Of course! They need to have sex safely
No, it only encourages them
Silly and bad topic
As to "discouraging sex? Really? Are you freaking serious? A stiff prick has no conscience
Last edited by Top Cat; 07-01-13 at 04:45 PM.
Either I'm right or you're wrong.
Situation A: condoms used. Most of the time, no unwanted pregnancy. End sequence.
Situation B: no condoms used. Unwanted pregnancy likely.
B1 Abortion... controversial and certainly not ideal.
B2 Has baby, gives up for adoption.... lovely, except adoption in America is a traffic jam and crapshoot...
B3 Has baby, attempts to raise same while going to HS. Likely to drop out and work a menial job and be poor for life. Child likely to be raised under highly sub-optimal conditions with limited parental supervision/interaction. Chances of child growing up to be a burden on society, or a criminal: High.
If you're proposing a scenario where there is NO sort of social safety net, what if the Mama can't get a job? Perhaps mama and baby starve.... or perhaps Mama starts stealing or whoring to keep from starvation, or the Babydaddy turns to burglary or armed robbery.
Y'know.... maybe the whole free condom thing wasn't such a burden after all....
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
No, your point was that if I want to lower cost created from the safety net then I must support an extension of that safety net. Why not just remove the damn net if that is my goal?Whether you agree with the distribution of condoms or not is frankly irrelevant unless the current social programs are overhauled. That was the point.