EPTDistributing condoms in high schools? - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
YoUr_KiLLeR
United States3420 Posts
| ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
| ||
|
sweatpants
United States940 Posts
| ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
| ||
|
YoUr_KiLLeR
United States3420 Posts
On December 04 2006 15:37 5HITCOMBO wrote: So... what if you're married, and don't want children? its also just as likely that you're married and not capable of taking care of children. marriage doesn't imply any of these things that you're saying. | ||
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 15:36 5HITCOMBO wrote: Are condom companies evil for promoting premarital sex? I would suggest that they're a great service to the human race. They stop the spread of disease, prevent unintentional pregnancies, and allow humans to have their pleasure at a lower risk. So what if more people do it? If the danger isn't present, then what is wrong with it? When did I say condom companies promote premarital sex? They promote protected sex, not premarital sex. There is still danger with using condoms. Do you actually think that there is no danger of infection when you're using a condom? Condoms aren't perfect, and many people have been screwed over by thinking that they are. Handing out condoms would encourage sex. And it's consequences are not ideal for a high school student. "Hey, there's no risk of infection, let's just have sex for the pleasure!" "WTF I was using a condom, how did I get AIDS?" | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
| ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
CONDOMS STOP THE SPREAD OF HIV AND THUS AIDS YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT | ||
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 15:38 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote: what is your stance on safe premarital sex then infinity? there is such a thing you know... "safe" is really 99% safe. So it's not really "safe" in that context. But if there was no POSSIBLE WAY of getting infection or getting (someone) pregnant, I don't care. | ||
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 15:43 5HITCOMBO wrote: Is it still ethical to have sex when you're married, already have kids, and don't want more? Why are you going off topic? The original topic was on unprotected, unsafe sex of high school students. | ||
|
YoUr_KiLLeR
United States3420 Posts
| ||
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 15:38 5HITCOMBO wrote: And what about dumb people? I'd rather have the smart ones having babies than the dumb ones. the dumb people? they get AIDS and die. Better sooner than later. | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
Condoms negate the consequences of sex to a negligible degree. Evidence: Myth #1: Condoms don't work. Some persons have expressed concern about studies that report failure rates among couples using condoms for pregnancy prevention. Analysis of these studies indicates that the large range of efficacy rates (effectiveness) is related to incorrect or inconsistent use. In fact, condoms are highly effective for pregnancy prevention, but only when used properly. Incorrect use contributes to the possibility that the condoms could leak at the base or break. Myth #2: Condoms frequently break. Some have questioned the quality of latex condoms. Condoms are classified as medical devices and are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Every latex condom manufactured in the United States is tested for defects before it is packaged. During the manufacturing process, condoms are double-dipped in latex and undergo stringent quality control procedures. Several studies clearly show that condom breakage rates in this country are less than 2 percent. Most of the breakage is likely due to incorrect usage rather than poor condom quality. Using oil based lubricants can weaken latex, causing the condom to break. In addition, condoms can be weakened by exposure to heat or sunlight or by age, or they can be torn by teeth or fingernails. Myth #3: HIV can pass through condoms. A commonly held misperception is that latex condoms contain "holes" that allow passage of HIV. Laboratory studies show that intact latex condoms provide a highly effective barrier to sperm and microorganisms, including HIV and the much smaller hepatitis B virus. This information is from a CDC publication titled "Condoms and Their Use in Preventing HIV Infection and Other STD's." That's the Center for Disease Control. They're pretty good with their information. What is wrong with safe, protected sex? You still haven't answered us this question. | ||
|
YoUr_KiLLeR
United States3420 Posts
On December 04 2006 15:46 infinity21 wrote: "safe" is really 99% safe. So it's not really "safe" in that context. But if there was no POSSIBLE WAY of getting infection or getting (someone) pregnant, I don't care. you can get a disease from someone even if you're married to them. you can accidentally get someone pregnant if you're married to them. what if you cant take care of the children then? all of these risks are still apparent within marriage, so your argument against premarital sex not being 100% safe doesn't really stand unless you're also against sex period unless its for the purpose of reproduction. | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
| ||
|
YoUr_KiLLeR
United States3420 Posts
On December 04 2006 15:46 infinity21 wrote: "safe" is really 99% safe. So it's not really "safe" in that context. But if there was no POSSIBLE WAY of getting infection or getting (someone) pregnant, I don't care. there is no such thing as 100% safe. if thats really your definition then you're just being unrealistic. you risk death every time you step outside of your house. you risk death when you drive, but we still do it. | ||
|
YoUr_KiLLeR
United States3420 Posts
On December 04 2006 15:49 5HITCOMBO wrote: Okay, here's our point. Condoms negate the consequences of sex to a negligible degree. Evidence: That's the Center for Disease Control. They're pretty good with their information. What is wrong with safe, protected sex? You still haven't answered us this question. oh scroll above, he said safe is 100% NO CHANCE TO GET INFECTION/RISK PREGNANCY. 100%, otherwise its not safe. lol. | ||
Smurg
Canada3819 Posts
| ||
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 15:49 5HITCOMBO wrote: What is wrong with safe, protected sex? You still haven't answered us this question. When did I say safe, protected sex was wrong? There's technically nothing wrong with that if you look at it in terms of consequences. I did say premarital sex for high school students is wrong because they can't handle the responsibilities. | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
| ||
| ||
