The kids that I know(including myself) that weren't having sex at that age were doing it for 3 reasons. They were doing it because of their values and their family's values. The other reason was because no matter how much they tried they weren't successful. Not one of them that I knew or ever heard abstained from sex because the school believed it was wrong. So even if(for the sake of argument only) offering birth control was the same as the school saying it's OK to have sex, I can't imagine tons of kids changing their ways and agreeing to have sex. I believe the reason people abstain is because of their values, their family's values, or lack of opportunity. It isn't because of the position the school takes.
Why don't we just tell kids they can have sex in between classes and have private rooms for them at school? This way they can have sex in a safe environment....
Sorry I'm gettig in to this late. Although I'm not thrilled with the idea of kids getting condoms at a middle school, I realize it will happen, so I will just educate my child. Birth control pills, however? Absolutely not. There is no good reason to give middle school girls the pill.
Wait a minute. A couple of things: 1. These are prescription medications. A parent, not the school, has the responsibility for that child's health care until they reach the age of majority. I have a huge problem with doling out prescription medications without parental knowledge. If this were a program about condoms, I would feel differently. 2. Birth control pills are not without their risks. The risks include allergic reactions, blood clots, and other cardio vascular issues. If you give these out without parental knowledge, and the child has an untoward reaction, the parent cannot give vital information about medications the child is taking. 3. Did they invent a birth control pill that protects about STDs while I wasn't paying attention?
In your opinion. But, just like global warming, this is one that it would be a real b**** to be wrong about.
To all those who made the analogies (or those who agreed with those analogies) about handing out heroin/alcohol, please realize one thing: those apologies would be true if the schools were arranging for sexual partners and/or paying for hotels. In this case a more appropriate analogy would be anonymous drug/alcohol treatment. As a parent, would you be upset if these schools had anonymous programs for sober drives home? What about programs where the schools would arrange for drives home but the parents would have to be contacted first?
Nope. Again, while not thrilled, condoms are ok. Birth control pills aren't. Anyone who argues this isn't paying attention to their own points on the subject.
As I'm about to head out, I'm happy we can agree on something. You're a good dude. I'm more outspoken outside than here. Much as I disagree with you, as long as you portray it outside this forum, you have my respect. But we will still do a verbal throwdown next time you're here. 5 on 1 ain't fun here. One on one? I love debating.
If birth control gets you laid, how come they don't sell any in sephora or victoria's secrets? Anyway, I think many of you would change your mind if this was applied to lower class school with kids who didn't know anything about sexual education. These are kids 12-15 getting pregnant because they don't know anything about protection. We aren't talking about your spoiled middle to upper class kids in nice schools who actually have two parents who can help them make decisions. Your kids are going to get laid on prom night, if not college or later like the rest of the wealthy people in this country. If you want to talk in economic terms, if lower class teenagers with no income started using birth control, there would be less abortions, less money spent on the kids and mothers, and a higher chance that these teenagers will get a decent education and actually add instead of subtract from the country's economy. Any economic conservative against that is not an economic conservative.
No...I still feel the same way. I still feel that handing out a prescription medication to children without their parents' knowledge is a bad idea. This is especially true for lower income children who would have less access to quality health care options should there be an untoward reaction to the medication.
Story update: There has been an unexpected surge in kids asking for the condoms, when the kids realized you can make some pretty cool balloons by blowing in them.
It seems that many of the responsible kids who weren't having sex may have made that decision because of the unavailability of birth control and that giving them this option will make them sexually active. Anyone who doubts this is naive. It also seems to me that the people who were already sexually active aren't the most responsible of kids and are unlikely to use their birth control regularly. Anyone who says this will not have a net positive effect on the number of kids having sex is being naive. It seems that many of you are forgetting that we're talking about kids, not adults. You're not approaching the issue from the point of view of a young child. That being said, if it's going to happen anyway, offering condoms is much more acceptable than providing prescription medication to young girls.
But studies show differently. The more there is availability of birth control the more there is a reduction in unwanted pregnancy. I honestly don't think there kids are solely not having sex on a regular basis because they can't get birth control. That may be true of of the odd encounter, but if they wanted to have it and had the opportunity to have, the they would find a way to get birth control one way or the other. A young emerging sex drive isn't going to let something like that stop them. IF they are responsible enough they will find a way to get the birth control. Again I don't like the idea of giving out prescription birth control without parent involvement. But if that it is either that or no birth control program at all, I still prefer that.
Also nothing wrong with making decisions based on the fact that you simply don't hand out prescription medicines to a child without their parent's consent or their doctor's care. That is not based on feelings. It's based on this thing called logic and sound medical decision making.
How will you view the situation when the child has a bad reaction to the medication that her parents do not know she is taking, and at the hospital, she does not want to admit to taking it...and a bad medical outcome ensues? It is just lunacy at its finest.
I would hope that she would still need a prescription even if the parents don't know. I would think that would require a doc's examination, etc. I would hope that would include going over risks and actions to take in case of trouble. I really don't know. I know there are bad sad effects that can happen, but I have no idea the likelihood of those, or anything like that.
