MA makes condoms available in High School.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Isn't it ironic how all (most?) of the people on this thread who are strongly morally against abortion oppose this clearly anti-abortion policy?

Indeed.

Of course not opt out. This seems like a really good deal. Buying maybe a few hundred dollars worth of condoms (generally the GOOD ones are about a dollar for one) would prevent many thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on all the problems unprotected underaged sex causes the taxpayer.  I guess we could do a spay or neuter program. I mean, that would be 100% effective. Right?

This is liberalism for you. The kids get condoms for the students without parental consent so if there is an allergic reaction to the condoms, then the kids suddenly become the parents' responsibility.

I  don't see how the parents somehow not knowing their kids are allergic to latex and not opting them out changes the discourse. Like I said, just like something on its seems reasonable to you doesn't mean it won't be for me. And vice-versa.

Let's say parents do opt their kids out. Their son still has plenty of buddies to get them from and he won't care if he's allergic because of social pressures when it comes to getting laid at that age. He'll use a condom without worrying about the consequences or won't use one at all. If the girl isn't willing without a condom, then he'll use one without thinking of the consequences.

How many kids would use condoms when they know they're allergic to them?  I don't think they're that dumb.

[barfbag]

Isn't it ironic how all (most?) of the people on this thread who are strongly morally against abortion oppose this clearly anti-abortion policy?

Indeed.

Of course not opt out. This seems like a really good deal. Buying maybe a few hundred dollars worth of condoms (generally the GOOD ones are about a dollar for one) would prevent many thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on all the problems unprotected underaged sex causes the taxpayer.  I guess we could do a spay or neuter program. I mean, that would be 100% effective. Right?

This is liberalism for you. The kids get condoms for the students without parental consent so if there is an allergic reaction to the condoms, then the kids suddenly become the parents' responsibility.

I  don't see how the parents somehow not knowing their kids are allergic to latex and not opting them out changes the discourse. Like I said, just like something on its seems reasonable to you doesn't mean it won't be for me. And vice-versa.

Let's say parents do opt their kids out. Their son still has plenty of buddies to get them from and he won't care if he's allergic because of social pressures when it comes to getting laid at that age. He'll use a condom without worrying about the consequences or won't use one at all. If the girl isn't willing without a condom, then he'll use one without thinking of the consequences.

How many kids would use condoms when they know they're allergic to them?  I don't think they're that dumb.

Kids would do anything to be cool.

[Person Man]

Isn't it ironic how all (most?) of the people on this thread who are strongly morally against abortion oppose this clearly anti-abortion policy?

Indeed.

Of course not opt out. This seems like a really good deal. Buying maybe a few hundred dollars worth of condoms (generally the GOOD ones are about a dollar for one) would prevent many thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on all the problems unprotected underaged sex causes the taxpayer.  I guess we could do a spay or neuter program. I mean, that would be 100% effective. Right?

This is liberalism for you. The kids get condoms for the students without parental consent so if there is an allergic reaction to the condoms, then the kids suddenly become the parents' responsibility.

I  don't see how the parents somehow not knowing their kids are allergic to latex and not opting them out changes the discourse. Like I said, just like something on its seems reasonable to you doesn't mean it won't be for me. And vice-versa.

Let's say parents do opt their kids out. Their son still has plenty of buddies to get them from and he won't care if he's allergic because of social pressures when it comes to getting laid at that age. He'll use a condom without worrying about the consequences or won't use one at all. If the girl isn't willing without a condom, then he'll use one without thinking of the consequences.

How many kids would use condoms when they know they're allergic to them?  I don't think they're that dumb.

Kids would do anything to be cool.

And how would this be a typical case and even these people eventually have sex.

[barfbag]

Isn't it ironic how all (most?) of the people on this thread who are strongly morally against abortion oppose this clearly anti-abortion policy?

Indeed.

Of course not opt out. This seems like a really good deal. Buying maybe a few hundred dollars worth of condoms (generally the GOOD ones are about a dollar for one) would prevent many thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on all the problems unprotected underaged sex causes the taxpayer.  I guess we could do a spay or neuter program. I mean, that would be 100% effective. Right?

This is liberalism for you. The kids get condoms for the students without parental consent so if there is an allergic reaction to the condoms, then the kids suddenly become the parents' responsibility.

I  don't see how the parents somehow not knowing their kids are allergic to latex and not opting them out changes the discourse. Like I said, just like something on its seems reasonable to you doesn't mean it won't be for me. And vice-versa.

Let's say parents do opt their kids out. Their son still has plenty of buddies to get them from and he won't care if he's allergic because of social pressures when it comes to getting laid at that age. He'll use a condom without worrying about the consequences or won't use one at all. If the girl isn't willing without a condom, then he'll use one without thinking of the consequences.

How many kids would use condoms when they know they're allergic to them?  I don't think they're that dumb.

Kids would do anything to be cool.

And how would this be a typical case and even these people eventually have sex.

Our tax dollars shouldn't be spent on condoms.

[Person Man]

Isn't it ironic how all (most?) of the people on this thread who are strongly morally against abortion oppose this clearly anti-abortion policy?

Indeed.

Of course not opt out. This seems like a really good deal. Buying maybe a few hundred dollars worth of condoms (generally the GOOD ones are about a dollar for one) would prevent many thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on all the problems unprotected underaged sex causes the taxpayer.  I guess we could do a spay or neuter program. I mean, that would be 100% effective. Right?

This is liberalism for you. The kids get condoms for the students without parental consent so if there is an allergic reaction to the condoms, then the kids suddenly become the parents' responsibility.

I  don't see how the parents somehow not knowing their kids are allergic to latex and not opting them out changes the discourse. Like I said, just like something on its seems reasonable to you doesn't mean it won't be for me. And vice-versa.

Let's say parents do opt their kids out. Their son still has plenty of buddies to get them from and he won't care if he's allergic because of social pressures when it comes to getting laid at that age. He'll use a condom without worrying about the consequences or won't use one at all. If the girl isn't willing without a condom, then he'll use one without thinking of the consequences.

How many kids would use condoms when they know they're allergic to them?  I don't think they're that dumb.

Kids would do anything to be cool.

And how would this be a typical case and even these people eventually have sex.

Our tax dollars shouldn't be spent on condoms.

You should have just said it in the beginning and people can vote to spend their tax dollars in ways they feel necessary and proper. The alternative is that if you choose where your tax dollars go, then you believe in converting all taxes to fees. At that point, you are a Libertarian or Constitutionian member, not a Republican.

[barfbag]

Isn't it ironic how all (most?) of the people on this thread who are strongly morally against abortion oppose this clearly anti-abortion policy?

Indeed.

Of course not opt out. This seems like a really good deal. Buying maybe a few hundred dollars worth of condoms (generally the GOOD ones are about a dollar for one) would prevent many thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on all the problems unprotected underaged sex causes the taxpayer.  I guess we could do a spay or neuter program. I mean, that would be 100% effective. Right?

This is liberalism for you. The kids get condoms for the students without parental consent so if there is an allergic reaction to the condoms, then the kids suddenly become the parents' responsibility.

I  don't see how the parents somehow not knowing their kids are allergic to latex and not opting them out changes the discourse. Like I said, just like something on its seems reasonable to you doesn't mean it won't be for me. And vice-versa.

Let's say parents do opt their kids out. Their son still has plenty of buddies to get them from and he won't care if he's allergic because of social pressures when it comes to getting laid at that age. He'll use a condom without worrying about the consequences or won't use one at all. If the girl isn't willing without a condom, then he'll use one without thinking of the consequences.

How many kids would use condoms when they know they're allergic to them?  I don't think they're that dumb.

Kids would do anything to be cool.

And how would this be a typical case and even these people eventually have sex.

Our tax dollars shouldn't be spent on condoms.

You should have just said it in the beginning and people can vote to spend their tax dollars in ways they feel necessary and proper. The alternative is that if you choose where your tax dollars go, then you believe in converting all taxes to fees. At that point, you are a Libertarian or Constitutionian member, not a Republican.

No I'm saying congress should decide not to spend our money on condoms.

[Person Man]

Isn't it ironic how all (most?) of the people on this thread who are strongly morally against abortion oppose this clearly anti-abortion policy?

Indeed.

Of course not opt out. This seems like a really good deal. Buying maybe a few hundred dollars worth of condoms (generally the GOOD ones are about a dollar for one) would prevent many thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on all the problems unprotected underaged sex causes the taxpayer.  I guess we could do a spay or neuter program. I mean, that would be 100% effective. Right?

This is liberalism for you. The kids get condoms for the students without parental consent so if there is an allergic reaction to the condoms, then the kids suddenly become the parents' responsibility.

I  don't see how the parents somehow not knowing their kids are allergic to latex and not opting them out changes the discourse. Like I said, just like something on its seems reasonable to you doesn't mean it won't be for me. And vice-versa.

Let's say parents do opt their kids out. Their son still has plenty of buddies to get them from and he won't care if he's allergic because of social pressures when it comes to getting laid at that age. He'll use a condom without worrying about the consequences or won't use one at all. If the girl isn't willing without a condom, then he'll use one without thinking of the consequences.

How many kids would use condoms when they know they're allergic to them?  I don't think they're that dumb.

Kids would do anything to be cool.

And how would this be a typical case and even these people eventually have sex.

Our tax dollars shouldn't be spent on condoms.

You should have just said it in the beginning and people can vote to spend their tax dollars in ways they feel necessary and proper. The alternative is that if you choose where your tax dollars go, then you believe in converting all taxes to fees. At that point, you are a Libertarian or Constitutionian member, not a Republican.

No I'm saying congress should decide not to spend our money on condoms.

This isn't congress. This is the State of Massachusetts.

[barfbag]

I'd still be against it. What's right for Massachusetts isn't right for the U.S. to quote Mitt Romney. I know it's just Massachusetts and it doesn't surprise me one bit.

[Redefeatbush04]

But I am morally opposed to the fact that the simplest things like condoms are now being handed out for free.

This sounds like a judgment handed down on the assumption that condoms encourage people to have sex, rather than reduce the societal cost of it.

No, I have no problems with sex, being a teenaged male of course . My problem is the fact that the condoms are free. I can pay for my own condoms, and so can everyone else.

I highly doubt a higher percentage of teens would be sexually active if condoms were available for free but I am certain that a higher percentage of sexually active teens would use condoms. Lets face it - teenagers are risk takers - guided by emotion and hormones moreso than logic. The promiscuity and riskiness can be greatly reduced through proper parenting, sex education, and the availability of condoms. Either they have received proper parenting and sex education or they haven't; either they will be sexually active or they won't. Arguably the biggest global challenge (and not just financially) is overpopulation.  We will all end up paying a lot more collectively if they have the kid, or have an abortion, than if we were to just allow them access to a latex-free rubber. The parents should convince their child to opt out of sex - perhaps remind them "herpes is forever" -  rather than denying them a safe means to do it. It IS all about parenting AND education.

[barfbag]

But I am morally opposed to the fact that the simplest things like condoms are now being handed out for free.

This sounds like a judgment handed down on the assumption that condoms encourage people to have sex, rather than reduce the societal cost of it.

No, I have no problems with sex, being a teenaged male of course . My problem is the fact that the condoms are free. I can pay for my own condoms, and so can everyone else.

I highly doubt a higher percentage of teens would be sexually active if condoms were available for free but I am certain that a higher percentage of sexually active teens would use condoms. Lets face it - teenagers are risk takers - guided by emotion and hormones moreso than logic. The promiscuity and riskiness can be greatly reduced through proper parenting, sex education, and the availability of condoms. Either they have received proper parenting and sex education or they haven't; either they will be sexually active or they won't. Arguably the biggest global challenge (and not just financially) is overpopulation.  We will all end up paying a lot more collectively if they have the kid, or have an abortion, than if we were to just allow them access to a latex-free rubber. The parents should convince their child to opt out of sex - perhaps remind them "herpes is forever" -  rather than denying them a safe means to do it. It IS all about parenting AND education.

I think I could be more appreciative of the opportunity if parents opted their kids into the program rather than having a program where parents opt their kids out of the option. Condoms and sex aren't as much school subjects as they are an experience. It might be hard, but if parents suck it up, talking to their kids about sex can be done. Families are better than schools at this subject.

[Redefeatbush04]

I feel like kids learn more about sex from each other than either parents or schools

[barfbag]

I feel like kids learn more about sex from each other than either parents or schools

Another point I agree with.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I would support this.