MA makes condoms available in High School. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 11, 2024, 06:26:19 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  MA makes condoms available in High School. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Would you opt your kid out of this program?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 88

Author Topic: MA makes condoms available in High School.  (Read 6845 times)
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,461
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
« on: June 20, 2013, 01:35:59 PM »

What Lief and Dibble said.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,461
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2013, 02:03:32 PM »

You guys do realize, without an opt-out provision, this thing never sees the light of day, right?

In Massachusetts? Sure, socons will protest, but who cares?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,461
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2013, 01:24:17 PM »

But I am morally opposed to the fact that the simplest things like condoms are now being handed out for free.

This sounds like a judgment handed down on the assumption that condoms encourage people to have sex, rather than reduce the societal cost of it.
No, I have no problems with sex, being a teenaged male of course Tongue. My problem is the fact that the condoms are free. I can pay for my own condoms, and so can everyone else.

Condoms take up a smaller part of your discretionary income than they might someone else.
Condoms take up none of my income. But mentioning my non-existant sex life does not discredit my arguments.

I honestly didn't mean to imply that. The whole point I was trying to get to was that condoms might take up more of x person's discretionary income, and that's why I was arguing that they should be free of charge. My apologies.

Looking at Walgreen's website, you can get rubbers for under $0.50 per bang. It's incredibly cheap, so why on earth should the state provide it? Do you also want the state to provide cigarettes for post-coitus smoking?

False analogy is false.

Also, many of the people affected by this measure (high school students, remember) may have  little to no discretionary income at all.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 13 queries.