Condoms, sex education and such

[Audacity]

1) Should high schools be allowed to provide birth control products to their students?

2) Should they be required to provide birth control products if a student asks for them?


.

[RickD]

1) Should high schools be allowed to provide birth control products to their students?

2) Should they be required to provide birth control products if a student asks for them?


.

No, and no.

It's not the job of schools to get involved in promoting sexual intercourse with students. Not to mention in many cases, it's illegal for someone under age to have sex.

If the argument is that students are going to have sex anyways, so the school needs to protect them, then should the school be providing other things so that students can participate in other illegal activities?

[Storyteller]

Yes, and yes.

Not everyone shares my beliefs and I would rather keep someone from sexual diseases or pregnancy, especially if theyre going to do it anyway.
With it though, should be discussion and advice, not just handing them out.

I hope my daughter waits, ideally for marriage but hey, I didnt.
Safe sex is better than unsafe sex. Sex in a healthy, loving relationship, preferably married, is my ideal, and I think Gods plan but only He has the right to demand it imo.
And I know that kinda goes against my faith but im still learning.

[PaulSacramento]

3 words:
Age of consent
and 2 Words:
Statutory rape.

Schools have the job of TEACHING not endorsing.
They can teach sex education BUT they should NOT endorse minors having sex.

As for condoms, if you can't afford a box of rubbers then you don't deserve to get laid.

Just saying.

[Jac3510]

Assuming we're talking about public schools, no and no. Private high schools, yes and no.

[Storyteller]

Assuming we're talking about public schools, no and no. Private high schools, yes and no.

Why?

[Kurieuo]

1) Should high schools be allowed to provide birth control products to their students?

2) Should they be required to provide birth control products if a student asks for them?

Curious what you think Aud?

[IceMobster]

1) Should high schools be allowed to provide birth control products to their students?

2) Should they be required to provide birth control products if a student asks for them?

Curious what you think Aud?

Didn't know you had the audacity to be kurieuous...

Sorry, had to.

[Jac3510]

Assuming we're talking about public schools, no and no. Private high schools, yes and no.

Why?

Regarding public schools, because giving out birth control isn't an appropriate use of tax dollars, nor is it the appropriate usage of school resources, which are already limited as it is. Regarding private schools, they are private and therefore funded by private money. They can set their policies to be whatever the want them to be.

Regarding schools being required to give them out, no school should be required to do so. In a public setting, it's just another unfunded liability. In the private setting, it's a potential violation of religious liberty.

[Philip]

Parents and guardians need to be the ones who decide on this. In many kids' minds, receiving condoms communicates a message that having sex is ok and inevitable. It's a bit like giving them their own set of car keys.

But the whole safe sex message without also emphasizing that condoms are not 100% foolproof, and that everytime you have sex, you are taking a risk, and the more often you do so, the more that small risk increases. So, I personally wouldn't want to be an advocate for something that has even a small risk of producing a potentially life-long STD or HIV. Why would you not also emphasize the danger, while a much smaller percentage, is nonetheless very real? That truth is mostly glossed over by the safe sex crowd, because they are convinced kids are going to do it anyway. Plus, if the condom is not used correctly, or it bursts, that small percentage of danger grows tremendously.

I've emphasized to my oldest son of how quickly you can screw up your life and that of another by being sexually irresponsible. And, that if he will prayerfully seek God's help in doing things His way, he'll never have to worry about what might happen if he doesn't. Yep, he knows all about condoms, but he also knows the severity that lies in that smaller percentage of risk. It's a bit like playing Russian Roulette with a 100-round gun, with only one of those having a bullet. It just ain't worth it. So, do we know better than God, I've asked my son.

[melanie]

Absolutely Philip
It ultimately is a parents responsibility.
And Sex is okay, it's procreation and a natural human desire.
And for 99.9% of the population it's also inevitable.
We hand over our teenagers a set of car keys. As we hand over the right to vote, to drink, to be valuable citizens and have a mind to exercise that as they see fit.
Giving anyone the availability to exercise free will, is a gamble. But it's our ultimate freedom. Given by Christ.

We teach our children what we see fitting set by the understanding of Jesus.
Not under obligation nor duress, or control.
Giving teens the access to birth control advocates sexual promiscuity anymore than wearing a seatbelt advocates reckless driving.
It's a safety net.
We expect you to be responsible but if not then we aim to keep you safe regardless.
This is a best case scenario but if that falls short here are your options regardless.
Condoms are not 100% safe. I have had this discussion with my son, numerous times.
Sex is best kept for adult, long term relationships.
But I'm also realistic.
People are having sex, teenagers are having sex.
Thank goodness my children aren't but I'm not going to be so naive as to think they never will. I hope they wait.
Till marriage?
Ultimately yes.
But I'm not a pot calling the kettle black.
How many of us were virgins when we married?
Very few.
Does it make it okay no! But it makes it real
I want to communicate with my kids in real world terms, not in ideals that I could not live up to myself. I don't want to be the hypocrite says do as I say not as I do.
I will steer my babes and love them through every wrong turn. I will suggest and lovingly steer them into a positive relationship with Jesus, but I will not smother nor indoctrinate them.
I will give them the freedom to make mistakes, without the fear of hell.
But with fear of accountability.
Our choices shape our destiny.
Make wise choices.

[Kurieuo]

"Safe Sex" eh?
People need to get beyond the slogans to see the real issues.

Take Australia's "Safe Schools" all about anti bullying, and not sexualising our kids?
"Sex can be pretty damn fun! I honestly don't know why they don't tell you this at school" (taken from "OMG I'm Queer" brochure). Yes, please let's fund this in schools. Teach girls how to bind their chest.
It's all about making schools safe right!

Let's just append "Safe" in front of everything to get everyone on board.
The sad part is, people fall for it.

And in tomorrows news, "a call for the new Safe Suicide program being introduced into schools."
It should be up to the person whether or not they want to live or die, it's their life. No one should be forced to live life.
Sounds great!

[Philip]

Sexual drive in young people is a very powerful thing. If one is a Christian and they desire to honor God's instruction that sex is ONLY to be pursued within the committment of marriage, then they will be far more likely to do so IF: 1) Both individuals understand, accept and desire to obey God in this matter; 2) One ONLY dates other Christians who likewise understand and desire to honor God's instructions; 3) That the dating couple talk frankly about God's directive and how they will work together to honor it - which means 4) they will need to set specific, strict boundaries for physical contact. This will be hard enough, but if only one person wants to do it God's way and the other (or both) doesn't see that as important, and thus begins sexually pressuring the one so committed to God's standards, then it will only be a matter of time until a bridge is crossed and they are both fully submerged in the water.

One MIGHT have a chance to avoid sex if ones they date have the Christian view/are Christians, but Next to NO chance when their partners are not Christians AND are so eager for the relationship to become sexual - which is just WAY too powerful to resist. In fact, many people see sexual progress as making the relationship more official and serious. Even with two committed Christians setting boundaries, resisting sex is very difficult, but is doable with dependence upon God and a mutual desire to honor Him. Committment and boundaries are key!

[Jac3510]

"Safe Sex" eh?
People need to get beyond the slogans to see the real issues.

Take Australia's "Safe Schools" all about anti bullying, and not sexualising our kids?
"Sex can be pretty damn fun! I honestly don't know why they don't tell you this at school" (taken from "OMG I'm Queer" brochure). Yes, please let's fund this in schools. Teach girls how to bind their chest.
It's all about making schools safe right!

Let's just append "Safe" in front of everything to get everyone on board.
The sad part is, people fall for it.

And in tomorrows news, "a call for the new Safe Suicide program being introduced into schools."
It should be up to the person whether or not they want to live or die, it's their life. No one should be forced to live life.
Sounds great!

I worked in a nursing home for a year. Last year, I switched over to a hospital and then read a book titled Being Mortal by Atul Gawande, which is basically a book about geriatric care. In the book, he makes this very astute observation: "We want autonomy for ourselves and safety for those we love." In context, he thinks that illustrates the basic problem with the way we approach nursing home care. Talking about Maslow's well-known hierarchy of needs, he demonstrates a problem with putting "safety" as a "bottom rung" or fundamental need and "self-actualization" at the top:

• Maslow argued that safety and survival remain our primary and foundational goals in life, not least when our options and capacities become limited. If true, the fact that public policy and concern about old age homes focus on health and safety is just a recognition and manifestation of those goals. They are assumed to be everyone's first priorities. Reality is more complex, though. People readily demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice their safety and survival for the sake of something beyond themselves, such as family, country, or justice. And this is regardless of age. (p. 93)

I think he's absolutely right here. The need for self-actualization often conflicts with our need for safety. Let me take you to my nursing home and it'll be easy to see . . . human beings "warehoused," kept "out of the way" so the rest of society can get on with "normal" life (my God, the arrogance . . .). But even referring to "normal," non-institutional life, we often scold people who are not willing to take risks [to their safety] to reach for higher ends. We know there is something wrong with such people!

I think, K, this is very relevant to your point here. The obsession with "safety" points to a deep immaturity we have developed as a culture. Some things are intrinsically risky and that by nature. Work is risky. It wears me out. I can get hurt. But I'm compelled to do it because if I don't, then I won't eat! And more, the human nature is such that given my need for work, I have both the practical need to work to compel me to do it (i.e., if I don't work, I'll starve), but further nature has given me a natural impulse to work, such that when I work, I feel fulfilled. That gets into that idea of self-actualization. It is possible for a person to get all of their physical needs met without ever working. But such a person will be much poorer in other ways. In short, the desire to take the risk out--of promoting safety--in some areas can actually hurt us very deeply insofar as it is results in a conflict with our own natures.

And that's the way it is with sex. It's a naturally risky thing [practiced in the wrong context]. In the wrong context, it destroys lives. But in the right context, it creates it (in a figurative and literal sense). Nature itself, in virtue of creating the context of sex, has set it up such that the risks are almost totally removed within a good and proper marriage. Yes, we can make it "safe" outside of marriage. But first of all, as mel pointed out, we can't ever do that perfectly just because of what it is. But more than that, even to the extent it is safe, to practice it in the wrong context is contrary to our nature and positively harmful. We lose the real benefits that come from that deep connection with another human being, in that the other person just becomes a bag of meat, an object, that we use for our own gratification. And such an act, while pleasurable in the moment, is at deep odds with the nature that nature has given us.

So I think this whole "safe sex" thing is nonsense. We're so scared that our kids are going to hurt themselves that we're actually robbing them of the potential for real fulfillment. It's an utter shame.

[Audacity]

1) Should high schools be allowed to provide birth control products to their students?

2) Should they be required to provide birth control products if a student asks for them?

Curious what you think Aud?

I think all secondary schools, private and public, should be allowed to provide birth control products to their students.

As for being required to do so, I'm just not sure, although I do lean toward should. I guess I'm waiting to be convinced one way or the other.


.