- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
So, how is this logical? Did you want to get pregnant whilst at school? I know for a fact, that almost nobody ever will bother to go anywhere to get a condom, so very few use it, but if you didn't have to actually go out of your way to get it, because it is there, then you will use it. I was told to use it always, by everyone, and I am absolutely surprised, that here is the 1st adult in the universe, you, who argues against it. Maybe, can you clarify?
So, how is this logical? Did you want to get pregnant whilst at school? I know for a fact, that almost nobody ever will bother to go anywhere to get a condom, so very few use it, but if you didn't have to actually go out of your way to get it, because it is there, then you will use it. I was told to use it always, by everyone, and I am absolutely surprised, that here is the 1st adult in the universe, you, who argues against it. Maybe, can you clarify?
Abstinence education by who?
NOT ALL PARENTS agree that "safe" promiscuous sex is superior to "risky sex" when it comes to disease and pregnancy. There are parents who would prefer their child get pregnant or have a baby even if not ready and possibly a premature marriage or relationship - that then might end in divorce or not - than to become promiscuous "semi-safely." Not everyone agrees that teen pregnancy is evil or wrong. Some do believe that sex SHOULD risk pregnancy - thus reducing promiscuity and all the dangers they see that as bringing. Some would rather their kid have sex once and get pregnant or have a baby, then have lots of sex, no kid, but then still risk being pregnancy from someone she had no relationship with at all and HIV positive too to her believing there is such a thing as "safe sex" with others who believe the same thing.
Who gets to gamble with their kid's whole life, future and values? The parents? Or the school?
In addition, the parents might not LIKE the condoms the school is giving out. For size. Quality. Whether or not has spermicide. Don't know how old they are. How they were stored etc.
The school handing out condoms is the school making a statement about sex
- sex that may well be felony illegal to have
- and that statement may exactly contradict the parents.
So just throw in the towel and start passing out the Trojans?At 11 or under, rather under ... although the statistics are not known, students fooling with each other in elementary schools can't be stomped out.
At what age should our children be before the school system may issue government subsidized condoms to them?
So just throw in the towel and start passing out the Trojans?
**** that, they can buy their own rubbers like everyone else.
How about just "fix" the parents for failing to educate their children?Yes.
That or just chemically castrate the little buggers.
Put free condom dispensers in the bathrooms of middle schools and high schools. If they have to ask for them they likely won't.
How about just "fix" the parents for failing to educate their children?
LOL - let's hear everyone start demanding that all workplaces provide a full line of bc.
Nah, I was just knee-jerkin' with ya.Will this retroactively fix the teen pregnancy/std?
Nah, I was just knee-jerkin' with ya.
I think that anyone who believes teenagers, especially minors, should be wearing condoms, should also have zero problem with pedophiles jumping in on the action.
My later posts address why I hold that view - they're the worst form of birth control out there.
But that's not even the point - the point is that it's not the school's business or place to provide them - period. . . no matter how effective they are.
No they aren't. The worst form of birth control is no birth control at all, which is generally the alternative.
Again, the alternative is worse: The school will have to educate an additional unwanted child for 13 years, and the state will (usually) have to provide other forms of assistance. You may not consider it to be the "school's business" to provide them, but if nothing else the school is prudently watching out for its own financial future.
No they aren't. The worst form of birth control is no birth control at all, which is generally the alternative.
Again, the alternative is worse: The school will have to educate an additional unwanted child for 13 years, and the state will (usually) have to provide other forms of assistance. You may not consider it to be the "school's business" to provide them, but if nothing else the school is prudently watching out for its own financial future.
So just throw in the towel and start passing out the Trojans?
My later posts address why I hold that view - they're the worst form of birth control out there.
But that's not even the point - the point is that it's not the school's business or place to provide them - period. . . no matter how effective they are.
That's not the question. The question is whether at age 10 or 12 or 14 she wanted to get f/cked, AND she needed the school to help her out with that by surrounding her with little boys with condoms in their pockets.
YES! We have a winner...
No - see - that's why we fund planned parenthood, wic, etc . . . to provide these things.
That's not good enough?
they can't give tylenol - but they can give condoms . . . oh yeah, that makes sense.
So just throw in the towel and start passing out the Trojans?
Oh, hell no! Either express self control or buy them yourselves.
From pocket money?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?