Not sure what you are saying is 'rare.' STDs are not rare. One in 4 teen girls have an STD.
1 in 4 teen girls have STD - USATODAY.com
They wouldnt have that problem if they keep the johnson or shirley zipped up. Not that I care about their problems.
Abstinence didn't work before condoms and birth control were invented. And abstinence won't work now. People are not going to abstain. Thinking they should will not cause anyone to abstain.
What makes you think I care about them or thier problems? I am not interested in having my goverment paying for it. They want to screw like rabbits I dont care. But they can pay for their condoms. If they cant afford those maybe they need to revaluate what they are doing. Still it dont matter in the sceme of things the fact is government is now a charitable institution which I oppose intensly.
What makes you think I care about them or thier problems? I am not interested in having my goverment paying for it. They want to screw like rabbits I dont care. But they can pay for their condoms. If they cant afford those maybe they need to revaluate what they are doing. Still it dont matter in the sceme of things the fact is government is now a charitable institution which I oppose intensly.
why not just have a change for birth control drive at the schools. when i was in highschool we always had change for charity to give to foreign countries. how about quarters for condoms, that has a nice ring to it.
If you believe that teen pregnancy and std's are a problem for everyone (I do), then this approach isn't effective enough. It's unlikely to generate enough money to fund a school-wide effort for just one community, let alone multiple communities, especially the poorest ones who are least able to afford such charity.
There are many like you who don't care about anything but themselve. This country would have fewer problems if many adults would stop screwing. Doesn't mean they are going to. The cost of treating illness is far greater than prevention.
well...it's a start. if i had my way we'd just hand condoms out to kids with their planners at the start of the year.
Well its a vicous circle, I have prime responsibily to me and mine, not you or yours, and visa vesa. The more government takes from me the more selfish I have to be. Sorry but I really dont care about my country as it sees fit to screw me at every turn. They and take and take and dont know when to stop. I have had enough. All because most of those in the government leadership are corrupt and greedy and dont mind taking from me to pad their nests at the expence of mine. It tends to make make me less giving. What can I say?
Well, no. Since the discussion is about handing out condoms free, that's actually a step back.
lol free birth control is a step forward.
Abstinence didn't work before condoms and birth control were invented. And abstinence won't work now. People are not going to abstain. Thinking they should will not cause anyone to abstain.
Let's teach them about oral sex and anal sex as alternative to avoid an unwanted pregnancy as well.
Just trying to reduce future costs folks.
Since this discussion is about what age kids should receive condoms for free in school and not about the encroachment of big government, you're in the wrong thread.
Yes. Yes it is.
I see it as green lighting wrong behaviors in our children. Unless the majority votes to the contrary, of course, and then sex will be as much a part of our kids lives as lunch hour.i see it as an investment. we keep these girls from getting pregnant, keep them off government assistance (single moms end up on welfare quite a bit more than single women without kids). how many condoms can we buy with one persons lifetime of welfare checks?
Well, I guess that pregnancy is one way to reduce promiscuity, but since the goal as understood in this thread is to reduce std's and pregnancies so that students can carry on with their education then that approach will be generally ineffective. So again, what is the goal here? Is it reduce teen std's and pregnancy, or is it to condemn teen sex? One approach is effective, the other is not.
Parents buying the condoms they prefer for their children is not incompatible with schools providing condoms. What next? Complain that the school is selling Pepsi when the parents prefer Coke?
Yes, and that statement is "be careful," because the statement "sex is bad, mkay?" has already been shown not to work.
While I'm not educated on all state laws I've never heard of teen sex being illegal.
Then the parents are free to carry out the abominable option of homeschooling their children. If schools were to have education and programs that each and every parent approved of, schools could not exist.
Well, I guess that pregnancy is one way to reduce promiscuity, but since the goal as understood in this thread is to reduce std's and pregnancies so that students can carry on with their education then that approach will be generally ineffective. So again, what is the goal here? Is it reduce teen std's and pregnancy, or is it to condemn teen sex? One approach is effective, the other is not.
Parents buying the condoms they prefer for their children is not incompatible with schools providing condoms. What next? Complain that the school is selling Pepsi when the parents prefer Coke?
Yes, and that statement is "be careful," because the statement "sex is bad, mkay?" has already been shown not to work.
While I'm not educated on all state laws I've never heard of teen sex being illegal.
Then the parents are free to carry out the abominable option of homeschooling their children. If schools were to have education and programs that each and every parent approved of, schools could not exist.
Relying on charity would not result in a more effective program to reduce teen pregnancy and stds. Instead you'd be left right where you started: the parents who give a damn do, and the parents that don't, don't. Of course, this would be a problem for those who believe that reducing overall teen pregnancy and std's is a solution that should be worked toward based on the various studies on the effectiveness of sex ed programs vs. abstinence programs. If your opinion is influenced in any way by a general discomfort about sex stemming from morality, your opinion will of course be different.
I take it you favor the spread of herpes, HPV, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, bacterial vaginitis, and AIDS. To each his own. I do not favor the spread of those things.
If its going to happen then I'd start it at 13-14. Thats when most kids are "discovering" that they "like" the opposite sex (or the same as the case may be). And that's when they start "exploring".
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?