| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
j0ehoe
United States2705 Posts
On December 04 2006 05:43 mdominik86 wrote: school is meant for offering education, not keeping you safe from pregnancy so you can stay in school. ever heard of sex education? this is hands on learning ;] | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
According to the study, 1/3rd of women under the age of 20 have experienced at least one pregnancy, and 1/4th of sexually active teenagers contract an STD every year. Imagine how those numbers would explode if condoms were an age-restricted product (like cigarettes and porn). I think it begins to become clear that distributing condoms is a good thing. Now, on the flip-side, the study reported that of the abstinate teenagers, 98% said that the threat of catching an STD factored into their decision to remain abstinate. Other common concerns (above 90%) were the threat of pregnancy and worry about being too young. So lessening the threat of STDs and pregnancy may contribute to an increase in teenage sex, at least for the 9% of abstinate teenagers (4.6% of general teenage population) that don't think they're too young. So, for people that worry about the "problem" of teenage sex, distributing condoms is a bad thing. Myself, I don't think schools have an obligation to distribute free condoms, but I also think it's not morally incorrect. Based on what I learned by reading these facts, distributing free condoms seems like it's more beneficial that it is harmful. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On December 04 2006 05:56 Amber[LighT] wrote: One of the biggest problems is the younger children having sex, as early as 12 years old (YES it's true, children have sex at this age, and could so earlier). According to this one page I visited, 1/5th of kids under the age of 15 have had sex. Ain't that crazy? | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On December 04 2006 06:35 Tadzio00 wrote: According to this one page I visited, 1/5th of kids under the age of 15 have had sex. Ain't that crazy? That's just too young  . It blows my mind I never even thought of doing that before 15 years of age. | ||
|
lil.sis
China4650 Posts
| ||
|
Sean.G
Spain889 Posts
| ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
| ||
|
Sean.G
Spain889 Posts
This is more true for the 9 -12 year olds than it is for the 13-15 yr olds, but 15 is still a little premature. We're talking about high school here, I assume that's like 13-16 or something if I am not mistaken, we are not talking about 12 year olds or any age younger than when people usually hit puberty. And 15 is not necessarily premature, I e.g lost my virginity when I was 14, and both I and my partner felt perfectly comfortable with it. We both knew what we were doing and we both wanted to - what on earth should then stop us? A 15 yr-old can't raise a child-- in most states they can't even apply for a job, let alone get a steady income and create a home-environment for their children. This is EXACTLY why schools should distribute condoms, so that this DOES NOT HAPPEN. People will have sex regardless of if they have a condom or not, so distributing them will avoid these types of situations. | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On December 04 2006 07:14 Tadzio00 wrote: Well, in the US there're laws against adults having sex with minors precisely because of the belief that kids that age can't know what they're doing. When peers have sex during early or even prior to puberty it's a pretty strong indicator of past, possibly ongoing sexual abuse. This is more true for the 9 -12 year olds than it is for the 13-15 yr olds, but 15 is still a little premature. Physically, 15 is fine and dandy, just about everyone's in working order (sexually) by the time they're 15. But the emotional and intellectual capacities to create stable, mutually beneficial relationships with another individual are still developing, and the ability to face the potential consequences to sex are practically non-existant. A 15 yr-old can't raise a child-- in most states they can't even apply for a job, let alone get a steady income and create a home-environment for their children. Based on what you said then I would say 18 is 'fine and dandy,' definately not 15. If you can't raise a child on a steady income you are still premature. (you cannot raise a child on a steady income at the age of 15-17, so don't even say it.) *Read post before me, he's right sorta haha. Not going to post a millionth time. | ||
|
Sean.G
Spain889 Posts
On December 04 2006 07:29 Amber[LighT] wrote: (you cannot raise a child on a steady income at the age of 15-17, so don't even say it.) If I am not the one misunderstanding you, I think you misunderstood him: he said that you could not raise a child at the age of 15. Just wanted you to take notice  | ||
|
NeverTheEndlessWiz
Singapore827 Posts
| ||
|
Sean.G
Spain889 Posts
On December 04 2006 07:53 NeverTheEndlessWiz wrote: Its almost like giving drug addicts free needles and syringes so that they will not get HIV or Hep Bullshit, you are WAY off. To be a drug addict is a negative thing, and only has negative effects - therefore, by giving a drug addict free access to drugs, you are doing a bad and negatively affective act. There is nothing wrong with having sex, sex is all natural and is more good than bad, that's why the schools are only doing a good thing by handing out condoms | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
wait. huh? | ||
|
azndsh
United States4447 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28911 Posts
On December 04 2006 06:38 Amber[LighT] wrote: That's just too young . It blows my mind I never even thought of doing that before 15 years of age.seriously? I dont think there was ever a time where I wanted to have sex more than when I was between 13 and 15 | ||
|
ToT)Testie(
Canada723 Posts
We're not wasting $ on free condoms for the punks. If you're not man enough to buy the shit, you aren't allowed to have sex. | ||
|
LeoTheLion
China958 Posts
Baby boomers constitute way too much of the population for anything like this to get passed. | ||
|
funkie
Venezuela9377 Posts
| ||
Chill
Calgary26004 Posts
On December 04 2006 08:59 ToT)Testie( wrote: Eh, just educate the damn kids. We're not wasting $ on free condoms for the punks. If you're not man enough to buy the shit, you aren't allowed to have sex. Ok, but this logic doesn't make sense beacuse saying "you're not allowed to" doesn't work. You're essentially sayind "If you're not man enough to buy protection, you have to take your risk with unprotected sex." There's about 3109382309 things that governments waste money on that I would be more concerned about before this. If people are ultraconservatives and arguing the waste of money, then it's simply a difference of opinion and we agree to disagree. If they are arguing that it advocates sex, then I think you're ignorant and I don't really know how to convince you; other than saying it doesn't. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
IntoTheTV X SOOP
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheTV X SOOP
FEL
FEL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
