• 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
instagramsci said:
Nah there's definitely enough shame around. People still kill themselves over it.
Click to expand...

Like all tools there is a proper way to use them. It's one thing to shame people when they do something stupid and another to just shame people in general. The former can be useful, the later not so much.
 
John Liberty said:
Should teenagers be given free condoms?
Click to expand...

I'd like to know by what mechanism these magically "free" condoms will just pop out of nowhere.

Are the companies donating them? Unlikely. Sounds like another costly government program, which will be anything but free.
 
• Teens have sex and anybody who expects them not to is profoundly retarded
• Children cost the taxpayers lots of money (child tax credits, education, child & family services, etc.)
• The unexpected children of teens cost us even more on top of what's already spent (lost lifetime productivity, increased crime, police, jails, etc.)
• Giving out condoms drastically reduces the unwanted pregnancy rate
• Currently, only 10% of children in foster homes ever get adopted (and that system costs us a lot of taxpayer money too)

Its simple cost-benefit. You can pay a few dollars for condoms or you can pay thousands of dollars for unwanted kids.
 
Kal'Stang said:
That never included condoms as I recall. Kids having sex was never spoken openly and rarely privately at the time such things that you talk about were expected.
Click to expand...

No disrespect, but so what? It never included teens and tweens with cellphones and/or Iphones or Ipads or whatever either so that mommy and daddy could keep track of and indulge their little terrors. Times change, but personal responsibility for your own life and the lives of your offspring is eternal. The details may change, but not the principle.
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

So - free condoms are supposed to take place of
1) Informed decisions . . . free barriers doesn't make the decision any more informed.
2) The fact that they truly are one of the least reliable forms of birth control . . . and the free ones are the worst offenders.
3) That knowing how to use them and store them is highly important . . . lest you might as well not use them at all.
4) Some guys are too macho? Address that however you address 'too macho' bull**** . . . and handing out something for free doesn't somehow change that.
5) I certainly didn't use them - and it wouldn't have mattered if they were free or not or in a candy dish on my parent's coffee table.

I have no problem advocating the right choice - and handing out free condoms doesn't improve on 'making choices' - it just 'makes it less of a thought'
 
Mathematician said:
Society should make people improve themselves by letting them suffer for their own poor decisions. Doing such either improves the individual, and thus society as a whole, or at least doesn't make others take any burden they don't deserve.

This also goes back to people saying what happens in their bedroom is only their business, hence it is only their responsibility if they want/need condoms.
Click to expand...

I'm a Canadian conservative, like many of my fellow Canadians - we believe in keeping the government out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms - as your post points out, you're suggesting just that - AMEN.
 
People that cant afford condoms shouldnt be having sex. People that arent responsible enough to practice safe sex shouldnt be having sex. The government should not be buying and paying for items like this. People in favor of these programs should be footing the bill for these programs. Should. Should. But...

Yes. People that cant afford condoms will still be having sex. If there is even a slight chance it prevents even a small number of them from procreating then it is worth it to purchase and provide condoms.
 
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok the point to be made here is that no matter what, sex is going to happen, underage or not. IF they are ashamed they might just not used them. Would you rather them do that? By the way, I agree that we need to go to that.
 
Just a thought - if the government gives out a free condom and it fails, resulting in a teen pregnancy, is the government then liable for all costs related to that pregnancy since they passed out a defective product and two teens suffered because of that negligence?

I see the American trial lawyers bar salivating at the possibilities.
 
I'm really torn on this issue. Both sides make great points. On the one hand, it could be a complete waste of money and like others have noted, providing free condoms doesn't take the place of education and informed decisions. Sex isn't just about getting pregnant or getting a disease. There are emotional attachments involved and social stigma. It's so much more complicated than "let's give them free condoms."

On the other hand, if it could prevent even SOME unwanted teen pregnancies and prevent at least some from collecting services from the government, it could be a worthwhile endeavor.
 
It's no just about preventing pregnancies, it's also about preventing sexually transmitted diseases
Should children be expected to pay for their own flu jabs and measles vaccinations out of their own allowance?
 
...Adding: I also think it's offensive and extremely UNTRUE that 'everyone's going to do it anyway' . . . that's bull.

Perhaps that's the problem - we undermine the intelligence and decision making abilities of people too much in this area and just boil down the activity of sex as if it doesn't have a bigger purpose and don't expect people to exercise wise decision, care, thought, and maturity.
 
CanadaJohn said:
No disrespect, but so what? It never included teens and tweens with cellphones and/or Iphones or Ipads or whatever either so that mommy and daddy could keep track of and indulge their little terrors. Times change, but personal responsibility for your own life and the lives of your offspring is eternal. The details may change, but not the principle.
Click to expand...

I agree that parents have a responsibility to their children. But quite frankly alot of parents are worse parents today than they were then. If they didn't do it then why would they do it now? Get my point?
 
Homer. said:
It's no just about preventing pregnancies, it's also about preventing sexually transmitted diseases
Should children be expected to pay for their own flu jabs and measles vaccinations out of their own allowance?
Click to expand...

A condom costs a buck - what teenager in North America/Europe cannot afford a buck to have sex?
 
DA60 said:
A condom costs a buck - what teenager in North America/Europe cannot afford a buck to have sex?
Click to expand...

Exactly

If someone wants to be careless enough to not care we shouldn't encourage that - we should take numerous actions to inform and hold them to a higher standard. I don't believe in just giving in and letting so-n-so have an easier, less stressful time.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I agree that parents have a responsibility to their children. But quite frankly alot of parents are worse parents today than they were then. If they didn't do it then why would they do it now? Get my point?
Click to expand...

I agree that a lot of parents are worse at parenting today than parents in the past - that, however, is a direct result of the idiotic concept that once the kid pops out he/she becomes the responsibility of the state - for some reason, parents today believe that they gain all the government benefits of successful child-birth but carry none of the responsibility of tending to the needs and growth of that child through to adulthood. At every stage of child growth, parents today are looking to the government to provide the parenting - childcare, breakfast programs, schooling, extra-curricular activities, summer programs, etc. etc. and now sex education, counselling and condoms.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
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.
Click to expand...

Obviously the question only asks about free condoms but teen pregnancies, STD's, etc. were not significant problems when I was growing up and people were held more responsible for their actions. These programs make sex acceptable and encourage more of it.
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
I agree that a lot of parents are worse at parenting today than parents in the past - that, however, is a direct result of the idiotic concept that once the kid pops out he/she becomes the responsibility of the state - for some reason, parents today believe that they gain all the government benefits of successful child-birth but carry none of the responsibility of tending to the needs and growth of that child through to adulthood. At every stage of child growth, parents today are looking to the government to provide the parenting - childcare, breakfast programs, schooling, extra-curricular activities, summer programs, etc. etc. and now sex education, counselling and condoms.
Click to expand...

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

:agree: Do you know offhand when this idiocy began? Most of the people I know still feel they are responsible for their offspring until they reach age 18, even when they get an argument from said offspring that "my friends' parents allow their kids to ...._______" fill in the blank here. :bs: :argue:
 
If the military is going to give every sailor that walks off the ship in a foreign port free condoms, then I don't see why they shouldn't be made available for free to girls and boys in high school. Put them in the bathrooms and/or counselor/nurses offices. (I think it would be good to study the various programs and see which works best over a couple of school years to decrease the pregnancy rates.)
 
roguenuke said:
If the military is going to give every sailor that walks off the ship in a foreign port free condoms, then I don't see why they shouldn't be made available for free to girls and boys in high school. Put them in the bathrooms and/or counselor/nurses offices. (I think it would be good to study the various programs and see which works best over a couple of school years to decrease the pregnancy rates.)
Click to expand...

Right - because we should encourage rather than discourage underaged, immature, and dependent individuals from having sex.

I see nothing wrong with stressing from an early age the importance of NOT risking pregnancy and disease just for the sake of ****ing.
 
One downside to the passage of time is that people forget the lessons of history.

Back in the day there may not have been as many unwanted pregnancies. but STDs ran rampant and diseases such as syphilis wreaked havoc on people... many of them innocent new brides... in large part because we wouldn't face the issue that people were going to have sex anyway and we pretended that personal responsibility would take care of it.
 
John Liberty said:
Should teenagers be given free condoms?
Click to expand...

yes.

and though this would be too controversial to ever be seriously considered, i've argued in the past that birth control should be opt-out instead of opt-in for teenagers. the number of unwanted pregnancies / abortions would drop precipitously.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Right - because we should encourage rather than discourage underaged, immature, and dependent individuals from having sex.

I see nothing wrong with stressing from an early age the importance of NOT risking pregnancy and disease just for the sake of ****ing.
Click to expand...

And by all means, we should do that to. It's not an either/or situation.

All the teaching a parent can heap on is not 100% effective in keeping teens from having sex. For the less than 100% it makes sense to giveaway condoms to increase the percentage that won't become teen parents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom