I am for the idea.Face it,kids are going to have sex if they want to.At least with a condom maybe we can cut down on unwanted pregnancy and STD's.Protection saves lives.If I give you a gun to protect yourself that doesn't mean you have to go around shooting everyone,but you have it if you need it.Same principle with contraception.Better to have it just in case.
2006-12-01 03:33:10 · 14 answers · asked by zeus2quincy 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Absolutely. Abstinence only education only leads to the idea that there is no way to have safe sex unless its no sex, and hell, people are going to have sex. So better to teach them about condoms, stds and pregnancy instead of leaving them in the dark and letting them find out for themselves. I think they should be free and available without someone having to sign a form or anything. Just a discreet location where they would be available. Face it, stds and teen pregnancy ruins lives
2006-12-01 03:36:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
That could go either way. I guess I see both sides. I agree with having them in school because you're right kids are going to do what they want when they want and they will find a way and a place to do. Having condoms will just give them protection, kinda like having an RO at the school or a guidance counselor. They're there to protect you if you need them but you don't have to use them. But I do see the other side about having them in school is telling kids that premarital sex is ok. But wouldn't you rather your kids be protected against what they're going to do if they want to in the first place? I would!!!
2006-12-01 03:43:42 · answer #2 · answered by babiangel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm mixed. Sometimes the embarrassed youth might think twice about what they are planning to do if they have to obtain the condoms. On the other side, the youth never think the unthinkable will happen to them and take risks they may not otherwise do if it was easier. So, I guess all said and done, I rather they be responsible. Even a condom isn't a guarentee and I hope they know that.
2006-12-01 03:48:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
again we go back to why is it the job of the state to raise kids.. If you want to teach things about life and the consequences fine but to then condone one side or the other is wrong. saying we know you are going to do it so here is protection sets a bad tone. Its like saying we know you are going to use IV drugs so here is a tetnis shot in case you get a rusty needle. why do we always have to give in to the youth. stand up and tell them what needs to be done. Children have to learn and being firm is the only way to do that. We keep giving more and more to make sure we dont offend them and they keep taking more and more and refuse to learn the facts of life. choices have consequences and you have to learn to take those consequences into account when you make decisions.
2006-12-01 04:13:00 · answer #4 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It makes sense. Let's look at it this way: the only reason there isn't currently is because that means admitting that teens at that age have sex, something many parents and others don't want to admit. But, and I know this for a fact, it's alot better to admit it with that than attending school with parents of children in a grade lower than yours.
2006-12-01 03:46:04 · answer #5 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I say if you start treating your kids like adults at earlier ages, they'll start acting like adults earlier.
if you don't want to support abortion, you better support the alternative.
considering most kids are introduced to sex and drugs far before parents want them to know about it or even talk to them about it themselves, it is no wonder drugs and unplanned pregnancy is such a huge problem. Many folks need to get off the religious theologies, and step up to reality!
2006-12-01 04:10:22 · answer #6 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm for it. I went to a small school in a conservative town, and it was shocking how many students already had children. If the school board had allowed condoms to be given away, it could have reduced the number of kids having kids.
2006-12-01 03:36:06 · answer #7 · answered by Amanda S 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think sex ed should be taught at schools.. but i don't think schools can or should supply the condoms... teach the children about sex and where/how to get the protection.. .. remember, the job of a school is to educate, not to supply.
2006-12-01 03:38:30 · answer #8 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I wish we had them when I was in High School would have saved me some money, instead I probably spent $100 at the gas station condom machine......
2006-12-01 03:53:36 · answer #9 · answered by The Pooh-Stick Kid 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree that they should be made available. Better than an unwanted baby, were the taxpayers end up supporting the child.
They are going to have sex whether we like it or not, so its better they are protected.
2006-12-01 03:36:39 · answer #10 · answered by dimond 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋