• 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!

Kids n' Kondoms

What age?

  • 11 - 12

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • 13 - 14

    Votes: 9 20.9%
  • 15 - 16

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • 17 - 18

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • Oh, hell no!

    Votes: 19 44.2%

  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
They wouldnt have that problem if they keep the johnson or shirley zipped up. Not that I care about their problems.

Bam. We have our first winner.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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 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...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, no. Since the discussion is about handing out condoms free, that's actually a step back.
 
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?

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.
 
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.

I dont care if it works for them or not or whether they screw or not, botton line is I dont want to pay for their problems resulting from their stupidty or their lack of impulse control. I am into prevention, just not the prevention your into. I am into preventing the looting of my wallet.:soap
 
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.


I like the way you think.
 
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.

OK there shouldnt be ANY age for the giving of condoms by government. Besides its government subsidies and wellfare for TROJAN et al. I thought you all were against that?
 
Yes. Yes it is.

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?
 
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?
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.
 
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.


There politically correct mantras that sound great but aren't real. I DO NOT CARE what works or not for OTHER KIDS in relation to my own.

Giving out condoms is not education. For younger children, it is the school engaging in felony sexual assault of children - under the theory that its going to happen anyway.

It also is popular politically correct mantras of better to be promiscuous than a teenage wife and mother. So much so, that is now taught as a truism in schools. That the absolute WORST thing that can matter to a young female is to have a child. Burning in how awful having children is that that promiscuous sex is just fine and being a parent is hell on earth is not a proper role of FORCED education - and I believe we have learned that such mantras has lead to increasing numbers of parents agreeing that parenting sucks - so they don't towards their child(ren).

Promiscuous sex is inevitable for all children and parents should agree with that is both false and - more importantly - not a moral judgment to be taught to school children FORCED to be there and FORCED to regurgitate it on tests. It may well be inevitable that your child will have sex with anyone and everyone, with you teaching your children that's how it is so go for it, just be sure to use a condom - but it is not inevitable for my children.
 
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.

Everyone has the option of homeschooling to teach their children how to be promiscuous teenagers too, don't they?

There is no assertion that your new support and promote promiscuity for young teenagers as it is inevitable has any moral or factual justification whatsoever.

In most states, handing out condoms to young teenages is promotion of and conspiracy to facilitate felony sexual assault of children. No different than handing out needles so kids can use them to safely shoot up heroin.

OK, I can accept that you will teach your kids to have sex with anyone and everyone he/she feels like starting at age 13, saying "just use a condom and you'll have a great time!" But not every parent shares your view and not every parent lacks any influence over their child's development as you accept you won't have over yours.

School attendance is not voluntary. It is forced. Forcing children to regurgitate sexual values of promiscuity on tests and accept the inevitability of engaging in "casual sex" is political correctness for new lower morality run amuck.

There is a real problem when children are FORCED to attend school that teaches "morality" - and then the parents have to teach their children: "you teacher has lower morality than a prostitute and if you listen to them they'll ruin your life."

And a parent certainly can say whether the school gives out Pepsi instead of Coke, when it known that Coke is going to kill kids. And that is what handing out condoms does.

Of course, I suppose some gay bashers would like it as clearly it is the school promoting girls to have sex with boys, rather than other girls. Gay bashers alway find clever ways to claim that isn't what they are doing.
 
Science proves they don't work, and is a govt meddling business sellout, whatever you want to call it, an inside job...
 
Wake up people. Kids have sex. Stop pretending that guys and girls still think the other gender have koodies until they are married. It is the way the world is. Would you rather have them having a bunch of kids running around or the school wake up and acknowledge the fact that kids need real life advice. We are not helping anybody by pretending that kids don't do it.
 
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.

Why not have a tax you can opt out of? Maybe people don't want to pay for other people to have sex with each other. With the tax it could be automatic, but then you could opt out of it with a few forms so the people who really dislike it don't pay for something they are against.
 
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.

Yes, I pray at night that people get those diseases :roll:

It's not as if people won't get those if they don't have sex... Oh wait
 
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".
 
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".

Hmm. That's interesting. Somebody should start a poll asking at what age people lost their virginity. I think 13-14 would be on the low side.
 
Back
Top Bottom