Abstinence-Only Education Gets a Boost
Article
I agree with the top comment made about this article (on the article):
I wish they had linked to the study so I could read it. If they taught how to have safe sex (as it sounded they might have, with the comment about not disparaging condom use), then the title of this article is misleading. Such an education would not be "abstinence-only," but rather "abstinence-centric."Abstinence-only education has been shown in past studies to actually lead to increased incidences of teen pregnancy and STD transmission. It has not at all been shown to reduce sexual activity among teens. If this study was on "abstinence-centric" education as opposed to "abstinence-only" education, then it is hardly a game changer.
Now that's out of the way:
No, they should provide the education, and the ability to acquire them, but they should have to buy them...even if it's at cost. The State should not use tax payers money, so they can fuck without repercussion, but they should help by providing easy access, and education, and affordability.
Yes. All states should do that. Think about how much more taxpayer money goes towards unplanned children and STD treatment. The cost of a few condoms would be much less compared to that. Am I wrong?
Probably so. But the part that gets me is, condoms aren't that expensive anyway. Who can't come up with $1.50 to buy a condom?
As Mayhem puts it,
For all the talk about the cost of the condoms, the point is getting the message across to use the damn things.
In a country where sexual repression is so prevalent, I think it's less about the $1.50 and more about going to the store and buying condoms - quite a potentially embarrassing thing in the good ol' US of A. My first gut reaction when I read the thread title was, 'I'm all for tax-paid contraception, but do they really need to mail it to them?' Thinking about it longer, I think that's probably more to the benefit than the free contraception itself - kids might actually use this service.
After all, one way or another, society pays for the unwanted children and the diseased. Prevention has always been cheaper than treatment. And flip it around - surely a state that as of 2011 was the 9th largest economy in the world[SUP]1[/SUP] can afford to pay for condoms. On the list of things the state spends money on, this is a pittance - and will save the state money in the long term.
I think the fuckers should have to pay for them, just like the rest of us.
Or, perhaps they should be free to everyone!
I agree with this sentiment, in that I think free condoms should be available to everyone. Seriously, insofar as I think a government should be providing any sort of goods like this, this is a damn fine use of money.
No you are not, but my thought was, if condoms are provided, and a condom breaks, or is faulty, then the State is opened to a law suite.
Sadly, this sort of thing is actually a problem. I'm sure there ways around, though.
[SUP]1[/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California
D). You have dinner. You go back to his place. But as things are getting heated and you ask him if he has protection, he says he doesn't have enough money to buy a condom until the next pay day.
