• 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!

Condoms for free at 22 city schools

Mathematician said:
We're not talking about forced. Consider it motivation to avoid welfare and the prevention of making things worse if you choose to accept welfare.
Click to expand...

So it's the threat of forced sterilization.
 
Fruityfact said:
You aren't addressing the point whatsoever.
The point being that providing condoms for free will do a few things-
A. Prevent babies and abortions-saving taxpayers money
B. Prevent spread of disease-saving taxpayers money
C. Avoid (potentially) ruining kid's future and that kid's kid's future
Click to expand...

Maybe you should review this thread.
 
Mathematician said:
I'll support welfare having the condition of tubes tied or vasectomy. This is well below the cost of a child. The individual can undo the procedure when they can afford it themselves.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't support permanent sterilization. Reversible, yes. Especially since some of the highest teen pregnancy rates happen in welfare areas. So an approach that allowed the sterilization to be reversed once they attained the age of 18 and if they are no longer on welfare would be acceptable to me.
 
Having been around the religulous my whole life I can say with a certain degree of accuracy that their main objection isn't that kids or people are using condoms, it's not even that they're having sex.

It's that they're having sex without the priests permission.
 
DVSentinel said:
I wouldn't support permanent sterilization. Reversible, yes. Especially since some of the highest teen pregnancy rates happen in welfare areas. So an approach that allowed the sterilization to be reversed once they attained the age of 18 and if they are no longer on welfare would be acceptable to me.
Click to expand...

FYI, Its not always reversible
 
Maenad said:
What YOU are not understanding is that there is a generation out there that is NOT going to live any way except off someone else. You really need to do a little slumming and see the numbers. This government is not going to do what you suggest because it is not prepared for the civil unrest. Reality is reality. And you clearly have never worked with the welfare class. So you don't see reality. Your theory will not hold up.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you think I don't understand that?

I see reality, and want to see that generation cut off, regardless of unrest. Civil unrest will be temporary, and even if the misery is acute, it is far better than the slow but ensured death by parasites.
 
0bserver92 said:
So it's the threat of forced sterilization.
Click to expand...

How is it a threat? It's a trade off. In order to qualify for someone else's money, you have to give something up. You're not just "entitled to it".
 
I would agree with mandatory birth control or even temporary sterilizations, however I think that would give the government too much control over people. IMO, that would be a big mistake.

We also have to remember that SOME people do use the system as it was meant to be used, as a stepping stone for those who are going through a difficult time in life for whatever reasons. That is why I still want there to be a welfare program. Sometimes people go through a rough patch in their lives and need some help. I am all for helping people until they can get back on their feet again.

What I'm against is people that take advantage of the system.
 
ChrisL said:
I would agree with mandatory birth control or even temporary sterilizations, however I think that would give the government too much control over people. IMO, that would be a big mistake.

We also have to remember that SOME people do use the system as it was meant to be used, as a stepping stone for those who are going through a difficult time in life for whatever reasons. That is why I still want there to be a welfare program. Sometimes people go through a rough patch in their lives and need some help. I am all for helping people until they can get back on their feet again.

What I'm against is people that take advantage of the system.
Click to expand...

I agree. But welfare should only be for a very limited time. 6 months, maybe a year, (and only if you do not draw unemployment) if you haven't found other employment by then, you get moved to work camps/farms and have your basic needs taken care of there while providing labor in exchange. I am not talking about "modern" farming or "heavy equipment" construction either, more along the lines of Amish style farming and construction as it existed circa 1900, sex segregated bunk houses, with allowances for child care (one parent, and one parent only can bunk in a special bunk house for children).
 
DVSentinel said:
I agree. But welfare should only be for a very limited time. 6 months, maybe a year, (and only if you do not draw unemployment) if you haven't found other employment by then, you get moved to work camps/farms and have your basic needs taken care of there while providing labor in exchange. I am not talking about "modern" farming or "heavy equipment" construction either, more along the lines of Amish style farming and construction as it existed circa 1900, sex segregated bunk houses, with allowances for child care (one parent, and one parent only can bunk in a special bunk house for children).
Click to expand...

I think it should be on a case-by-case basis. What about a 15, 16 or 17-year-old girl who gets pregnant and has a child? We should at least give them time enough to finish high school and perhaps some kind of training program or higher education to be able to make enough money to support a child independently.
 
ChrisL said:
I think it should be on a case-by-case basis. What about a 15, 16 or 17-year-old girl who gets pregnant and has a child? We should at least give them time enough to finish high school and perhaps some kind of training program or higher education to be able to make enough money to support a child independently.
Click to expand...


I think for young women of that age that are with child, need to along side of collecting their limited benefits, mandatory obtaining at least a GED, and some sort of vocational training (ie CNA, or Med records transcriber, etc.) in order to transition off of welfare with a job within a year.
 
j-mac said:
I think for young women of that age that are with child, need to along side of collecting their limited benefits, mandatory obtaining at least a GED, and some sort of vocational training (ie CNA, or Med records transcriber, etc.) in order to transition off of welfare with a job within a year.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with some kind of mandatory job training. I don't know WHY they don't do that already.
 
If schools want to give away condoms, OK. I'm cool with that. What I am not cool with is them forcing me to pay for them. Let the educators take the money out of their own pockets to fund it.
 
danarhea said:
If schools want to give away condoms, OK. I'm cool with that. What I am not cool with is them forcing me to pay for them. Let the educators take the money out of their own pockets to fund it.
Click to expand...

You're not forced to pay for them. You're forced to pay taxes. After that it's not your money anymore.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
You're not forced to pay for them. You're forced to pay taxes. After that it's not your money anymore.
Click to expand...

You are dead wrong. The United States, along with the money it collects, belongs to We the Freakin' People. I am one of We the Freakin' People. Move to Russia. :mrgreen:
 
lpast said:
It just isnt fair I tell ya...we had to pay a quarter in some sleezy bathroom for our condoms when I was a teen and for a quarter I could go to the movies on saturday.

Coming over the holiday break to about a third of Philadelphia high schools: clear plastic dispensers chock-full of free condoms.


The dispensers will be placed in the 22 high schools whose students had the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases, and condoms will be available to any student - so long as their parents did not sign a form opting them out of the program.



Condoms for free at 22 city schools
Click to expand...


Sounds like a good program based upon common sense and facing the fact that them little rascals are gonna be buggering whether we like it or not. Good idea. Faces reality.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
You're not forced to pay for them. You're forced to pay taxes. After that it's not your money anymore.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Americans have always had a say in the ways government spends their money. That fact has always been a source of great annoyance to the anti-American eliteist liberals, who want to use American tax money to buy votes and create an anti-American government.

Democrats succeeded this last election because they imported 30 million foreigners over the past twenty years to vote for Democrats. That is the present state of the formerly greatest nation in the world. Liberals won by destroying the American culture with permanent dependency class third world poverty stricken, uneducated dependent types that will never leave. They all have little pieces of paper from Obama that says "American citizen."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom