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'
...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.
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.
I find that kind of thinking rather silly and defeatist. It's like saying "well, teenagers are going to join gangs, do drugs and shoot each other anyway, therefore..." It's absurd. I'd rather teenagers be raised properly in the first place to be responsible and understand the consequences of their decisions, something that's lacking in this country at the moment.
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.
I guess you miss the good old days of malnourished, uneducated, unclothed children working 14 hours a day on the family farm or in a factory.
And also to teach their children proper moral values and common sense.
How sad that government-issued “free” condoms are now seen as an acceptable substitute for all this.
When I was in Belgium almost every girl is on birth control at 14, and only a very small number are not. They don't have high teen pregnancies, when they went to the U.S. on exchange they were surprised to see teen girls getting pregnant and not on birth control.
I suppose you are against public schools and "slow children" signs and public parks also.
:lol: :doh WOW! Will that really happen if we don't give out free condoms? :roll:
That sounds all nice and libertarian on a shallow level, but when a teenager gets pregnant it affects the child, the grandparents and society, not just the teen parents. Pregnant teens have a hard time finishing high school and suffer economically for much of their lives.
Kids ****, we have the means to make it safer, we should make it available, just like we make other safety devices available for other activities with risk.
I've never understood why we have no problem with kids doing risky things such as playing football, mountain climbing, surfing etc., but when it comes to sex, any risk becomes unacceptable. With the other activities we teach the kids how to do it safely and responsibly and provide them with access to safety equipment. The only reason we don't do that with sex is because of religion/superstition and the irrational shame and hypocrisy that it encourages. Nearly everyone will have sex, everyone needs to learn how to do it safely and responsibly. Safe sex is possible thanks to condoms etc., lets stop pretending that we still live in the time when there was no method for having safer sex.
You don't see the difference between the risks of playing football and sex? Then let me point it out for you. Only the latter can introduce a helpless innocent life into this world that will be your responsibility for at least 18 years.
Know what else discourages teen pregnancies? Telling teenagers that if they get knocked up, the government won't support them and they're SOL.
Not if you use oral contraceptives and a condom (very close to 100% effective in combination) and consider abortion an option. Also, a football player with a serious head, neck or spinal injury can wind up helplessly crippled for life.
I agree, but in all reality, I feel defeated. A parent can do a great job raising a kid and the kid just decides not to listen. Why put unborn kids already down a slippery path when you could just offer up free prevention.
This is a straightforward issue of money. Which option costs taxpayers less. Ideology shouldn't even enter into the discussion.
Like it or not, unwanted teen pregnancies cost taxpayers money. Unless you're in favor of letting babies starve, someone has to pay to feed and support those children. When the parent is unable to support the child financially (as is often the case with teens), SOMEONE has to foot the bill. Often that means taxpayers. Like it or not, them's the brakes. Deal with it.
Now, that being the case, providing teens with condoms will cost the taxpayers money. On the other hand, there is reason to believe that providing those condoms will reduce the number of unwanted teen pregnancies and, therefore, the amount of money taxpayers have to fork over to support babies that don't have financially-able parents. It's a simple question of which option costs the taxpayers less overall.
I've never seen any data on that, probably there are some studies out there. If I had to guess, I would guess the free condoms are cheaper overall. If that's the case, then anybody who votes against free condoms is, effectively, voting to trade in $1 and get back $0.75 in return. Keep that in mind.
Hint: Sex feels good. People like to do what feels good.
I agree with this. In a perfect world the teenagers should have to take responsibility for themselves and buy their own condoms. In this world the principle of spending less of the taxpayer's money overrides the previous principle for me. This is assuming that providing the condoms costs less overall, which I have no data for.
Why can't mom and dad provide them to their kids? Grow some responsibility, talk to your kids about sex and give them protection.