• 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!

Kids n' Kondoms

What age?

  • 11 - 12

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • 13 - 14

    Votes: 9 20.9%
  • 15 - 16

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • 17 - 18

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • Oh, hell no!

    Votes: 19 44.2%

  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
B) We want our schools to teach curriculum that is scientifically sound, correct? Abstinence is proven to be the most effective way to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancy. We don't teach kids in drivers ed how to drive and text in order to avoid a wreck do we? No. We teach them not to drive and text to begin with.

Poor analogy.

Not driving a car is proven to be the most effective way to prevent getting into a car accident. However, we teach our kids how to drive cars and teach them how to go about it as safely as possible.

Frankly, the entire "abstinence only" vs "safe sex" education debate infuriates me as it's another wonderful example of where two sides latch onto their points and won't budge off the extreme because of ideological reasons.

Sex Ed first and foremost absolutely should be encouraging kids not to engage in sex and to try and practice abstinence, especially at younger ages. The emotional and physical impacts as potential consequences for sex, safe or not, are sizable and it's something we should not be giving kids a tacit, if not outright, approval to engage in. That said, we also need to be somewhat realistic to the reality that faces us and the notion that yes, kids will begin to experiment with sexual activity and that yes, there will be kids that will do it because you're telling them NOT to. We also need to understand that while this likely isn't the proper role for the schools, until such point that we can fix some of the laws there is a public interest in not having kids everywhere boning with no knowledge of how to do it safe because we have hordes of ****ty parents out there.

We need to stress abstinence as the best choice, stress the potential dangers and responsibilities of sexual intercourse at a young age in a REALISTIC and honest manner, while at the same time educating our children on the proper way to mitigate...but not REMOVE...some of those dangers if/when they decide to begin to act in such a manner. Not "Safe" sex but "protected" sex.

It's not about going "ABSTINENCE ABSTINENCE ABSTINENCE" and it's not about going "You're going to **** anyways, so i'll just tell you how to do it 'safe'."

As far as condoms in school. I don't have a strong issue allowing the school nurse to have some in their supply that a kid can go request. I don't think they should be "handed out" as if they're candy, or just placed for kids to come and get them...YES, we need to impart that having sex some tacitly approved/encouraged activity...but at the same time I see more help than harm in having them available for kids who come asking for them. In part because those are the kids I think who are more likely to use them IF such a time comes.
 
See - I'm looking at all this as a parent: If my kids come home with condoms they're grounded . . . and the school's going to get their ass reamed for encouraging my children to have sex. Sex is a serious and irresponsible activity that should not be engaged in while they're teens. It is my job as a parent to try to get them to understand WHY.

Everyone can put a lid on the 'but they'll do it anyway' crap - I'm attempting to raise my children to be BETTER than their impulses and desires and put their Futures before everything else. You know - saying no to peer pressure and no to drugs. I mean sure - some kids will do drugs anyway but I'd prefer my kids not be given a doobie with the belief that they were going to be one of those few anyway. Same thing. I will not just ASSUME my kids will be the ones to do the stupid **** that they shouldn't do. That's just beign a failure as a parent if you have that thought in your head about your kids all the time.

I'm not raising them to just think it's ok to run around and **** just because they want to . . . the whole 'they'll do it anyway' is true for SOME but when people start making serious decisions BASED on that as if it's a fact applied to all then that's SERIOUSLY ****ed up.

I think it's a sad fact that people just expect the lowest behavior and are willing to just excuse it or brush it off like it's not important or an issue at all. . . just 'whatever' . . . ridiculous.

I disagree, I don't think it's a bad thing to lose your virginity in high school, it's when most of us do, and kids should be educated, and given the proper resources to protect themselves, instead of left in the dark, and with nothing to protect themselves from the potential consequences of sex. It's not a "low behavior" to have sex.
 
Poor analogy.

Not driving a car is proven to be the most effective way to prevent getting into a car accident. However, we teach our kids how to drive cars and teach them how to go about it as safely as possible.

Frankly, the entire "abstinence only" vs "safe sex" education debate infuriates me as it's another wonderful example of where two sides latch onto their points and won't budge off the extreme because of ideological reasons.

Sex Ed first and foremost absolutely should be encouraging kids not to engage in sex and to try and practice abstinence, especially at younger ages. The emotional and physical impacts as potential consequences for sex, safe or not, are sizable and it's something we should not be giving kids a tacit, if not outright, approval to engage in. That said, we also need to be somewhat realistic to the reality that faces us and the notion that yes, kids will begin to experiment with sexual activity and that yes, there will be kids that will do it because you're telling them NOT to. We also need to understand that while this likely isn't the proper role for the schools, until such point that we can fix some of the laws there is a public interest in not having kids everywhere boning with no knowledge of how to do it safe because we have hordes of ****ty parents out there.

We need to stress abstinence as the best choice, stress the potential dangers and responsibilities of sexual intercourse at a young age in a REALISTIC and honest manner, while at the same time educating our children on the proper way to mitigate...but not REMOVE...some of those dangers if/when they decide to begin to act in such a manner. Not "Safe" sex but "protected" sex.

It's not about going "ABSTINENCE ABSTINENCE ABSTINENCE" and it's not about going "You're going to **** anyways, so i'll just tell you how to do it 'safe'."

As far as condoms in school. I don't have a strong issue allowing the school nurse to have some in their supply that a kid can go request. I don't think they should be "handed out" as if they're candy, or just placed for kids to come and get them...YES, we need to impart that having sex some tacitly approved/encouraged activity...but at the same time I see more help than harm in having them available for kids who come asking for them. In part because those are the kids I think who are more likely to use them IF such a time comes.

Agree with most of that.

Do you think the nurse's station should keep a school record of who gets them? Of is this a school black market thing?
 
I disagree, I don't think it's a bad thing to lose your virginity in high school, it's when most of us do, and kids should be educated, and given the proper resources to protect themselves, instead of left in the dark, and with nothing to protect themselves from the potential consequences of sex. It's not a "low behavior" to have sex.
It's clear that you advocate teen sex, and it sounds like lots of it, but do you think it's right to force tax payers to subsidize their sexual behavior? Why can't you as a parent keep your kids supplied with Trojans, instead? Also, what's your stance on pornography for teens? Do/would you green light that as well?
 
It's clear that you advocate teen sex, and it sounds like lots of it, but do you think it's right to force tax payers to subsidize their sexual behavior? Why can't you as a parent keep your kids supplied with Trojans, instead? Also, what's your stance on pornography for teens? Do/would you green light that as well?

that's code for 'let em flup like bunnies, darn the children, i don't want to pay 25 cents to prevent paying a lifetime of a teen mother's welfare with my taxes anyway'.
 
It's clear that you advocate teen sex, and it sounds like lots of it, but do you think it's right to force tax payers to subsidize their sexual behavior? Why can't you as a parent keep your kids supplied with Trojans, instead? Also, what's your stance on pornography for teens? Do/would you green light that as well?

Teens are going to have sex, whether you approve of it, pay them to do it, or wag your finger at them while saying 'tsk tsk'. The only way you can prevent teens from having sex is to keep an angry eunuch with them at all times. Otherwise, this is not something you can control. Your approval or disapproval has no effect, so going on about "subsidizing sexual behavior" is a waste of time.

Your disapproval of teen sex in action: Mississippi teen pregnancy rate highest in U.S.: CDC | Reuters
 
Last edited:
Poor analogy.

Not driving a car is proven to be the most effective way to prevent getting into a car accident. However, we teach our kids how to drive cars and teach them how to go about it as safely as possible.

I disagree. Unlike sex, driving is essential to most citizen's well being. Therefore, the illustration makes perfect sense.
As I pointed out, I'm not an opponent of safe sex being taught. I am against it being the focus of a curriculum. Abstinence is proven to be the most effective way to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Therefore, the most effective way should be taught. I also pointed to the fact that most schools only spend a semester on sex education. This is where our education system makes their mistake. Sex education should be given every year in small doses. In that system, 11-13 year olds would receive abstinence only curriculum. At age 14, safe sex is introduced as a sub-category and is taught each year until graduation from high school. We teach every year that kids shouldn't do drugs. We teach every year (now) that kids shouldn't bully. Kids are taught how to eat healthily every year. Why aren't they taught this (most?) important subject every year? Repetition, IMO, is the most effective manner of instruction when dealing with behavioral traits.
 
If you don't want your kids to have sex in high school, then limit their physical activity and get them reading Harry Potter at an early age. It's easy as that.
 
that's code for 'let em flup like bunnies, darn the children, i don't want to pay 25 cents to prevent paying a lifetime of a teen mother's welfare with my taxes anyway'.
What you're really saying is "Why should I pay for my kid's sex when I can get the government to do it for me?".
 
What you're really saying is "Why should I pay for my kid's sex when I can get the government to do it for me?".

you'll have to pay anyway. teen moms end up on welfare at a higher rate than others. so you either pay for the condom, or you pay for the welfare. you don't have a choice other than that, unless you want to kill her and her baby and go to prison, or convince her to have an abortion.
 
Teens are going to have sex, whether you approve of it, pay them to do it, or wag your finger at them while saying 'tsk tsk'. The only way you can prevent teens from having sex is to keep an angry eunuch with them at all times. Otherwise, this is not something you can control. Your approval or disapproval has no effect, so going on about "subsidizing sexual behavior" is a waste of time.

Your disapproval of teen sex in action: Mississippi teen pregnancy rate highest in U.S.: CDC | Reuters
In other words: "Shut up and get with the program, dinosaur. Uncle Sam wishes to dig a little deeper into your wallet." isn't that right, Liberal?
 
In other words: "Shut up and get with the program, dinosaur. Uncle Sam wishes to dig a little deeper into your wallet." isn't that right, Liberal?

again, you have to pay either way. either you pay for the welfare, or the condom, or as i said kill the offending woman/baby yourself or convince her to have an abortion. ignoring reality wont make it go away. also, you keep throwing that world liberal around like an insult, perhaps you should change your lean to rush limbaugh and be a bit more honest :D.
 
In other words: "Shut up and get with the program, dinosaur. Uncle Sam wishes to dig a little deeper into your wallet." isn't that right, Liberal?

Yes, though as roflpublican pointed out, you're paying much more for the welfare of the mom than a few pieces of rubber.

So you have two choices. You can:
a) pay for condoms to be distributed to students, thus decreasing the number of teen pregnancies and std's, thus also decreasing the number of people who go on welfare, or
b) enjoy the pride of knowing you were able to let teens know that their sex was immoral.

Choose.
 
you'll have to pay anyway. teen moms end up on welfare at a higher rate than others. so you either pay for the condom, or you pay for the welfare. you don't have a choice other than that, unless you want to kill her and her baby and go to prison, or convince her to have an abortion.
I'll stick with the Welfare, and leave the condom distribution to the parents. As for the parentless, we simply assign each registered Democrat to one or two children and tap them for each kid's supply of condoms. It makes perfect sense, as Democrats have their finger on the pulse of our youth's sex lives.
 
For everyone who might decide to click "oh hell no!" please consider the following question. Would you rather pay for a 15-16 year old's condoms, or their welfare when they have a child/their medicaid when they get AIDs?
 
I'll stick with the Welfare, and leave the condom distribution to the parents. As for the parentless, we simply assign each registered Democrat to one or two children and tap them for each kid's supply of condoms. It makes perfect sense, as Democrats have their finger on the pulse of our youth's sex lives.

the only people i've ever seen trying to stick themselves into peoples sex lives have been republicans, who want to prevent women from having control of their own bodies. but hey, don't let reality get in your way man, i'm all down for funding welfare too anyway. with the taxes i pay.
 
I'll stick with the Welfare, and leave the condom distribution to the parents. As for the parentless, we simply assign each registered Democrat to one or two children and tap them for each kid's supply of condoms. It makes perfect sense, as Democrats have their finger on the pulse of our youth's sex lives.

So you'd rather pay higher taxes just to enforce your morality on someone else?
 
I'll stick with the Welfare.

Okey dokey then! Since you're not actually interested in solving problems...have another drink!
 
Yes, though as roflpublican pointed out, you're paying much more for the welfare of the mom than a few pieces of rubber.
And you want us to pay for both. What kind of idiot logic is that? Welfare is enough. Leave the financing of children's sexcapades to the parents.
 
So you'd rather pay higher taxes just to enforce your morality on someone else?
No, I'd rather the Left pay higher taxes to protect my wallet from something that I don't share their belief in.
 
Okey dokey then! Since you're not actually interested in solving problems...have another drink!
That's your cue, my friend. We have too much work to do. ;)
 
the only people i've ever seen trying to stick themselves into peoples sex lives have been republicans, who want to prevent women from having control of their own bodies.
We actually want women to stop murdering their unborn.

I'm down for self reliance, actually. Welfare should be a band-aid; that's it.
 
We actually want women to stop murdering their unborn.

I'm down for self reliance, actually. Welfare should be a band-aid; that's it.

i work for a living too, so, i agree. but, lots of people are either too stupid, or too unmotivated, to work. now, we either kill these people, or we take care of them with a small but reasonable level of care such as welfare.
 
Great, so there is one more extra authority that itches for a reason to come down on us. I would vote "no" on this one. Surprising this may be to adults, but let me inform everyone, that it is not exclusively about how to hurt each other, that kids think about.

Your parents are not "extra" authority. They are THE authority. Yes, if an 11, 12 or 13-year-old (any young teen) is sexually active, the parents should definitely be notified because it is the parents that will have to be responsible for anything that happens to that child, whether that be a pregnancy, a sexually transmitted disease, some kind of an assault, etc. Like it or not, children are wards of their parents until they reach adulthood unless they emancipate themselves.
 
Never. This is not a role of schools.

What about clean needles knowing some kids use dirty needles for drugs?

Or eco-friendly rolling paper to students for those who are pot-heads?

Porn magazines so they don't look at child porn?

Etc, etc, etc.

If a school handed a kid a condom, it failed, and a pregnancy resulted, I think that school district should be 100% legally liable. Actually, 1 size doesn't correctly fit all. Or if a child contracted genital herpes, for which condoms offer only marginal protection, that district owes costly prescription medication for a lifetime. And if such a condom fails and the student contracts HIV/AIDS, the school owes that kid $10 million.
You got a point. Legally, the school is putting itself in a situation where it is legally viable... and they would have to pay for any abortions that may come up...
 
Back
Top Bottom