Candy For Kid's Condoms Anyone? Contraceptives In Schools
Posted: Tuesday, July 22, 2008
by Mark Parsec
Wordcasters
I was in the middle of a fine candlelight dinner with my wife when the doorbell rang. So, I dismissed myself and went to the front door. When I opened it, there in front of me stood two lovely young girls, all of fourteen or fifteen years old.
"How may I help you?" I asked.
"Hi, we're selling candy so that our school can raise money to get condoms. What flavor mints would you like?"
My jaw dropped. Then I fainted, hitting my head on the wall. That was about the time I woke up from my dream...
Should schools provide contraceptives to students?
No, schools should not provide contraceptives to students because the primary responsibility of schools is education not contraception. Schools are not medical institutions they are educational institutions.
If we attempt to justify the dissemination of contraceptives on the grounds that it will help prevent unwanted pregnancies and social disorder, then we would have to say that schools should also provide substance abuse medications to help prevent addiction, overdoses, and subsequent social disorder. Can you imagine schools distributing antibuse or methadone to students to prevent social disorder? No, because this is not the responsibility of schools. Once again, schools are not medical institutions they are educational institutions.
If we attempt to justify the dissemination of contraceptives on the grounds that it will help prevent unwanted pregnancies and social disorder, then we would have to say that schools should also provide substance abuse medications to help prevent addiction, overdoses, and subsequent social disorder. Can you imagine schools distributing antibuse or methadone to students to prevent social disorder? No, because this is not the responsibility of schools. Once again, schools are not medical institutions they are educational institutions.
The fallacy of contraceptives as an alternative to abortion.
The argument that supplying contraceptives prevents abortion just does not make sense. If we applied this same logic to another scenario it would show the fallacy of this logic. For example, every year thousands of innocent children are gunned down in our schools. Well, if schools would only allow children to keep and bear arms to protect themselves then these needless deaths would not occur. Right? Wrong. We can all see that more weapons will ultimately lead to more deaths. The "Free" dissemination of contraceptives does not deter or prevent sexual activity. Like guns it only guarantees a false illusion of protection, when in fact it promotes the very activity it is intended to prevent.
The argument that supplying contraceptives prevents abortion just does not make sense. If we applied this same logic to another scenario it would show the fallacy of this logic. For example, every year thousands of innocent children are gunned down in our schools. Well, if schools would only allow children to keep and bear arms to protect themselves then these needless deaths would not occur. Right? Wrong. We can all see that more weapons will ultimately lead to more deaths. The "Free" dissemination of contraceptives does not deter or prevent sexual activity. Like guns it only guarantees a false illusion of protection, when in fact it promotes the very activity it is intended to prevent.
Dissemination of contraceptives is a contradiction of the law.
The laws of most states stipulate that sexual activity between minors is a crime. This has been proven time and time again when a parent has pressed charges against a school aged child who has engaged in sexual activity with their child. If schools are to disseminate contraceptives to minors, that encourages "safe" sex, are they not then accessories to the crime? At the very least it sends a mixed message to our children. It is the equivalent of saying, Drugs are illegal, but if you're going to do them then here is a clean syringe. This is utterly ridiculous.
The laws of most states stipulate that sexual activity between minors is a crime. This has been proven time and time again when a parent has pressed charges against a school aged child who has engaged in sexual activity with their child. If schools are to disseminate contraceptives to minors, that encourages "safe" sex, are they not then accessories to the crime? At the very least it sends a mixed message to our children. It is the equivalent of saying, Drugs are illegal, but if you're going to do them then here is a clean syringe. This is utterly ridiculous.
Dissemination of contraceptives usurps parental responsibility.
It is the responsibility of schools to provide an education to our children through information that will ultimately provide them with the knowledge and wisdom they need to function in society. It is not the school's responsibility to bathe, feed or clothe our children. Neither is it the responsibility of the schools to provide shelter or medical care. All of these responsibilities lay squarely upon the shoulders of the parents, both legally and morally. It is the parents' responsibility to instill morals and to provide an environment wherein the child feels comfortable to communicate their concerns, either for birth control or for food.
Who will flip the bill for dissemination of contraceptives in schools?
I find it absolutely ironic that in an age when our school children are sent like paupers door to door selling candy and cookies to raise funds for school supplies that our schools should mysteriously find the financial resources that will ultimately provide contraceptives. Or have they? Shall the schools next ask our children to go door to door asking people to buy mints so they can get contraceptives? Candy for kid's condoms anyone?
This Article has been viewed 3,743 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (8 total)Very powerful!! I absolutely agree Mark. I find it hard to believe that while the school cannot seem to even afford to properly educate they would consider crossing the line by passing out contraceptives. This idea is a shame and shows what a sad state that not just we are in as a nation, but for the schools also. Our educational system seems to be going downhill and is definitely lost focus. God bless you.Thank you, Michelle. Wouldn't it be great if schools started handing out books and calculators? God bless you.Wow! What a concept. Do they even know how to do that anymore?
Hi Mark, Bravo! Well laid out and great points. I do not believe kids should be able to get condoms at school, there are plenty of places available. And most importantly-school is not a birth-control clinic. Great job. God Bless!Thanks, Teresa. Kinda surprised to see you've made it to SearchWarp. I figured you'd be burried beneath boxes and boxes. Hope your move went well. Blessings!I just set my computer up so I had to "test it", I am still burried in boxes, but things are shaping up. Tomorrow we will get the last of the little stuff from the old house and then we will officially be out. So wierd. But are loving the new place despite not having any flooring :-)Soon it will all come together. I probably won't have time to write an article until this weekend,boy has God taught me a few things these last few days. One of which I will write about as soon as I can.Have a great night. God bless!We're looking forward to reading your next article. God bless you, your family and your new home.
A great article, and with some good arguments.
Whilst I strongly think that ideally there'd be no need for schools (or any other institution) to make contraception available, the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies make it clear that, unfortunately, there is - or at least a need for something; the "abstinence only" courses, while theoretically representing the best method, have largely been unsuccessful at making significant impact on their own.I'd just like to respond briefly to each of your arguments:"Schools are not medical institutions they are educational institutions"- this is very true, but in order to reduce abortions and unwanted pregnancies amongst teens (especially younger teens), contraception (as well as education and promotion of abstinence) needs to be available to those teens that ARE sexually active. If it isn't available to them, it is useless. Importantly, its not just those sexually active teens that suffer the consequences of their actions - its society (i.e. all of us) - the cost of benefits, increased crime etc."The fallacy of contraceptives as an alternative to abortion"This isn't a fallacy, the availability of cheap or free contraception has been demonstrated to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. I agree that there is a danger that making contraceptives available can be seen as "legitimizing" sexual activity, this is a genuine problem, and is the reason why making contraception available needs to be supported by strong educational measures and a support from the media to drive home the idea that abstinence is a better option. This would likely lower the amount of teen sex, but some teens are going to be having sex, however much we'd prefer it if they didn't. I'd much rather they were protected than not."Dissemination of contraceptives is a contradiction of the law"This is a good point, but again pragmatism must come to the fore. "Drugs are illegal, but if you're going to do them then here is a clean syringe" - I know this sounds ridiculous, and in an ideal world it would never be necessary, but this actually happens in many places, and has been shown to be extremely effective at reducing diseases and violence."Dissemination of contraceptives usurps parental responsibility"I disagree here, parents are still free to raise their children as they see fit. If the parents are taking sole responsibility then schools shouldn't be promoting abstinence either. I think schools and parents, as well as government and the media, need to work together on this."Who will flip the bill for dissemination of contraceptives in schools"The costs would be little, and with the increased risk of social ills (crime etc) that come from unwanted pregnancies there may even be chances to save money in the long term.Hmmm Ben, You must have vast amounts of research with really no experience. How could you possibly understand what is going on in the U.S. when you live in UK? I guess what your writing is only a statistic of which you researched but is not truly accurate. Have a good day.Whilst the debate is U.S. focused, the same problem exists in many other countries - it isn't unique to the U.S!
There will be some specific differences in culture and law in each country of course (for example, here in the UK alcohol consumption is probably a significantly larger factor in teen pregnancy than it is in the US). However, the basic general "pros and cons" are universal.I am not saying that the basic "pros and cons" are not universal. Of course they are. What I am saying is that statistics alone are not accurate. I am also saying that I have had experience with my own children, their teenage friends and a vast amount of others. In all of these relationships, the parents who could talk to their children and the children to them, there usually was fortunately a positive end result when it came to drinking, using drugs, sex and all the issues that come up in parent, child relationships. I am asking you, how many teenagers you have worked with or raised to help make all these statistics accurate? If it is only a statistic then it is most likely not a lot of fact and there is a whole lot more going on in the world then a statistic. God bless you Ben.I agree that parents being able to talk to their children (and their children to them) openly and frankly is a very positive thing, and a strong force against the problems of teenage drinking, sexual activity and drug use.I don't think my personal experience (or any particular individual's personal experience) is of great significance here - anecdotal evidence is interesting, and can bring issues into the picture that might have otherwise been overlooked, but its not reliable and should not be given undue influence in the decision-making process - there will be people with anecdotes on both sides. Without supporting arguments and evidence, they are limited in their worth.If there's a lot more people with good anecdotal evidence on one side, then this will be reflected in statistics. Statistics should not be lightly dismissed - they represent the best information we have about what is happening to countless people on a large scale - and the issues we are talking about are, unfortunately, happening on a large scale.For the record though, I did 2 years voluntary work (part time) with a local youth organization (for 12-14 year olds), which included some sexual health and drug awareness aspects. I've not got any children myself.Ben, If personal experience is not important in this debate then I am afraid we are all wasting our time.Ben, Although it is true that there are universal aspects to this issue that are common in many countries, there are, indeed, many significant aspects that are unique to the U.S. in contrast to the U.K.. For example, I believe that the UK provides universal health care. This is not the case in the United States.Also, having worked in alcohol and drug rehabilitation for many years now, I would have to question your presumption that alcohol consumption is a significantly higher factor in teen pregnancy in the UK -vs- the US. As of 2007 the population of the UK was estimated to be only 60,776,238. Whereas, the estimated population of the US for 2007 is 301,139,947. The United States has 5 times the population of the UK. By virtue of population alone the numbers of teens drinking is assuredly higher in the US than it is in the UK.Nevertheless, this still displaces the focus of the argument. For the debate does not pertain to alcohol consumption, but to the dissemination of contraceptives in schools. Do UK schools supply alcohol to students? No... So, it is entirely irrelavant.The fact that the US population is 5 times bigger and may as a result having a larger *number* of teens who are drinking than the UK does not mean that teen drinking is not a bigger *factor* in the UK than in the US....significance of a factor within a population is based on *percentage*.
If alcohol can be shown to have any effect whatsoever on teen sexual activity (and it can) then it isn't irrelevant to the general discussion - its something that would need to be taken into consideration in any discussion of the "causes and cures" of the teen pregnancy problem.I will concede the point that the UK has a larger percentage of teenagers that drink than the US. This, however, is a result of the UK having less stringent regulations pertaining to the consumption of alcohol. Perhaps, if the UK addressed its laws pertaining to the sale and consumption of alcohol then it would reduce the incidence of teen pregnancy. "Gee, our kids are having sex when they drink alcohol, we need to give them contraceptives -vs- we need to curtail their drinking."Nevertheless, I would still argue that the leading cause of pregnancy among teenagers, drinking or not, is sex... not alcohol.I agree - the UK needs to toughen its laws (and the enforcement of them) relating to alcohol. The UK drinking age is 18 rather than 21, so increasing it might be useful.
Obviously ignoring the problem of the drinking and focusing ONLY on contraception would be somewhat stupid, but no-one here (that I am aware of) is advocating anything like that.
No-one is arguing that alcohol is THE only factor in teenage pregnancy, but it is a factor, although admittedly of much less significance so in the US than in the UK it seems (although that is mere opinion - so take it with a pinch of salt!).
Obviously sex is the sole direct cause of teenage pregnancy (excluding the unlikely possibility of illicit artificial insemination), but that truism doesn't help us find a solution to the problems.
Whilst teen-age sexual activity is a problem in itself, it becomes significantly more of a problem (both to the individuals and to society) due to its (potential) consequences - STDs, unwanted pregnancies and abortions. All of these aspects (and ways to counter them) need to be considered.LOL... Wow, Ben. You actually got me to laugh. So, you DO have a sense of humor. I appreciate your comments. Keep up the good writing.Very good arguments Ben! To everyone shouting out about EXPERIENCE! I have something to tell you, I AM experience. I am experiencing everything first hand! I am 16 years old. I have some points to make...
If parents actually had open and loving communication with their kids, this wouldn't be much of an issue. The thing is, even in the nice society I live in...Parents are still abusive and neglective. The kids can't help it that they weren't raised the way you guys (and I myself) think is proper! They can only do what they can. WE, can only do what we can. And guess what! Most of us aren't very smart! We've had a few years of experience, and thats it. And let me tell you, most people my age don't have much common sense. Therefore, in relation to the fact that most parent's aren't doing their jobs, the school needs to interfere.
I'd also like to say that it isn't always Illegal. Where I live, the age of consent is 16. Therefore, providing condoms to the sophmores and upperclassmen (i'm an upperclassmen! yay!) is not promoting illegal activity.
Basically, teens will have sex. I'm hearing of sexually active middle schoolers now, (insane). And (although not quite relevant) do drugs. I know a girl who did HEROIN in the 7nth grade. I blame a lot of this on the media. And yet, the media will not change, (they're getting to much money) and Parent's are not yet up to par. Therefore, why not allow safe sex? Why not promote the use of condoms? You can't give us great parent's that teach us right, but you CAN help us not ruin our lives with bad choices! Sure, underaged sex hurt you emotionally, but a child will hurt much more than that!
Mark, you make an excellent point about this kind of activity being a contradiction of law. I've tried to make this point several times in my blog. Those who under 18 cannot legally consent to sex, yet they are given condoms, and girls as young as 9 are given shots to prevent the kind of cervical cancer caused by sexually transmitted diseases. I don't get it. Then the same people who support these kinds of measures will scream bloody murder when adults have sex with 14 to 17 year old "children." They are either children or they are not. We as a society need to decide. We can't have it both ways.Hi Terry, Thank you. We are absolutely on the same page here.Where I live you can consent as early as 16. (This stops when the age of the mate is more that two years older)
The cervical cancer shots are for protection. Nobody expects these girls to have sex! But the shots will protect them when they get older. (Not to mention you can not have the shots after a certain age.) By the way, they really REALLY hurt!
"Then the same people who support these kinds of measures will scream bloody murder when adults have sex with 14 to 17 year old "children."
The difference here is this, If 15 year olds have sex with 15 year olds. How can you decide who initiated it and who's at fault. If they were both willing...you can't just blame the boy because he has the penis! If a 25 year old has sex with a 14 year old...the age difference is too great. One can consent, and the other (legally) can not. It's not having things both ways, it's letting equality equal out, and letting inbalances balance correctly.
Hi Mark. You make some very good points. The only thing I question is the use of the word "wisdom." I think that you could have left that out. "Dissemination of contraceptives usurps parental responsibility.It is the responsibility of schools to provide an education to our children through information that will ultimately provide them with the knowledge and wisdom they need to function in society."I don't believe that schools ever provide wisdom. I do believe that is still the parents' responsibility. But I do agree with every thing else that you have written. You have presented your arguments very well.DianneHi Diane, I understand your point. I was hoping that with the information schools provide to our children they (the children) would be able to use it (wisely). However, that is not always the case is it? I absolutely agree with you that schools do not provide wisdom.
I agree that schools should not hand out condoms, but for an entirely different reason. When I went to school, one of my enterprises was to sell "Trojans" to my class mates for a very significant profit. In those days they were kept behind the counter, and you had to get them from the pharmacist, who usually enjoyed torturing the would-be buyer with questions like small, medium or large. I just have to believe that someone has taken my place on campus, and handing out free rubbers would be a slap in the face to capitalism. My school went from 7th through 12th grade and I clearly remember purchasing condoms by the case (not box) as a 12 year old. Not once did the Pharmacist ever ask me why I was purchasing so many every couple of months, but I remember the strange looks I received. When I was 17 I showed up at the home of one of the Pharmacist that had served me several times, over the years, and for some strange reason he refused to allow me to take his daughter out for the evening. If we allow schools to hand out condoms, I see this as a giant step towards communism.
thank you this is really goin to help me on my speech, i think that is is wrong and that by suplying condons that you are telling kids hey it is ok to have sex and that promoting it.Thank youSmashleyYou are welcome, Ashley. Good luck on your debate!
Well I personally can't believe what I've just read. You think that taking contraceptives away from the students is going to help? If anything, it would simply make the situation worse! What you don't seem to realise is how different schools are now, compared to how they would have been however many years ago. A school now plays a far larger role that merely educating someone. You would be amazed just how many of these "kids" don't know the first thing about sex, drugs and the law. If the schools didn't educate them, then we WOULD be in trouble.
To be honest, whether the schools supply condoms or not, these people are going to be having sex. You can't blame the schools for it. If there was no mention of sex or contraceptives in schools, then the problem would be just as bad, if not worse. Whether schools teach their pupils about sex, and hand out condoms or not, these people are still going to have sex. You can't blame the schools for that. If anything, you want to blame the media.
In this day and age, its almost impossible to go about ones daily life without being exposed to sex in the media. Everything in the media, whether it be films, television, newspapers, the music industry or any number of other things, now revolves around, or is at least related to sex.
Social Ideologies have changed, and the dominant patriarch ideology now has a far more liberal view on sex. If I'm being honest, I'm glad schools are handing out free condoms. And how would I know? I'm currently 18, and I'm studying at a college where the age of students ranges from 14-18. And taking a look around, I must say I'm glad that the school provides this service.Hi Dan,Thank you for your comments.Mark
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.