Should condoms be distributed in high schools?

Question

What impact would it have on the amount of teens engaging in sexual intercourse?
Would you sitll be for it even if it meant that taxpayers would have to fund this new project?

Answer 1

I don't think they should be distributed, I admit is I'm a prude, I feel the schools should be teaching the kids that not having sex is the safest way at such a young age...not "Oh look here take these" It's telling the kids it's ok when it's not. It's sad that they are showing "the movie" to 4th graders. Why are we teaching our kids this! The only way to avoid STD's and early pregnancy is to not do it at all!

Answer 2

Absolutely. and ill explain why.

first the economic reason since it is the most black and white clear cut answer. Economically it makes enourmous amount of sense. Yes the taxpayers would have to pay for condoms, but even billions of condoms cost less than thousands of abortions, teenage pregnancies, and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. The cost benefit is obvious in preventing the woes of unportected sex.

Secondly, talking about the impact it would have on teenagers having sex. I just dont see it as a dealbreaker. I can't see that many kids saying "i wasn't going to have sex, but since i found condoms in my school bathroom i'm going to be a slut"

People generally dont make decisions based on things like that. Teenagers that are going to engage in sex will do so no matter what people tell them, it has been that way since the begining of time. I think things like television and movies influence teens to have sex more than how readily available condoms are.

In the end protection and preventative measures (what condoms are) PLUS education, and not just abstinance only education, but real information that is not biased, but simply facts will do the most.

Parents must also not be afraid to talk to their children about sex early and often to where its not a big deal.

American culture is terrified of sex, and intercourse as a culture, but individually we all still love it just as much as anyone., this creates a dichotemy in that the information given is limited in educational enviroment, but the rest of the culture screams sex, sending many more mixed messages than some condoms in HS bathrooms.

We need to realize that with better nutrition and education our children are maturing at a much faster rate than they did in the past and as many of you can attest to some HS students sure dont look like the HS kids of days past. We cannot try and force todays youth into the box that yesterdays kids grew up in, its a completely different world.

So in conclusion yes, the amount of kids that would decide to have sex only because the school provided condoms is far less than the number of HS lives destroyed by unprotected sex they are currently having without condoms in their schools, so the trade off makes sense, since you simply cannot make teenagers not have sex, thats an impossiblity.

Answer 3

Same as the guy above
Distributed, no
available, yes

For one thing just because teens should be informed about sex doesn't mean we should hand them condoms at every corner and say "Here you go, now get to it!"
For another thing, those same people who are against having sex ed in school don't want to have "the talk" at home and when they finally do have that talk its usually riddled with awkward metaphors and tons of dancing around the subject and a good sprinkling of...don't do it!
It usually goes something like this
"Well you see, when a mommy and a daddy...uh they hold hands and when...well 9 months later a baby comes out! So be careful who you hold hands with...infact don't hold hands til you're thirty" and they promptly leave the room while their kid sits there thoroughly confused.

Answer 4

In the sex education class they should be available. The truth of the matter is that people start having sex younger these days. In the sex education class at least they get to learn the possible outcome of having unprotected sex, so they should provide the class with condoms to give them the choice to practice safely or not. If the student isn't sexually active then they simply don't have to take them. Although my son was a blessing...if I had my hands on condoms back then...then he probably wouldn't be here.

Answer 5

Part of me says yes and part no. Teenagers are going to have sex, there is no stopping that so why not help them protect themselves, but then the part of me that says no says that is too easy, they should have to buy a condom maybe they will be embarrassed or maybe a box is $10 and they don't even work, but you know if you want to have sex outside of marriage the risks are HIGH so maybe having to put up some effort is good, and if you don't use one and you have to suffer the consequences for your choices then you learned an important lesson the hard way: There are consequences (good or bad) for all choices we make. I think if you are old enough to have sex then you need to be mature enough to own up to it and if you are not mature enough to own up, then you have 9 months to grow up, so start growing!

Answer 6

Good question......I would say it should be an option....the fact is teen pregnancies are still an issue and so are AIDS and other STD's...I dont know about outright distribution, but atleast.....having some in the Nurse's office...kids might be embarresed to buy them....and as far as taxes go...i dont mind...it would be less expensive than taking unemployed teenager and a baby.

Answer 7

it would really depend on the area, and rate of teen births. In some cases it could encourage some kids to have sex but the good it would do in some areas(like mine-where pregnant twelve year olds happen alot)would far out weigh the negative.I would happily pay the taxes, a condom is much cheaper than health care and medicaid,food stamps and all other expenses including STD treatment for young girls who make a mistake.

Answer 8

Condoms generally don't encourage people to have sex. That decision is made long before one goes in search of condoms..

Having condoms available is a good idea, providing the are coupled with proper sex ed with regards to the risk of STD's Pregnancy, and how to actually use a condom. Let's face it it would cut down the transmission of STD's, and unwanted pregnancies if kids had a safe place to go to obtain protection and education.

It is a programs that would pay for itself. it would cut down on the health cost associated with pregnancy and STD's it would also decrease number of children having children who become depended upon the social service system.

Answer 9

I think tax payers pay for enough for everybody else. If anything, I would have to say that people need to start standing up and taking responsibility for their own health!

No, I also don't think condoms should be distributed in High School, it sends the message, well, if school is giving me a condom, it is OK to have casual sex.

Schools don't need to be parenting kids. School is a learning institution and that is it! Parents need to take responsibility for their children.

Answer 10

Yeah, probably you can't stop them from doing it and its not something new we were all teenagers remember? Things are not that different just we are more knowledgeable now due to technology. Tax is nothing compared to the cost of welfare for the mother and another little child that's not wanted or planned for to rustle for its self most of their life..answer is yes provide condoms.