Handing out protection at schools? should schools hand out condoms and birth control pills at school? Some people say by handing it out it promote sex among teens and others say it helps educate them about safe sex and safe sex practices. Or should schools teach abstinence (not having sex until marriage it usually is religious idea) What do you think? See my other debates Boys and Girls only schools Public, Private, Parochial or Home Schooling? Corporal Punishment? Legalize Drugs? Dress codes?
I think handing that sort of stuff out is a good idea, but whether or not teens will be smart enough to use it is the actual concern. Handing condoms out will not solve all problems. People will just have to face it that at least one person will be dumb enough to not use a condom or be unfortunate enough to have the condom not work. Yes. Handing out condoms at schools is smart, because teens will likely have sexual relations sooner or later. Why not give them protection sooner? I'll change this post as I see fit in the future.
17 classmates in pregnancy pact | The Sun |HomePage|News ___________________ By EMILY SMITH US Editor Published: Today SEVENTEEN teenage girls are expecting babies after forming a pregnancy pact at a school. Authorities are investigating after 150 girls – none older than 16 – sought pregnancy tests in the last academic year. Juno ... film poster One girl is expecting after sleeping with a HOMELESS 24-year-old man. 'Pact' ... Greg Verga Psychiatrists said the pupils could have been influenced by teenage pregnancy movies like Juno or celebs like Britney Spears’ sister Jamie Lynn, 17, who has just started a family – but the school denied this was the case. Joseph Sullivan, head of the 1,200-pupil high school in Gloucester, Massachusetts, US, said: “Some girls seemed more upset when they weren’t pregnant.” He said others reacted to positive pregnancy tests with “high fives” and plans for baby shower parties. School rules forbid the distribution of condoms and other contraception without parental consent. But school committee chairman Greg Verga said: “The pact shows that if they wanted to get pregnant, they will. Whether we distribute contraceptives is irrelevant.” Advertisement var RStag = ""; try{ RStag = segQS; } catch(e){ RStag = ""; } document.write(''); State law bans sex with under16s and the town’s mayor said rape charges could be pursued against men involved. School Superintendent Christopher Farmer said the pupils were generally “girls who lack self-esteem and have a lack of love in their life”. One 18-year-old who gave birth before graduating from the school said: “They are so excited to have someone love them unconditionally. I try to explain it’s hard to feel loved when an infant is screaming to be fed at 3am.” ______________ [/QUOTE]
(point being that even though they do hand out condoms at schools, dumb bitches still want to have babies)
I think this debate is more about Abstinence vs. Sex Ed. "Abstinence Only" Vs. Contraception Information This take on sex education is known among educators as the "abstinence-only approach," in which totally refraining from sex outside of marriage (including masturbation) is generally the only option presented to students. The "abstinence-only" message, in which contraception information is either prohibited or limited to a mention of its ineffectiveness, is used by 34% of schools that have a district-wide policyto teach sex education, according to a study conducted by The Alan Guttmacher Institute published in the November/December 1999 issue of Family Planning Perspectives. Obviously this message is embraced -- although surely not solely or entirely -- by conservative and religious groups. Critics say that such edited presentations rob teens of critical information and ignore the realities of teen sexual behavior. The majority of U.S. schools (66%) provide information about contraception, such as condoms and birth control pills, as well as about other practices that fall in the safer-sex category. However, this does not mean that the benefits of abstinence are not stressed in these programs or that they take a backseat. On the contrary, the majority of schools that include contraception information in their sex-ed curricula promote abstinence as "the preferred option," the Guttmacher Institute reports. And according to surveys reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 82% of parents who have children 18 and younger support schools that teach this "comprehensive" approach (the term used by educators and legislators). The Risks Teens Face The supporters of abstinence argue that it is the only infallible way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. But, by definition, abstinence works only when teens are sexually inactive -- without exception. Unfortunately, statistics indicate that one-fourth of 15-year-olds have had sexual intercourse at least once, and more than half of 17-year-olds are sexually active, according to the Institute. source: Abstinence vs. Sex Ed.
I don't know, I mean personally, I think it should be the parents' jobs to educate their children about sex and deal with it how they will... Whether they're stupid and pretend sex doesn't exist or if they hand out contraceptives, they ultimately have no one to complain about but themself and their poor parenting. Hiding sex isn't going to keep people from finding it.
Abstinence is their choice, school shouldn't push it on them not everyone is religous... I'm not. But a good way to avoid std's is safe sex.
Lol, I just had an image of an easter egg hunt: Where is the sex? Where is it? OOOOH, I found it! It was in the bushes over there! Also, you might be interested in my recent blog entry about STDs.
I believe the schools should fall short of handing out the pill and condoms at schools, but they should up their sex ed programs. My sexual education class taught us everything we needed to know to scare us out of sex. All the diseases, their effects, and people whose lives have been ravaged by them. However, throughout the course, no one learned even HOW to have sex, one kid asked how, and he was told that he didn't need to know because he would practice abstinence. They should not force abstinence on us. They also told us that condoms are only 70% effective, it's really about 98% effective when used properly. However, they never showed us what a condom looked like, how to use it, or anything. They also never told us about pills that can prevent pregnancy. Nothing of the sort, they just told us to refrain from sex. That's it. The entire course. I hate my school.
How had is it to put the D in the V, but seriously I think handing out condoms and what not is a good idea. I would say that about 90% of high schoolers know how to have sex and are going to have sex. According to an article i just read 56.9% of teens have had sex all ready. Three quarters of them are using a condom. Which is great but that still isn't that close to 100%. Schools handing them out is a great idea if they can be picked up anonymously. As I know a lot of guys are too embarrassed to go buy them in public. It also says 18.7% of boys have had sex before they were 13. They probably aren't going to be able to afford condoms at this age, and they certainly aren't going to ask there parents if they will buy them some when they are 12. You can read the article here: Triage | Chicago Tribune | Blog
Exactly Titmar. No matter what you do, no matter what precaution you take, no matter how you educate them, there will always be dumbasses who pay no attention to it and will ruin their lives. Students should get sex education in school, but it's most likely not going to make them change their oppinion on it. They'll do what they want regardless, but at least they can be shot down with " I told you so." after they **** up. And isn't abstinence not having sex for your whole life, not just 'til marriage? Or is that cellabacy? I think chastity is the one you're looking for about not doing it until you're married.
This just makes no sense. Drunk driving surely = unprotected sex and sober driving = safe sex. Handing out contraceptives would be encouraging safe sex, thus would be equivalent to taking away a theoretical "drunk driving lane". Its not really possible to stop teenagers having sex. I'm not saying that some won't choose abstinence and I do not disagree with this, if they gain a moral satisfaction from it and don't mind going without sex then good for them, but most teenagers want to have sex. So I agree with Kayaman when he says: This is Abstinence vs Sex Ed. Forcing abstinence is never going to work in my opinion, and will encourage at least some to choose safe sex over unprotected, which is a positive if not the perfect situation. For those who argue that it encourages sex at all, protected or not, I say- so what? Unless you hold a religious belief that states the sanctity of sex, where does a moral rejection of sex for pleasure come from? Its enjoyable and, as long as it is safe (which handing out contraceptives would encourage) then what harm is it doing? Teenagers have natural urges to have sex, convincing them otherwise will never work 100% of the time, so try to abandon moral hangups on sex for pleasure and make sure that they are protected when they do so.
People drive drunk and don't crash all the time, I'm just saying it would be safer if we enabled people to do bad things...maybe "Theft Shelves" at stores too?
Maybe your right, I don't think so, but maybe. I just don't think that protected sex is a bad thing, I think its fine. I think unprotected sex amongst teenagers is a bad thing, unprotected sex without proper consideration (wanting to get pregnant or a stable relationship etc.) is a bad thing. IMO enabling people to chose protection when having sex is good, you can't force it on them - just like abstinence- but it helps to make it easier for them.