MA makes condoms available in High School.

[Person Man]

Isn't it ironic how all (most?) of the people on this thread who are strongly morally against abortion oppose this clearly anti-abortion policy?

Indeed.

Of course not opt out. This seems like a really good deal. Buying maybe a few hundred dollars worth of condoms (generally the GOOD ones are about a dollar for one) would prevent many thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on all the problems unprotected underaged sex causes the taxpayer.  I guess we could do a spay or neuter program. I mean, that would be 100% effective. Right?

[Person Man]

Isn't it ironic how all (most?) of the people on this thread who are strongly morally against abortion oppose this clearly anti-abortion policy?

Indeed.

Of course not opt out. This seems like a really good deal. Buying maybe a few hundred dollars worth of condoms (generally the GOOD ones are about a dollar for one) would prevent many thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on all the problems unprotected underaged sex causes the taxpayer.  I guess we could do a spay or neuter program. I mean, that would be 100% effective. Right?

This is liberalism for you. The kids get condoms for the students without parental consent so if there is an allergic reaction to the condoms, then the kids suddenly become the parents' responsibility.

I  don't see how the parents somehow not knowing their kids are allergic to latex and not opting them out changes the discourse. Like I said, just like something on its seems reasonable to you doesn't mean it won't be for me. And vice-versa.

[Person Man]

Isn't it ironic how all (most?) of the people on this thread who are strongly morally against abortion oppose this clearly anti-abortion policy?

Indeed.

Of course not opt out. This seems like a really good deal. Buying maybe a few hundred dollars worth of condoms (generally the GOOD ones are about a dollar for one) would prevent many thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on all the problems unprotected underaged sex causes the taxpayer.  I guess we could do a spay or neuter program. I mean, that would be 100% effective. Right?

This is liberalism for you. The kids get condoms for the students without parental consent so if there is an allergic reaction to the condoms, then the kids suddenly become the parents' responsibility.

I  don't see how the parents somehow not knowing their kids are allergic to latex and not opting them out changes the discourse. Like I said, just like something on its seems reasonable to you doesn't mean it won't be for me. And vice-versa.

Let's say parents do opt their kids out. Their son still has plenty of buddies to get them from and he won't care if he's allergic because of social pressures when it comes to getting laid at that age. He'll use a condom without worrying about the consequences or won't use one at all. If the girl isn't willing without a condom, then he'll use one without thinking of the consequences.

How many kids would use condoms when they know they're allergic to them?  I don't think they're that dumb.

Kids would do anything to be cool.

And how would this be a typical case and even these people eventually have sex.

[Person Man]

Isn't it ironic how all (most?) of the people on this thread who are strongly morally against abortion oppose this clearly anti-abortion policy?

Indeed.

Of course not opt out. This seems like a really good deal. Buying maybe a few hundred dollars worth of condoms (generally the GOOD ones are about a dollar for one) would prevent many thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on all the problems unprotected underaged sex causes the taxpayer.  I guess we could do a spay or neuter program. I mean, that would be 100% effective. Right?

This is liberalism for you. The kids get condoms for the students without parental consent so if there is an allergic reaction to the condoms, then the kids suddenly become the parents' responsibility.

I  don't see how the parents somehow not knowing their kids are allergic to latex and not opting them out changes the discourse. Like I said, just like something on its seems reasonable to you doesn't mean it won't be for me. And vice-versa.

Let's say parents do opt their kids out. Their son still has plenty of buddies to get them from and he won't care if he's allergic because of social pressures when it comes to getting laid at that age. He'll use a condom without worrying about the consequences or won't use one at all. If the girl isn't willing without a condom, then he'll use one without thinking of the consequences.

How many kids would use condoms when they know they're allergic to them?  I don't think they're that dumb.

Kids would do anything to be cool.

And how would this be a typical case and even these people eventually have sex.

Our tax dollars shouldn't be spent on condoms.

You should have just said it in the beginning and people can vote to spend their tax dollars in ways they feel necessary and proper. The alternative is that if you choose where your tax dollars go, then you believe in converting all taxes to fees. At that point, you are a Libertarian or Constitutionian member, not a Republican.

[Person Man]

Isn't it ironic how all (most?) of the people on this thread who are strongly morally against abortion oppose this clearly anti-abortion policy?

Indeed.

Of course not opt out. This seems like a really good deal. Buying maybe a few hundred dollars worth of condoms (generally the GOOD ones are about a dollar for one) would prevent many thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on all the problems unprotected underaged sex causes the taxpayer.  I guess we could do a spay or neuter program. I mean, that would be 100% effective. Right?

This is liberalism for you. The kids get condoms for the students without parental consent so if there is an allergic reaction to the condoms, then the kids suddenly become the parents' responsibility.

I  don't see how the parents somehow not knowing their kids are allergic to latex and not opting them out changes the discourse. Like I said, just like something on its seems reasonable to you doesn't mean it won't be for me. And vice-versa.

Let's say parents do opt their kids out. Their son still has plenty of buddies to get them from and he won't care if he's allergic because of social pressures when it comes to getting laid at that age. He'll use a condom without worrying about the consequences or won't use one at all. If the girl isn't willing without a condom, then he'll use one without thinking of the consequences.

How many kids would use condoms when they know they're allergic to them?  I don't think they're that dumb.

Kids would do anything to be cool.

And how would this be a typical case and even these people eventually have sex.

Our tax dollars shouldn't be spent on condoms.

You should have just said it in the beginning and people can vote to spend their tax dollars in ways they feel necessary and proper. The alternative is that if you choose where your tax dollars go, then you believe in converting all taxes to fees. At that point, you are a Libertarian or Constitutionian member, not a Republican.

No I'm saying congress should decide not to spend our money on condoms.

This isn't congress. This is the State of Massachusetts.