• 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
No. But I would be in favor of temporary sterilization until age 21.
 
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'

You must be a victim of one of those abstinence-only sex "education" classes.

1.Using a condom is making an informed choice.
2. Properly used, condoms are 98% effective and they are the only contraceptives that prevents disease transmission.
3. That is why a fact-based comprehensive sex education is essential
5. I was lucky enough to get a thorough sex ed and obtained condoms at the first indication I might get laid. It was awkward to buy them, I could handle it, but some kids won't. That is why I support making them readily available in schools.
 
Last edited:
c-bf.jpg
1234567890
 
...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.

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.
 
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.

It is simply not true that teen sex, STDs and pregnancies did not happen in the past. They were just considered shameful secrets that was hidden as well as possible. Remember that girl in high school who went to visit her aunt for six months?

Also, sex is acceptable to most people, it just needs to be done safely and responsibly.
 
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, 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.
 
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.
 
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.

:lol: :doh WOW! Will that really happen if we don't give out free condoms? :roll:
 
Last edited:
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.

And teaching them safe sex is apart of teaching them proper moral values, and common sense.
 
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.

You shouldn't have said that. "Libertarian" and conservatives idiots* already have an irrational fear of anything they think smells like socialism. Now that such a program actually works in Europe they will have another reason to oppose it, because we're Americans goddammit, we're too arrogant to learn anything from the experiences of another nation, because we're so special.

*I'm not saying that all conservatives and libertarians are idiots.
 
Last edited:
I suppose you are against public schools and "slow children" signs and public parks also.

Public schools very much works on the same principle. The other two not so much.
 
In case anyone's opinion is influenced by the facts:

* A comparison of public high schools in New York City and Chicago found positive effects of condom availability programs. With the same sexual activity among senior high students in both cities (NYC, 59.7 percent; Chicago, 60.1 percent), sexually active students in New York, where there is a condom availability program, were more likely to report using a condom at last intercourse than were those in Chicago, where condoms are not available in school (60.8 to 55.5 percent).1
* In a two-year study of Philadelphia health resource centers (HRCs) that make condoms available, the percent of students using condoms at last intercourse increased from 52 to 58 percent. In schools with high HRC use, the number of students ever having intercourse dropped from 75 to 66 percent, while condom use at last intercourse rose from 37 to 50 percent.2
* By comparison, in schools reporting lower HRC use, the percentage of sexually active teens decreased from 61 to 56 percent, while condom use a last intercourse rose from 57 to 61 percent. Non-program schools showed an increase in sexual activity among teens, while condom use increased from 62 to 65 percent.2

Condom Availability Programs Do Not Promote Sexual Activity.

* A study of New York City's school condom availability program found a significant increase in condom use among sexually active students but no increase in sexual activity.1
* A World Health Organization review of studies on sexuality education found that access to counseling and contraceptive services did not encourage earlier or increased sexual activity.3
* In Europe and Canada where comprehensive sexuality education and convenient, confidential access to condoms are more common, the rates of adolescent sexual intercourse are no higher than in the United States.4

References

1. Guttmacher S, Lieberman L, Ward D, et al. Condom availability in New York City public high schools: relationships to condom use and sexual behavior. Am J Public Health 1997; 87:1427- 1433.
2. Furstenberg FF, Geitz LM, Teitler JO, et al. Does condom availability make a difference? An evaluation of Philadelphia's health resource centers. Fam Plann Perspect 1997; 29:123-127.
3. Baldo M, Aggleton P, Slutkin G. Poster presentation to the Ninth International Conference on AIDS, Berlin, 6-10 June 1993. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1993.
4. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Adolescence. Condom availability for youth. Pediatrics 1995; 95:281-285.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/449
 
:lol: :doh WOW! Will that really happen if we don't give out free condoms? :roll:

No, but it will happen more often if the extreme libertarians had their way and eliminated childcare, breakfast programs, schooling, extra-curricular activities, summer programs, etc.
 
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.

Well that's too bad. If the kid has a kid then they forfeit the rest of their time being a kid and must take responsibility. If it means they have to drop out of high school, get a crappy job and go back for their GED later then that's their problem. Smart kids will see those who get pregnant struggle and learn to be cautious.

I say this as one who was born to a single teen mother. Furthermore, my grandfather was a strict Catholic and kicked her out of the house for having me out of wedlock. I didn't get a great childhood because of our financial situation, but my mother taught me the right values. By the time I had kids, I was in my 30's and finished grad school. My suffering as a child was worth it, because it made me a set on being well prepared for my kids and a better father. The moral of the story is that the cost of mistakes often teaches lessons to multiple people. Those who can't make the best of a tough situation don't deserve better. Personal responsibility is key.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Know what else discourages teen pregnancies? Telling teenagers that if they get knocked up, the government won't support them and they're SOL.

Yeah right. Teenagers don't exercise that kind of foresight in their decision making - especially when it comes to getting poonanny. Well, at least not the kind of teenagers who are at risk of teenage pregnancy.

"Come on, Jimmy. I want you inside me."

"Sorry, babe. The government isn't going to give me foodstamps if I knock you up. Let's wait about 10 years until we're financially able to handle a baby. Whaddya say we play some nice and safe Monopoly tonight instead?"

Really? :lamo
 
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.

Let me teach you some math and logic by example:

0.02 * 1000 > 0.50 * 20 > 0.02 * 100

The point of this lesson is that for any two probabilities strictly between 0 and 1, the numbers of respective trials are still free variables. The example demonstrates that they can be chosen such that either results in a greater expected value of successes.

Applied to the issue at hand, if the number of kids screwing greatly increases because they have an increase in security then the number of teen pregnancies can still rise.
 
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.
 
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.

Why allow your kids to ruin their own lives when you could just raise them right in the first place? If your kids are ignoring you, maybe it's not them that's doing something wrong.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
Why can't mom and dad provide them to their kids? Grow some responsibility, talk to your kids about sex and give them protection.

They should in a perfect world. In this world I'm not sure expecting that is feasible. I'd rather pay less than count on the parents to buy condoms for their kids.
 
Back
Top Bottom