MA makes condoms available in High School.

[TNF]

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 . 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.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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 . 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.

Poor Sanchez:

[barfbag]

I would be interested to see how parents voted on this issue. It's better to use protection, but giving condoms to children under the age of consent is asking for as much trouble as is being prevented.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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 . 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.

[TNF]

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 . 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.

[DC Al Fine]

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 . 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?

[Antonio the Sixth]

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 . 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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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 . 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-existent 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.

No offense taken, and when I misread it, I thought it was funny. I was going to put into the Sulfur pit voluntarily but figured it would be there already.

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 . 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-existent 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.

It took me a while to find the job I had for a short time. Unemployment is high among youths, granted, and it would be pointless to say "get a job" when no jobs are available. My brother and his friend have never held a job. Yet, they still manage to buy vast amounts of marijuana and get high in the backyard while I watch in disgust. I see this among most of my peers. Where do they get this money? If they can trick their parents into giving them money to buy weed, I see no reason why should they not do the same and use it to buy condoms.

By the way, I can't see condoms adding anything to the deficit if the whole national public school system made them available. It's the principal of the matter that I am arguing against for the most part.

[barfbag]

So it's my job to pay for teenagers to have sex? Whose job is it to pay for my pizza? Go back in time and tell Thomas Jefferson by law he has to pay for teens to have condoms for sex.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

So it's my job to pay for teenagers to have sex? Whose job is it to pay for my pizza? Go back in time and tell Thomas Jefferson by law he has to pay for teens to have condoms for sex.

Go back in time and tell Thomas Jefferson by law he can't own slaves.

[Paulygirl]

Unless they're actually going to be having sex at school, then they can go to the store and buy them like everyone else does.

[barfbag]

So it's my job to pay for teenagers to have sex? Whose job is it to pay for my pizza? Go back in time and tell Thomas Jefferson by law he has to pay for teens to have condoms for sex.

Go back in time and tell Thomas Jefferson by law he can't own slaves.

If only it were a fair comparison. Are you suggesting that paying for Sandra Fluke's birth control is as admirable as the freeing of slaves? Or are you suggesting that subsidizing birth control would be as great an achievement of ending slavery? If only it were the same thing.

[barfbag]

Unless they're actually going to be having sex at school, then they can go to the store and buy them like everyone else does.

Good point. If it's not threatening our nation's sovereignty then the government shouldn't be involved, especially with something like this.

[cheesepizza]

This strips parental rights, promotes promiscuity, and leads to moral decadence.  MA is slouching toward Gomorrah.

[7,052,770]

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?

[Link]

Well my kid wouldn't be in public school to begin with so its a moot point.

The kid is lucky to have a parent who can summarily right off the majority of schools in another country of 300+ million people without even checking them out.

I can't speak for Canada but in the United States the public high school is sometimes the best school around for miles and sends more kids to Ivy League universities than all the Bible beating Christian schools combined.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I can't speak for Canada but in the United States the public high school is sometimes the best school around for miles and sends more kids to Ivy League universities than all the Bible beating Christian schools combined.

Correct.  We took mine out of a private school into a public one because it was, by far, the best school.

[DC Al Fine]

Well my kid wouldn't be in public school to begin with so its a moot point.

The kid is lucky to have a parent who can summarily right off the majority of schools in another country of 300+ million people without even checking them out.

I can't speak for Canada but in the United States the public high school is sometimes the best school around for miles and sends more kids to Ivy League universities than all the Bible beating Christian schools combined.

Who said anything about bible thumping?

The level of discipline in the public schools is excessively lax at best. Hell, I went to a rich, white school for part of HS in a program for smart kids and it was still pretty loose compared to the private schools. It's going to be either home schooling & secular private school for my kids.

[Link]

Well my kid wouldn't be in public school to begin with so its a moot point.

The kid is lucky to have a parent who can summarily write off the majority of schools in another country of 300+ million people without even checking them out.

I can't speak for Canada but in the United States the public high school is sometimes the best school around for miles and sends more kids to Ivy League universities than all the Bible beating Christian schools combined.

Who said anything about bible thumping?

The level of discipline in the public schools is excessively lax at best. Hell, I went to a rich, white school for part of HS in a program for smart kids and it was still pretty loose compared to the private schools. It's going to be either home schooling & secular private school for my kids.

So you've evaluated every high school in the United States?

Your kid when he's 18 isn't going to be able to handle walking down the halls of a public high school in an affluent suburb?  What's he going to do in three months when you drive him 800 miles away and dump him off at college?

There was a difference between the good kids at my high school and the bad kids... the difference was parents.  It's that simple a lot of the time.  Same school.  Same teachers.  Same temptations.  The parents that were involved had kids like me.  Those that weren't?  Well they blamed everything up to and including the White House.

[DC Al Fine]

Well my kid wouldn't be in public school to begin with so its a moot point.

The kid is lucky to have a parent who can summarily write off the majority of schools in another country of 300+ million people without even checking them out.

I can't speak for Canada but in the United States the public high school is sometimes the best school around for miles and sends more kids to Ivy League universities than all the Bible beating Christian schools combined.

Who said anything about bible thumping?

The level of discipline in the public schools is excessively lax at best. Hell, I went to a rich, white school for part of HS in a program for smart kids and it was still pretty loose compared to the private schools. It's going to be either home schooling & secular private school for my kids.

So you've evaluated every high school in the United States?

Your kid when he's 18 isn't going to be able to handle walking down the halls of a public high school in an affluent suburb?  What's he going to do in three months when you drive him 800 miles away and dump him off at college?

You're setting an incredibly unrealistic standard that factors into no parent's schooling decision. Read my original post. I said I'm not sending my hypothetical kids to public school. I don't need to evaluate the schools of suburban Boston or rural Texas to decide where to send my hypothetical kids to school in Halifax, NS, Canada.

Where on earth do you get this idea that my kid will go to private school because he "won't be able to handle" a public high school? The quality of education is better in the private schools, and I'll have the means to pay for it. You might as well talk about how I'm not able to "handle" McDonalds because I want to buy a steak.

[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?

[barfbag]

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.

[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.

[TJ in Oregon]

Yes, obviously.

I was instructed about condoms when I was in junior high and high school and it never really bothered me much. I didn't believe in it, but I endured it. I'd have to draw the line at actually handing them out though. My school only taught us where we could go to get them, but the onus was still on us. While my kids (if I eventually have any) should know condoms exist and how they work, etc. I would clearly object to the school giving them out.

[barfbag]

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.