• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Condoms for free at 22 city schools

Maenad said:
If the are a baby mamma getting a check, they won't work at home. Girls are no longer expelled from school for being pregnant, and haven't been since the 50s.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying if the mom needs the money from more work hours it would work to her advantage if she was able to do the school work at home. We already have Internet classes so it seems workable to me.
 
Fruityfact said:
Or you give them rubbers for free and that scenario goes out the window...
Click to expand...

Because providing something to someone not only means they will use it but also that it will be 100% effective. I'm guessing the fact that condoms are free elsewhere and that they are not 100% effective somehow eluded you.
 
Mathematician said:
...not necessarily for the better :roll:
Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but our population has at least doubled since the 1950s. We have a lot of immigrants who come from completely different cultures with different values and morals. It is unfortunate that people are not more responsible, but that is ideological dream. It is just not realistic.
 
Henrin said:
Because providing something to someone not only means they will use it but also that it will be 100% effective. I'm guessing the fact that condoms are free elsewhere and that they are not 100% effective somehow eluded you.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone expects there to be a 100% resolution of the problem from just condoms. :roll: It is a step in the right direction though. It's better than having a bunch of unwanted babies and pregnant teenagers or diseased teenagers who spread STDs.
 
Henrin said:
No, I'm saying if the mom needs the money from more work hours it would work to her advantage if she was able to do the school work at home. We already have Internet classes so it seems workable to me.
Click to expand...

Let's meet in the middle. How about letting them stay after school and clean for 30 minutes to save on janitor costs and allow them to earn their condoms?
 
Last edited:
They could put condom dispensary machines in and charge them a quarter or 50 cents per condom to help offset costs. I don't think it would be unreasonable to charge them that much. I think pretty much ALL teens could come up with a quarter or 50 cents if they had to.

I'm talking about strictly high school-aged kids. They are kind of at the age where parents have become a less important role in their lives.

Any younger kids, then it SHOULD be the parents' responsibility. I also think that if a child under the age of say 14 gets impregnated that the parents should have to pay fines or something for neglecting their children. IMO, if a child that young is out having sex and getting pregnant or diseased, that is neglect on the parents' part because those children should have some kind of supervision.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't think anyone expects there to be a 100% resolution of the problem from just condoms.
:roll:
Click to expand...

The poster said this:

Or you give them rubbers for free and that scenario goes out the window...
Click to expand...

You simply don't get people to responsible by providing them something for free. People no matter what have to be willing to be responsible and usually speaking someone that has a habit of being irresponsible will not simply start to be responsible by something being provided to them at no cost either in terms of money or work on their part.

It is a step in the right direction though. It's better than having a bunch of unwanted babies and pregnant teenagers or diseased teenagers who spread STDs.
Click to expand...

Its basically very similar to how you treat a child that is out of school and yet won't move forward in their life. Do you provide them what they need or do you kick them out?
 
ChrisL said:
They could put condom dispensary machines in and charge them a quarter or 50 cents per condom to help offset costs. I don't think it would be unreasonable to charge them that much. I think pretty much ALL teens could come up with a quarter or 50 cents if they had to.

I'm talking about strictly high school-aged kids. They are kind of at the age where parents have become a less important role in their lives.

Any younger kids, then it SHOULD be the parents' responsibility. I also think that if a child under the age of say 14 gets impregnated that the parents should have to pay fines or something for neglecting their children. IMO, if a child that young is out having sex and getting pregnant or diseased, that is neglect on the parents' part because those children should have some kind of supervision.
Click to expand...

Now we're starting to see eye to eye. There's a big difference between letting the kid use their lunch money for a condom and using tax dollars.
 
Mathematician said:
It's not simply the idea of following my morals. How many times do I have to say "I shouldn't have to pay for your stupid decisions"?
Click to expand...

Why does it matter how they get to not paying for their decisions? Use birth control, condoms, or don't have sex. You are promoting the last option only.
 
Mathematician said:
Now we're starting to see eye to eye. There's a big difference between letting the kid use their lunch money for a condom and using tax dollars.
Click to expand...

You still understand that installing the dispensaries is going to cost money, right? Also sex education classes and teaching children the importance of using condoms... lol
 
SheWolf said:
You still understand that installing the dispensaries is going to cost money, right? Also sex education classes and teaching children the importance of using condoms... lol
Click to expand...


I'd like to know when the oh so open minded liberals will cancel football programs, or band programs in favor of a '50 shades of grey' class for 10th graders.
 
lpast said:
Do we also pass a law that if they dont use the free condums we jail them ?
Click to expand...

No, instead we can justify cutting spending on welfare, etc. because we already provided them with an alternative. If they choose not to use it, its no longer anyone else's problem. But, it is our problem if they don't have access or aren't educated on the issue.
 
j-mac said:
I'd like to know when the oh so open minded liberals will cancel football programs, or band programs in favor of a '50 shades of grey' class for 10th graders.
Click to expand...

Why should we cancle football and band?
 
j-mac said:
Why'd they cancel 'shop'?
Click to expand...

Do you know why shop was canceled... perhaps you should look into that and then present an argument as to why it was the wrong decision. :shrug:
 
Fruityfact said:
Or you give them rubbers for free and that scenario goes out the window...
Click to expand...
Lets not be silly. Giving away condoms will prevent SOME pregnancies. SOME may actually use them. I think it would be ambitious to think all or even a simple majority will. Doesn't mean we shouldn't give it a shot.
 
VanceMack said:
Lets not be silly. Giving away condoms will prevent SOME pregnancies. SOME may actually use them. I think it would be ambitious to think all or even a simple majority will. Doesn't mean we shouldn't give it a shot.
Click to expand...

I forgot to add the what 98%(if used correctly) prevention of pregnancy and the prevention of STDs
 
Mathematician said:
I shouldn't have to "help" anyone from their own stupid decisions. All you're doing is babying them when they need to learn how to wipe their own ***. In fact, it's the poor who say they can't afford condoms that need to learn the value of responsibility the most. If these students are in areas with many diseases and/or pregnancies being common and they haven't learned abstinence then that's their problem.
Click to expand...

No, that is incorrect. Abstinence is not a natural act. More than that diseases and pregnancies will be everyone's problem. The cost will be shared. Do the math!
 
Ray410 said:
"The dispensers will be placed in the 22 high schools whose students had the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases............."

What a bunch of worthless losers.
Click to expand...

Sounds like somebody's jealous.

Or didn't have anything meaningful to add.
 
The purpose of public policy is maximize the societal benefit, not satisfy a sick desire to see teenagers punished for having sex. "Personal responsibility" is bull**** considering that the children of teen parents suffer for the mistakes of others, not to mention that high school students are legally children anyway. Abstinence-only nonsense leads to worse results in reality, no amount of pontificating will change that adopting such policies is both expensive and immoral.
 
Mathematician said:
Let's meet in the middle. How about letting them stay after school and clean for 30 minutes to save on janitor costs and allow them to earn their condoms?
Click to expand...

Brilliant! Who is going to work out the bus scheduling for those who stay late? Who is going to pay for the extra driver, fuel, and maintenance costs? Compare the cost difference to giving the kids free rubbers.
 
rathi said:
The purpose of public policy is maximize the societal benefit, not satisfy a sick desire to see teenagers punished for having sex. "Personal responsibility" is bull**** considering that the children of teen parents suffer for the mistakes of others, not to mention that high school students are legally children anyway. Abstinence-only nonsense leads to worse results in reality, no amount of pontificating will change that adopting such policies is both expensive and immoral.
Click to expand...

Bingo! Unfortunately though, there will always be an element of people in America who believe sex is the root of all evil. Sex=bad. Bloomberg won't let you buy a big Coke in NYC. Sex is the culprit. The massacre of children by a 20 year old on SRRIs? Sex, we have heard from TV preachers, is the reason why it happened. America no longer manufactures anything and somewhere some of the same people will claim it is because of sex.

Sex, sex, sex. It's evil, horrible, bad.


If God wanted us to walk around nude, we'd have all been born naked. :eek:
 
rathi said:
The purpose of public policy is maximize the societal benefit, not satisfy a sick desire to see teenagers punished for having sex. "Personal responsibility" is bull**** considering that the children of teen parents suffer for the mistakes of others, not to mention that high school students are legally children anyway.
Click to expand...

So the children suffer from the choices of their parents? Your point? In case you missed it that is a rather common occurrence.

Abstinence-only nonsense leads to worse results in reality, no amount of pontificating will change that adopting such policies is both expensive and immoral.
Click to expand...

Who is talking about abstinence only policies? Anyway, there is nothing immoral about letting people suffer from their choices. Nothing at all.

I enjoy how everyone is forgetting that these kids already know to use condoms, they are already provided for free by other outlets, and yet they still do not use them. Somehow providing them at school will change everything though. Yeah, if we forget that you have to have an interest to use them in which they do NOT have.
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
Bingo! Unfortunately though, there will always be an element of people in America who believe sex is the root of all evil. Sex=bad. Bloomberg won't let you buy a big Coke in NYC. Sex is the culprit. The massacre of children by a 20 year old on SRRIs? Sex, we have heard from TV preachers, is the reason why it happened. America no longer manufactures anything and somewhere some of the same people will claim it is because of sex.
Click to expand...


Well, that would be silly. Maybe if this is what we are faced with we need to as parents, and as I did with my own children talk about how having a child before they were established in their lives was a really selfish act, and would harm not only their long term progression in life, but how it wasn't fair to the child.

We need to get back to values in this country, and I am not talking about the off the wall tv preacher values either, but the wisdom of those of us who have experienced life rather than throwing up our hands and proclaiming that it is beyond our control.

Sex, sex, sex. It's evil, horrible, bad.
Click to expand...

Not horrible at all, but it can be a choice with consequences that have long term ramifications that immature minds are not ready for.

If God wanted us to walk around nude, we'd have all been born naked.
Click to expand...

And if God wanted children to procreate outside of marriage, and at levels of immaturity to not be able to care for the life they create he wouldn't have placed so much emphasis on the act being specific for the purpose of building a family. Think about it, was God really saying 'allow your children to have sex, and reproduce because it's fun'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom