this statement logically? Or are you making a less absolute statement which has the effect of stating that "the number of teens who would wind up without condoms due to poverty or lack of immediate preparation at the vending machines is not enough to drive up the costs of healthcare so that government-funded condoms are worth the expense?"
I am highly in favor of having vending machines or even free dispensers (so long as they are provided by a private organization and not accommodated for by taxpayers).
The problem I see, actually, is that in the conservative states condom dispensers will likely not be placed at schools if it is voluntary.
Most of the issues of teens not practicing safe-sex stems from insufficient education caused by Conservatives. But going from one extreme to the other is no good for our civil liberties. We are a free people. Free to buy our own condoms and free to have sex whenever we want with whomever we want.
This gets back to what I said a moment ago. In which case in these states healthcare costs become greater due to ideology.
I, personally, am not for a Free Market. Not because I believe it's an EXTREME view (you saying that it was is what caused me to defend that belief), but because I don't see it as a perfect view. Close to home, but not quite there.
And it's true; I'm not quite sure if teens are MORE likely to have unsafe sex if condoms aren't for free. If anything, there is a slight percentage in favor of what you're saying.
My question is, however, if providing free condoms will actually sufficiently prevent the spread of HIV and pregnancy among teens. To me, it will not. The odds of getting pregnant or HIV by having sex without a condom are already slim. Providing free condoms won't decrease the spread by a significant amount because then we would be talking about how many teens (who were practicing unsafe sex before) would THEN practice safe sex.
It's pointless, to me. But I believe in cutting spending in so many little things (eventually, you save the tax-payers a lot).
As for other things; I don't believe in government funded abortions. Another method of tax-payers paying for teens who are having sex (and worse, it can be anyone having sex).
My question is, however, if providing free condoms will actually sufficiently prevent the spread of HIV and pregnancy among teens. To me, it will not. The odds of getting pregnant or HIV by having sex without a condom are already slim. Providing free condoms won't decrease the spread by a significant amount because then we would be talking about how many teens (who were practicing unsafe sex before) would THEN practice safe sex.
So this argument is basically a dispute over this very subtle issue with which we haven't any unequivocal data.
As for other things; I don't believe in government funded abortions. Another method of tax-payers paying for teens who are having sex (and worse, it can be anyone having sex).
Would you rather pay for those teenagers who couldn't afford the abortion and now need welfare or unemployment because they had to have a child they cannot care for?
As schools distribute condoms to teenagers,it'll encourage them to have sex.Having sex before marriage is just SEX and nothing special. Sex should only occur if to individuals are married.Knowing that there is trust and genuine love in a marriage makes sex special Teenagers may decide to have sex just because condoms are available at schools or because its just "fun", and that's just like throwing your body in the garbage after disrespecting it.
Having sex before marriage is just SEX and nothing special. Sex should only occur if to individuals are married.Knowing that there is trust and genuine love in a marriage makes sex special
I think teenagers are perfectly capable of developing genuine emotional attachments to their partners. People do not need to be married for that.
Additionally, there is nothing inherently wrong with having sex for fun and no other reason. What is the problem, if it is done safely, and partners are honest with each other?
Teenagers may decide to have sex just because condoms are available at schools or because its just "fun", and that's just like throwing your body in the garbage after disrespecting it.
This is only true if you think there is something intrinsically shameful or disrespectful about sex, and it is somehow sullying the body to engage in it for 'the wrong reasons'.
Not everyone shares your particular views about when sex is a wonderful, magical bond between two soulmates, and when it's just a nasty, dirty act that one should be embarrassed about. You should not try to make it difficult or more dangerous for teenagers who happen to consider it a normal part of life.
As schools distribute condoms to teenagers,it'll encourage them to have sex.Having sex before marriage is just SEX and nothing special.
So what? Schools are not in the position to impose those values on children.
Sex should only occur if to individuals are married.
If you believe that, then only engage in sex after marriage for YOURSELF. Your concern is irrelevant to most of us. Most of us find sex to be a social act, an act of romance.
Knowing that there is trust and genuine love in a marriage makes sex special Teenagers may decide to have sex just because condoms are available at schools or because its just "fun",
Again, so what? You do not own their bodies and minds. Maybe that's all they want from sex. I know that if I wasn't so sexually repressed in my youth, I would have found the experience very enjoyable and worthwhile. It is one of my deep regrets that I missed that part of life because of our sexually repressive religious culture. You are only a child once, a teenager once. They should be able to use their bodies however they like as long as it isn't dangerous. That's what condoms are for.
and that's just like throwing your body in the garbage after disrespecting it.
I would argue that it is disrespectful to your body to engage in unprotected sex, which is what you're encouraging.
teen sex has caused a huge amount of distress, lack of trust, pregnancies, STDs spreading like an epidemic and other forms of emotional damage. 80 percent of teens think they should not be sexually active.
You understand that I made that post in the context of supporting easily accessible condoms, right? Which are designed to help prevent STDs and pregnancy?
Making condoms available to teenagers who don't regret sexual activity doesn't mean anything for the ones aren't sexually active. For teens who don't want to have sex, free condoms doesn't mean they have to. Accessible condoms just make it safer for the teenagers who do want to use them. That's all.
I support condom accessibility in conjunction with comprehensive sex education, which educates kids about consent and makes sure they know the effectiveness of all methods, including abstinence.
Also, maybe you'd like to cite a source for that stat.
I should have been more specific. I was asking about a source for the claim that 80% of teenagers regret having sex. This is for my own curiosity, because it sounds unlikely. Even if it's true, my argument still holds: available condoms don't mean that teenagers have to have sex if they don't want to. It just means condoms are around for the ones who do want to. Again, this availability should be in conjunction with sex education that also addresses issues of readiness and consent.
Are you arguing against increased accessibility of condoms for teenagers? If so, citing high rates of pregnancies and STDs is counterintuitive, because condom use decreases these rates. No method is as effective as abstinence, but that doesn't mean it should be made more difficult for teenagers to get a hold of.
Are you aware that the majority of studies show that, for example, abstinence-only education programs don't significantly lower the amount of teenagers having sex ? (Instead, it just raises the amount having unprotected sex, since they're not able to make informed decisions.) This is no different. Regardless of what opinion you dictate to them, plenty of them are going to have sex anyway. This will also happen whether or not condoms have been made readily available. I agree that, from a personal perspective, I don't think physical relationships should be entered into lightly. However, some people are better able to maintain more of an emotional distance than I am, and there is nothing wrong with that. Their bodies, their decisions, and more power to them. I realize that some (not all) teens that have sex will undoubtedly have negative emotional effects following their decision (this is a potential consequence of pretty much ANY action, by the way). For those ones, you're exacerbating their pain by not trying to ensure the least possible damage is incurred. Unplanned pregnancies and STDs can ruin a person's life, as I'm sure you know perfectly well. Teens are going to make bad decisions sometimes, it's a fact of life. You can better serve them by making sure that they have a way to lessen the damage, not say "don't do it, and if you do it anyway, well, you deserve whatever bad things happen to you." Think of it this way: lots of teens are going to drive recklessly, there's no way around it, even if they pass their driving test with flying colors. The least you can do is have the decency to remind them to wear a seatbelt.
too much masturbation causes problems and porn is known to be addictive and a great way to screw up relationships. Why don't we tell the kids EVERYTHING about teen sex, including its consequences and opinions/experiences from people who are or used to be sexually active so that the kids can decide whether they really wanna do this. and if they will hand out condoms, get parent approval first.
It is not the job of the schools, the taxpayers, or society for that matter to supply condoms. The "teenagers have sex" argument is ridiculous and absurd. Condoms aren't that expensive and if you have any skills at all can be easily stolen. Also, this might be ever so slightly controversial, but has anyone ever even thought of NOT HAVING SEX!?! I KNOW it's hard, but weighing between dropping out of school to take care of kids and not having to worry about that crap at all, is hardy a choice, if of course you have a brain. And even if abstaining is completely impractical, that still doesn't answer the more philosophical questions about this topic. Should taxpayers be forced to supply condoms in such a controversial venue? I should think not, but then again personal responsibiliy and common sense are dead, so this is to be expected. Another question is, if provided, would the students actually USE them. Condoms are generally uncomfortble, and sure there are some brands out there that make it feel like you're not wearing one, but can we expect the schools to provide this? They can't even provide a quality education, how can we expect them to provide quality condoms, or quality anything for that matter? It may be naive of me to believe that abstention is not hard at all. (Maybe they can just resort to anal or oral, as opposed to vaginal?) But it is just as naive, if not more so, to believe that the schools can fix this problem. If it starts in the home that's where it needs to be fixed. Parents need to start giving their kids the talk, and not schools. Whatever happened to the Three R's? I guess now it's four, Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic, and sexual Reproduction classes.
Condoms aren't that expensive and if you have any skills at all can be easily stolen.
Are you actually advocating thievery?
Also, this might be ever so slightly controversial, but has anyone ever even thought of NOT HAVING SEX!?!
You are a revolutionary! Quick, take your idea to the news, so that they might educate the ignorant masses of this amazing new idea!
Abstinence only education does not work.
I KNOW it's hard, but weighing between dropping out of school to take care of kids and not having to worry about that crap at all, is hardy a choice, if of course you have a brain.
There are more choices than abstinence, or have a baby. We are talking about contraceptives, after all.
Should taxpayers be forced to supply condoms in such a controversial venue?
I understand the other side of this issue but I do not see a very obvious flaw being addressed. If the issue is that people do not want more of their money taken for public health, then what happens when teenagers do not have easier access to condoms, don't use them as often, and STDs and pregnancies are more common? The alternative is far more expensive.
Condoms are generally uncomfortble, and sure there are some brands out there that make it feel like you're not wearing one, but can we expect the schools to provide this?
Why not?
It may be naive of me to believe that abstention is not hard at all.
Yes. It is naive.
But it is just as naive, if not more so, to believe that the schools can fix this problem.
Providing easier, anonymous access to contraceptives, combined with comprehensive sex education, would help. Schools are capable of doing this.
Parents need to start giving their kids the talk, and not schools.
If parents neglect to do this, then the cost their child may incur is the responsibility of everyone.
Parents who wish their children to only practice abstinence are still free to raise them in a way that encourages such a procedure. Easily accessible contraceptives just ensure that a child who disobeys is not permanently afflicted with a disease or a child because of it.
Ooooo I sense some condescention! Lets address your counterpoints.
Are you actually advocating thievery? Yes. If your good enough to steal it, its yours. What is property anyway?
You are a revolutionary! Quick, take your idea to the news, so that they might educate the ignorant masses of this amazing new idea!
Abstinence only education does not work. I never claimed to be a revolutionary because abstinence is not a revolutionary idea, but that does not take away from the merit of my argument. Would society be better if teenagers practiced abstinence? I think it would, can't have a baby if you don't have sex. But as i said, I would be naive to believe that ignoramuses would be open to the idea
There are more choices than abstinence, or have a baby. We are talking about contraceptives, after all. You are correct. But condoms do break, so what do you do then? Abortion perhaps? But there is much controversy about that as well. There are also a lot of crazy females who seek to sort of "trap" their partner into commitments by breaking the condom before its used.
I understand the other side of this issue but I do not see a very obvious flaw being addressed. If the issue is that people do not want more of their money taken for public health, then what happens when teenagers do not have easier access to condoms, don't use them as often, and STDs and pregnancies are more common? The alternative is far more expensive. Actually, my issue is peoples money being used for things they dont support. Yes, high school girls getting pregnant is a problem. So therefore we should use public schools to solve the problem? How ridiculous. It's one thing to use peoples money to fund the government to protect the rights of people, its another to use it for things that there is a clear divide on.
Condoms are generally uncomfortble, and sure there are some brands out there that make it feel like you're not wearing one, but can we expect the schools to provide this? - me
Why not?
why not? because they can barely afford decent textbooks or teachers for that matter, or provide a quality education. If that doesn't shed any light, I don't know what to tell you
But it is just as naive, if not more so, to believe that the schools can fix this problem.
Providing easier, anonymous access to contraceptives, combined with comprehensive sex education, would help. Schools are capable of doing this. And how do you know it would help? Have you done extensive research on the subject? Schools arent even capable of educating our children properly, but yet you want them to give them a "comprehensive sex education"? What does that entail exactly? Will they be teaching them positions as well?
Parents need to start giving their kids the talk, and not schools.
If parents neglect to do this, then the cost their child may incur is the responsibility of everyone. MAY being the key word here.
Parents who wish their children to only practice abstinence are still free to raise them in a way that encourages such a procedure. Easily accessible contraceptives just ensure that a child who disobeys is not permanently afflicted with a disease or a child because of it. That falls under the personal responsibility category
So basically what I'm gathering here is that you believe that the schools should provide condoms to teenagers because it would provide a safety net. Well, let's say schools do end up providing condoms for their students. Who is actually going to use them? The reason they don't is just as I already pointed out, they're uncomfortable. Everyone I know doesn't use them for that reason, hell I don't use them for that reason.
Yes. If your good enough to steal it, its yours. What is property anyway?
Something that someone spent their own money for. As it is not particularly pertinent to the discussion, I am not going to spend time further addressing the idiocy of trying to rationalize a victimizing crime.
I never claimed to be a revolutionary because abstinence is not a revolutionary idea, but that does not take away from the merit of my argument. Would society be better if teenagers practiced abstinence? I think it would, can't have a baby if you don't have sex. But as i said, I would be naive to believe that ignoramuses would be open to the idea
There are countless things that would make society better. Not all of them are possible. Expecting all teenagers to remain completely abstinent is among these things.
You are correct. But condoms do break, so what do you do then? Abortion perhaps? But there is much controversy about that as well. There are also a lot of crazy females who seek to sort of "trap" their partner into commitments by breaking the condom before its used.
When used properly, the likelihood of condoms breaking is minimal. As I am a proponent of bodily autonomy, I do not see a problem with abortion.
I cannot find statistics on the frequency of this trap scenario and it seems like something that the media would love to sensationalize even though the cases may be few and far between. Regardless, more men carrying and using their own condoms would help take care of this.
Actually, my issue is peoples money being used for things they dont support. Yes, high school girls getting pregnant is a problem. So therefore we should use public schools to solve the problem? How ridiculous. It's one thing to use peoples money to fund the government to protect the rights of people, its another to use it for things that there is a clear divide on. This is a legitimate point but something that is an issue of public health, like safe sex, is something the government cannot fund only on a voluntary basis. Some people are against vaccinations, should public funding be cut from the effort to provide vaccinations to the poor? Others are against feeding the homeless, should we shut down government-run shelters? In fact, I can think of few things the government funds that do not have at least a small demographic that opposes it. Less STDs and less unwanted pregnancies in a society is good for the society as a whole.
because they can barely afford decent textbooks or teachers for that matter, or provide a quality education. If that doesn't shed any light, I don't know what to tell you
I never said anything about stretching the current budget to also include this. Money currently wasted on ineffectual abstinence only education could be put to far better use here, perhaps.
And how do you know it would help? Have you done extensive research on the subject? Schools arent even capable of educating our children properly, but yet you want them to give them a "comprehensive sex education"? What does that entail exactly? Will they be teaching them positions as well?
I'm not sure what you think comprehensive sex education is, but it generally involves an outline of all the ways to prevent unwanted results, and the various effectiveness rates of each method. Honest information about abstinence is included, but so are other options. Comprehensive sex education has been shown to be effective in helping students delay intercourse, reduce number of partners, and cut rates of diseases and pregnancies.
So basically what I'm gathering here is that you believe that the schools should provide condoms to teenagers because it would provide a safety net.
Yes. Parents may strenuously advocate abstinence to their children, but if they choose to have sex anyway (and many of them do), the price could be a large one, both for them, and for the public.
Well, let's say schools do end up providing condoms for their students. Who is actually going to use them?
The students. Of course.
The reason they don't is just as I already pointed out, they're uncomfortable. Everyone I know doesn't use them for that reason, hell I don't use them for that reason.
This is foolishness. Condoms are a very common method of birth control.
There are countless things that would make society better. Not all of them are possible. Expecting all teenagers to remain completely abstinent is among these things.
What is agreeable about a society which suppresses the romantic instincts of its youth?
I was referring to teenagers remaining voluntarily abstintent, which is what this person appears to expect them to do. Although voluntary abstinence is something that simply cannot be relied upon, the effects of it (nearly nonexistent rates of STDs and accidental pregnancies) would indeed be agreeable for society in general.
I apologise for the over zealous use of brackets; most unbecoming.
the effects of it (nearly nonexistent rates of STDs and accidental pregnancies) would indeed be agreeable for society in general.
If one regarded a tangible gain to outweigh an intangible one. However I suspect that to suppress the romantic instincts of a society's youth, whether the suppression be internal or external, would severely hamper the generation of culture. One observes a parallel in Catholicism, that most evil of all religions.
General abstinence serves no purpose if contraceptives are readily available. As I have previously demonstrated (at length) to Casper (whose name is appended with a number which I have forgotten), correct employment of a prophylactic and a progestogen pill reduces the risk of pregnancy to .01% (both having, if used correctly a 99% effectiveness rate). This matter of STDs would be very easy to solve with a little due diligence by prospective partners (though for first timers, such would hardly be necessary).
I would suggest a bracelet system, provided upon passing a screening at a clinic, but it seems doubtful that people would actually wear them, or bother to be checked. The bracelet would also only guarantee that the person attached to it was free of venereal disease at the time they were screened.
A more practical solution would be to remove age barriers on the purchase of contraceptives and increase the prevalence of prophylactics in teenage dramas &c;. Government propaganda videos sound very much like a stern parent telling us to avoid behaviour which they engaged in when they were young. The difference is that for a government which cannot run its own affairs properly, it is rather hypocritical to lecture us on ours.
I'm loath to admit that television has an impression on teenagers, but I pursued an exceptionally science-oriented education because of Walter Bishop in Fringe. It seems therefore that the best way to associate prophylactics with regular coition in the minds of teenagers is to portray teenage idols using them. Skins, if you have it in the United States of America, would be an ideal candidate.
The material point, however, is that whether the adult faction likes it or not, they have no moral right to judge on teenage romantic affairs, nor interfere in them. Analogously the government should not interfere excessively in industrial affairs, but instead should provide an environment in which they may be pursued to society's behove, which does not consist exclusively of tangible rewards.
It is not the job of the schools, the taxpayers, or society for that matter to supply condoms.
Which is why the motion is hypothetical.
The "teenagers have sex" argument is ridiculous and absurd.
It is true, so I cannot conceive as to how either adjective may apply.
Condoms aren't that expensive and if you have any skills at all can be easily stolen.
Why provide the poor with bread if they have arms to steal it with?
Also, this might be ever so slightly controversial, but has anyone ever even thought of NOT HAVING SEX!?
We evolved with genitalia and hormones for a reason. Unfortunately for you, we also developed the bothersome faculty of discourse and reason, one of the products of which are annoyingly persistent things called "emotions". Combined with chemical impulses, these "emotions" have made sex quite appealing to us and central to our psyche.
An analogy: we are 1, but are formed in such a way as imbues us with a natural gravitation to other units, satisfied only with a value of 2. It is thus for all but the broken, who I cannot speak for.
I KNOW it's hard, but weighing between dropping out of school to take care of kids and not having to worry about that crap at all, is hardy a choice
If condoms were freely available, there would be no need to choose.
if of course you have a brain
If one has a brain, one has also an endocrine system; the aforedescribed scenario results.
Should taxpayers be forced to supply condoms in such a controversial venue?
Why dost feel it necessary to repeat the motion is beyond me.
Condoms are generally uncomfortble, and sure there are some brands out there that make it feel like you're not wearing one, but can we expect the schools to provide this?
If it is within our power to force them to supply prophylactics, it is surely within our power to force the supply of a certain type.
They can't even provide a quality education, how can we expect them to provide quality condoms, or quality anything for that matter?
A defect in a system is no argument against a proposed means of improving it.
Maybe they can just resort to anal or oral, as opposed to vaginal?
That is not a resort.
If it starts in the home that's where it needs to be fixed.
Then tender unto us some argument proving that this is the case.
Parents need to start giving their kids the talk, and not schools.
I'd prefer to receive this "talk" from persons of biological education.
I guess now it's four, Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic, and sexual Reproduction classes.
I maintain contempt for a system of describing a group of three concepts, only one of which begins with an "R", as "the three Rs". As for your musing, I think not. "Biology" begins with a "B".
You would have us revert to superstition and fear.
This is crazy! Seatbelt are mandatory in cars and it's illegal to not wear them and yet I know more people that don't wear them than do. Get over it! It starts in the household and with the parent's ability to bring them up right when it comes to this subject. We all, in some form or way, act like our parents and reflect through our lives how we perceived them. If you think against that statement, you need to do some soul searching. Despite if you were the best parent you ever thought to be, if you have a rebellious or crazy teen, trust me it's something that you lacked in their upbringing...no matter how great you were. We should have a class for parents at the high school teaching them how to talk to their kids before we give kids condoms. I would never in my life want my daughter to throw herself away like that b/c the school said it was ok and told them just to wrap it before they tap it.
P.S. I wear my seat belt EVERYWHERE b/c my PARENTS always made... Just saying =)
Selling condoms in school!?! that made me quite unpredictably laugh. seriously I believe schools should teach kids to be safe is all not condone sexual activity.
I would prefer that people stupid enough to have unprotected sex should be kept out of high school through natural selection i.e. pregnancy = no school.
I would prefer that people stupid enough to have unprotected sex should be kept out of high school through natural selection i.e. pregnancy = no school.
Of course, the subsequent gross expansion of the impoverished underclass that would follow such a policy is an "acceptable loss".
Why deprive the allegedly uneducated of an education?
Well that is the very effect of the matter. We submit that the proponents of this policy must be either themselves uneducated, or poorly so; or educated to the extent that it would be advantageous that they be part of an educated minority.
Would you also suggest that people who are hungry should be banned from restaurants?
But our friend maintains that they should have thought to eat a meal; by which means they might have been delivered from starvation and absolved of the iniquitous crime of being hungry.
Why, it would appear that this logic should be examined in various situations.
We should examine such logic to our behove, if there were any to examine.
Why give poor people money?
Having never had any, they should surely be insensible of how to spend it. They would inevitably waste it, rendering such furnishing a futile exercise.
Why give food to the hungry?
For the sake of preserving luxury, some will have to do without.
Why remove stumbling blocks before the blind?
If they were all to fall and die, there would be no need to waste public money on aids such as stumbling blocks.
It would appear that you, I, and even Jesus are in agreement that one should not prevent people from acquiring something that they need.
The first rule of governance is that governors are most powerful when the governed are content, regardless of system. By any means therefore provide these necessities and never allow thoughts of deprivation to flourish.
Having unprotected sex has nothing to do with intelligence. Usually it is an emotional decision. Or, they were not properly educated in high school. Also, do you feel the same way about the men who get the girls pregnant? Or just the women who get pregnant.
Honestly, I think that it's more the guy's fault than the girl's. I mean, they should be the one with the condom, right? Shouldn't they be able to say no if they don't have one? I can. I mean yeah, guy's can't exactly get on birth-control, but condoms are the best thing to prevent pregnancies AND STDs. The school is always sayin "abstinence", but they know we won't. Why even try? I'd be like "Wear a condom. Not wearin one could ruin your life." I mean, come on. I guess some school people are too "uneducated" to realize that they need to support the students with statements and lectures that could actually help, not go completely against them with "talks" that high school students just completely ignore.
