• 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!

Should teenagers be given free condoms?

Should teenagers be given free condoms?

  • Of course! They need to have sex safely

    Votes: 47 50.5%
  • No, it only encourages them

    Votes: 23 24.7%
  • Other(Please elaborate)

    Votes: 23 24.7%

  • Total voters
    93
I'm not blaming anyone for anything, but at the end of the day these kids have to learn to take responsibility for themselves. It's really not my fault or anyone else's when the kids fail to use a condoms. It's not as if these kids aren't told to use condoms, so what excuse do they really have to not buy and use them? It's not as if they are expensive or hard to find.



Why is it the government job to make sure kids have condoms? Why do you have to use government force to make fellow citizens do as you want? Why can't you go out and talk to your citizens and together provide kids with condoms?


excellent post!
 
You can get condoms for free at any Planned Parenthood or STD clinic. Plentiful condoms are a benefit to public health, controlling the spread of HIV. And preventing teenage pregnancy.



An example where "common sense" actually means terrible advice.



No, conflating sex and marriage is old fashioned, out of date, and detrimental. A healthy sex life is not served by pledging a lifelong commitment without any idea what you're doing or knowing what you want. Ignorance in relationships and romance is terribly unfair to a spouse. Defining responsibility as "settling down and breeding" is old fashioned and out of date.



And abstinence-only education outright lies to kids in order to scare them into not having sex, but the actual result is that kids don't know to use birth control. Telling kids not to have sex doesn't accomplish anything. It never has. Helping them do so safely is the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.



"It's more important to blame people and feel superior than it is to solve problems."



Easy to say when one is born fortunate enough not to have to take those risks.



Why so hard to be a nation of people that watch out for each other?



And yet, distributing them to kids actually gets kids to use them. Crazy, right?

It is pathetic and sad how much of this thread is callousness and egoism.

Condoms - I fail to see how someone can't purchase those for their self. They don't cost that much and are available from just about anywhere, they don't require a Dr's visit, a prescription, time to fill the prescription, nor would they possibly risk someone's health when administered . . .etc

If they're going to hand out condoms for free they might as well hand out all BC for free :shrug:

Is there a reason why an able-bodied individual cannot afford $10.00 of condoms a month? And trust me - most people don't need a whole box to get through 30 days of sex.
 
I'm not blaming anyone for anything, but at the end of the day these kids have to learn to take responsibility for themselves. They know to use them, they are easily affordable, and they are readily available. All they have to do is go to the store and pick some up. That is it.

Why is it the government job to make sure kids have condoms? Why do you have to use government force to make fellow citizens do as you want? Why can't you go out and talk to your citizens and together provide kids with condoms?
So easy. So simple. So logical. So... out of touch with reality.
 
Does handing out free condoms create less of a burden on the taxpayer than not doing so. If yes, than yes, if no than no. In a perfect world they would take responsibility for their own actions. But in this world, if it is actually cheaper, than that is more important to me than the principle of it.
 
I don't see why not. I mean, the stats show that teens are gonna have sex anyway, so we might as well make sure they have protected sex.

Which is about as stupid as saying "people are going to shoot each other anyhow, why not give them free bullets?"
 
i dont think so, he rights on target.

His common fatal flaw in discussions like this is he consistently fails to discern idealism with human nature... what should should do vs what people will actually do.

I phrased my response carefully. What he says makes sense, as in it is what people should do. It utterly fails when tested, however.

Can we go back to that ideal? Maybe. If we did it would be a long process, and in the mean time do we really want to have an explosion of unwanted kids on the taxpayer bill? THAT's reality. We can argue whether they should be on the taxpayer bill, but they are and it's not changing anytime soon. Is that what you want?
 
Condoms - I fail to see how someone can't purchase those for their self. They don't cost that much and are available from just about anywhere, they don't require a Dr's visit, a prescription, time to fill the prescription, nor would they possibly risk someone's health when administered . . .etc

If they're going to hand out condoms for free they might as well hand out all BC for free :shrug:

Is there a reason why an able-bodied individual cannot afford $10.00 of condoms a month? And trust me - most people don't need a whole box to get through 30 days of sex.

First, because abstinence programs in every school tell kids not to use them, that they don't work, that they actually make it more likely to contract disease. Second, some males are too macho to use them. Third, some kids simply are never exposed to them and don't think of them. Putting them somewhere that kids will be gets them acclimated to idea and exposes them to it. Why don't they simply make the smart choice? I don't know. I certainly do. Don't you? But some people don't. And they do more often when condoms are right in front of them and advocated to them. So what possible benefit is there in getting upset at them for making the wrong choice? Instead, help them make the right one.
 
His common fatal flaw in discussions like this is he consistently fails to discern idealism with human nature... what should should do vs what people will actually do.

I phrased my response carefully. What he says makes sense, as in it is what people should do. It utterly fails when tested, however.

Can we go back to that ideal? Maybe. If we did it would be a long process, and in the mean time do we really want to have an explosion of unwanted kids on the taxpayer bill? THAT's reality. We can argue whether they should be on the taxpayer bill, but they are and it's not changing anytime soon. Is that what you want?

It's kind of interesting how we create safety net and then spend our time trying to keep people off of it. I can't recall a time when I created something and then spend my time trying to make sure no one used it.

However, I didn't suggest that everyone would do the right thing. In fact, many people will only do the right thing when they are clear out of choices and many times they will still fail to do it then.
 
Last edited:
..and abortion, and child care, and food-stamps, and Title-19, and housing, and health care, and retirement....

Yep.

/
 
It's kind of interesting how we create safety net and then spend our time trying to keep off of it. I can't recall a time when I created something and then spend my time trying to me sure no one used it.
Do you really not see the difference between a single individual doing something and a collection of individuals comprising a society doing something akin to the herding of cats?
 
Don't hand them out, but have them available so they can get them without having to embarrass themselves.

They should be embarassed, there used to be something called shame in this country where people didn't do things because they didn't want other people to think badly of them.

We need to bring that back.
 
They should be embarassed, there used to be something called shame in this country where people didn't do things because they didn't want other people to think badly of them.

We need to bring that back.

Nah there's definitely enough shame around. People still kill themselves over it.
 
His common fatal flaw in discussions like this is he consistently fails to discern idealism with human nature... what should should do vs what people will actually do.

I phrased my response carefully. What he says makes sense, as in it is what people should do. It utterly fails when tested, however.

Can we go back to that ideal? Maybe. If we did it would be a long process, and in the mean time do we really want to have an explosion of unwanted kids on the taxpayer bill? THAT's reality. We can argue whether they should be on the taxpayer bill, but they are and it's not changing anytime soon. Is that what you want?


well in his argument its very simple, its the same i use, and that is government is not here to supply you with material goods or services.. IE..healthcare

people have this idea, when there is a problem they are supposed to turn to government to solve it, and that's not correct, government is here to secure rights, not serve your wants desires, of fix your problems.

when people ask government do to things, government requires money to do that, why should tax payers pay for condoms when they are so easy to obtain ...by asking government to do, you have opened the door further to them into the life's of the people.

where are no social duties for the federal government in the personal life's of the people.

when faced with question about things i always ask myself two questions.

who's property is it?

and does government have the authority to act?

in this case the property is my tax money people are wanting to spend..

in the latter, the answer is no, government has no authority in this area.
 
Is it a waste? It's a drop in the bucket compared to paying for unplanned kids.

The taxpayer shouldn't be paying for them, the parents of the teenagers should, for failing to raise responsible children. Go garnish their wages to pay for the kid.
 
Do you want to stand on principle, or do you want tax money to pay for unplanned kids?

Option C does not exist.

It did before we added option B. Did the out of wedlock childbirth rate not increase after option B was added?
 
Do you really not see the difference between a single individual doing something and a collection of individuals comprising a society doing something akin to the herding of cats?

Actually, that is not what is going on here. Society is a collection of people while government is the body that rules over it. When you use the governing body towards anything it is not the collection of people doing something, it is the ruling body doing it. You see, if we were working together voluntarily you wouldn't have had even the notion to make that post telling me about the collection of individuals as I would already be working with you towards the same goals.

Regardless of that, there is very little you do in this world where you want less people to engage in it. Off the top of my head there is charity and then there is welfare and outside of that there is nothing that people do for other people that they want less people to take part in.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom