- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,149
- Reaction score
- 1,187
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
TIMES. They are a changing.
...not necessarily for the better :roll:
TIMES. They are a changing.
If the are a baby mamma getting a check, they won't work at home. Girls are no longer expelled from school for being pregnant, and haven't been since the 50s.
Or you give them rubbers for free and that scenario goes out the window...
...not necessarily for the better :roll:
Because providing something to someone not only means they will use it but also that it will be 100% effective. I'm guessing the fact that condoms are free elsewhere and that they are not 100% effective somehow eluded you.
No, I'm saying if the mom needs the money from more work hours it would work to her advantage if she was able to do the school work at home. We already have Internet classes so it seems workable to me.
I don't think anyone expects there to be a 100% resolution of the problem from just condoms.
:roll:
Or you give them rubbers for free and that scenario goes out the window...
It is a step in the right direction though. It's better than having a bunch of unwanted babies and pregnant teenagers or diseased teenagers who spread STDs.
They could put condom dispensary machines in and charge them a quarter or 50 cents per condom to help offset costs. I don't think it would be unreasonable to charge them that much. I think pretty much ALL teens could come up with a quarter or 50 cents if they had to.
I'm talking about strictly high school-aged kids. They are kind of at the age where parents have become a less important role in their lives.
Any younger kids, then it SHOULD be the parents' responsibility. I also think that if a child under the age of say 14 gets impregnated that the parents should have to pay fines or something for neglecting their children. IMO, if a child that young is out having sex and getting pregnant or diseased, that is neglect on the parents' part because those children should have some kind of supervision.
It's not simply the idea of following my morals. How many times do I have to say "I shouldn't have to pay for your stupid decisions"?
Now we're starting to see eye to eye. There's a big difference between letting the kid use their lunch money for a condom and using tax dollars.
You still understand that installing the dispensaries is going to cost money, right? Also sex education classes and teaching children the importance of using condoms... lol
Do we also pass a law that if they dont use the free condums we jail them ?
I'd like to know when the oh so open minded liberals will cancel football programs, or band programs in favor of a '50 shades of grey' class for 10th graders.
Why should we cancle football and band?
Why'd they cancel 'shop'?
Lets not be silly. Giving away condoms will prevent SOME pregnancies. SOME may actually use them. I think it would be ambitious to think all or even a simple majority will. Doesn't mean we shouldn't give it a shot.Or you give them rubbers for free and that scenario goes out the window...
Lets not be silly. Giving away condoms will prevent SOME pregnancies. SOME may actually use them. I think it would be ambitious to think all or even a simple majority will. Doesn't mean we shouldn't give it a shot.
I shouldn't have to "help" anyone from their own stupid decisions. All you're doing is babying them when they need to learn how to wipe their own ***. In fact, it's the poor who say they can't afford condoms that need to learn the value of responsibility the most. If these students are in areas with many diseases and/or pregnancies being common and they haven't learned abstinence then that's their problem.
"The dispensers will be placed in the 22 high schools whose students had the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases............."
What a bunch of worthless losers.
Let's meet in the middle. How about letting them stay after school and clean for 30 minutes to save on janitor costs and allow them to earn their condoms?
The purpose of public policy is maximize the societal benefit, not satisfy a sick desire to see teenagers punished for having sex. "Personal responsibility" is bull**** considering that the children of teen parents suffer for the mistakes of others, not to mention that high school students are legally children anyway. Abstinence-only nonsense leads to worse results in reality, no amount of pontificating will change that adopting such policies is both expensive and immoral.
The purpose of public policy is maximize the societal benefit, not satisfy a sick desire to see teenagers punished for having sex. "Personal responsibility" is bull**** considering that the children of teen parents suffer for the mistakes of others, not to mention that high school students are legally children anyway.
Abstinence-only nonsense leads to worse results in reality, no amount of pontificating will change that adopting such policies is both expensive and immoral.
Bingo! Unfortunately though, there will always be an element of people in America who believe sex is the root of all evil. Sex=bad. Bloomberg won't let you buy a big Coke in NYC. Sex is the culprit. The massacre of children by a 20 year old on SRRIs? Sex, we have heard from TV preachers, is the reason why it happened. America no longer manufactures anything and somewhere some of the same people will claim it is because of sex.
Sex, sex, sex. It's evil, horrible, bad.
If God wanted us to walk around nude, we'd have all been born naked.