free condoms for 12 year olds

[davekc]

You said it ...responsibility... protect your self ....and why you think years ago was better...nobody talked about it...you were shamed...nothing has changed just that we talk and are more open these days..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

Not exactly. Today we want it to be someone else's problem other than our own. Shame can be a wonderful thing. Today some would glorify the Kardashians.
I'm even ok with that, I just don't want to pay or be bothered for someone else's irresponsibility. Yet....some actually demand it.

 

[cheri1122]

Oh I don't know. I kinda lean towards the parental and personal responsibilty.
While were passing out condoms and giving high fives, should we throw a fifth of whiskey in as well while they are driving around looking for a "spot"? If kids are going to have sex, you know they are going to drink.

Don't mistake the pragmatic approach for approval - I don't believe teens should have sex. And I certainly agree that it's the parents' job to teach them why they should wait till they're more mature.
What I'm saying is that the rate of teen pregnancies & STDs says that parents are failing to do their job, and that means someone else has to do it. Teenage parents and rampant communicable disease is not something we can afford to ignore, because it will cost us [society] more, in the long run.
While we work towards what we would like to have, we need to deal with what we actually have, is my opinion.
You're probably correct in that there wasn't as much teenage pregnancy decades ago, because cultural attitudes change over time. I think acknowledging it and trying to prevent it is a better approach than ignoring it, then pretending the teen is off to visit an aunt in another state for a year while she delivers the baby in secrecy [and shame].

 

[davekc]

Don't mistake the pragmatic approach for approval - I don't believe teens should have sex. And I certainly agree that it's the parents' job to teach them why they should wait till they're more mature.
What I'm saying is that the rate of teen pregnancies & STDs says that parents are failing to do their job, and that means someone else has to do it. Teenage parents and rampant communicable disease is not something we can afford to ignore, because it will cost us [society] more, in the long run.
While we work towards what we would like to have, we need to deal with what we actually have, is my opinion.
You're probably correct in that there wasn't as much teenage pregnancy decades ago, because cultural attitudes change over time. I think acknowledging it and trying to prevent it is a better approach than ignoring it, then pretending the teen is off to visit an aunt in another state for a year while she delivers the baby in secrecy [and shame].

I do agree cultural changes have played in to it. As welfare and government programs expanded, it became "profitable" to increase the family size for many.
I don't think we should ignore it either as the problem is currently here. Accountability for parents and the children involved will slow it down.
If the kid is shamed from the parents because they now have to support another kid, well....too bad. Sometimes life can be tough if bad choices are made.

 

[Turtle]

I think it's pretty clear that these "large groups" aren't forcing condoms on anyone. So the objection to free condoms must be for some other reason. In any case, a lack of availability of condoms isn't going to cause teens to not have sex, any more than free, easily available condoms is going to encourage them to have sex. Kids are going to have sex regardless... the only question becomes... which manner would you prefer kids have sex - with condoms or without condoms?

 

[cheri1122]

It just amazes me how some 'myths' just never die. If poor women ever had babies for the welfare payments, that practice has long since been stopped by the states who actually decide how much money a welfare benefit will be.
Because states have tightened the eligibility rules, and clamped down on long term misuse of the welfare system, out of necessity. Most states couldn't afford to be generous even if they wanted to - which they definitely do not.
The problem with demanding accountability from parents & teens is that some parents won't be accountable and the teens just can't - so what do we do about those babies & children?
This is why 'pro lifers' are seen as hypocrites: they care about the unborn, but the actual born are on their own. If their parents [or what passes for them] are lousy, tough luck, kid, it's not our problem.

 

[cheri1122]

"It takes a village" sure resonated with some people. It's good to see that at least some still recognize that it isn't "society's" or "the village's" job to do the parent's job.

Knock off the snark - I raised my daughters, not the village or society, and I did a damgood job of it, thank you.
It is a parent's job, but when the parent fails to do it, a civilized society does not allow the innocent babies [the ones you're so concerned about, when they haven't been born yet] or the children to suffer for it.
If you believe it's 'every man for himself', I hope you never get sick and blow through every penny you've saved, because then you might need some help yourself, and people might feel like you do now: you're on your own, joan.

 

[xiggi]

Like religions handing out bibles to my child without my consent..religions thinking its in my child's best interest to pray @ school...
Nobody is forcing anyone to sign up for these free by mail condoms...if my son signed up for this...I would be so proud that my son is being smart enough to protect himself...because its going to happen...just be prepared...sex is in our DNA...is going to happen...pretending all these kids our not messing around is down right stupid...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

Please point out were i even suggested kids are not messing around. So now its ok to offer my kid free condoms but its not ok to offer yours a bible? Of course when one lacks arguments they start the name calling as normal.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[xiggi]

I think it's pretty clear that these "large groups" aren't forcing condoms on anyone. So the objection to free condoms must be for some other reason. In any case, a lack of availability of condoms isn't going to cause teens to not have sex, any more than free, easily available condoms is going to encourage them to have sex. Kids are going to have sex regardless... the only question becomes... which manner would you prefer kids have sex - with condoms or without condoms?

Right no way any kid will have protection unless they are given free without the parents consent.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[Turtle]

Right no way any kid will have protection unless they are given free without the parents consent.

What if the kids go and buy condoms without the parent's consent? What's the difference?

 

[Turtle]

The problem with demanding accountability from parents & teens is that some parents won't be accountable and the teens just can't - so what do we do about those babies & children?

"We" don't do anything. You can, if you want. I'll do what I want.

It is a parent's job, but when the parent fails to do it, a civilized society does not allow the innocent babies [the ones you're so concerned about, when they haven't been born yet] or the children to suffer for it.

You're confusing "civilized" and "Utopian." While civilized people do indeed have compassion for others, their hearts suffering the pain of what is hidden to the naked eye, they also don't play on people's heartstrings to provoke sympathy and guilt.

 

[asjssl]

Not exactly. Today we want it to be someone else's problem other than our own. Shame can be a wonderful thing. Today some would glorify the Kardashians.
I'm even ok with that, I just don't want to pay or be bothered for someone else's irresponsibility. Yet....some actually demand it.

Correct....what better reason to hand condoms out like candy!!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Jumbuck]

I think we are all getting jerked-off for nothing. (no Pun intended). I think you could give condoms out to teenagers by the case and 90% of them "ain't gonna use them!" Especially 12 year olds. I mean the size alone is a road block. I mean how many 12 year old boys have the right size "equipment" to fit in a full size condom? Do they come in (again, no pun intended) small, medium and large? As much as I disagree with 12 year olds having sex, I do think it is way better to give them a condom instead of them giving YOU an un-wanted child! Just MHO.

 

[LDB]

One problem is that the village people giving out condoms are the same village people who are so against responsibility and shame. Their villages aren't supposed to have any of those depressing things, especially geared toward children. That's why they won't even allow red ink to be used when grading school papers. As much as some want to ignore it or deny it things were better in the old days when responsibility and shame were attached to the children and the parents.

 

[Dreamer]

The reality is condoms help prevent disease, ec..but what we're really doing is putting a stamp of approval on 'no consequences' sex.


Funny how it's now thought of as prudish, but when I was young, I was taught (not just by church people) to wait...I was taught about making it special. Waiting showed you respected the girl. I suppose it's old fashioned now, but I wonder if anyone even talks to young people today about abstinence. All I see is, 'well, they're gonna do it anyway'...... how about we teach them to keep it special, not just part of dating.



Dale

Sent from my SPH-D700 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[davekc]

It just amazes me how some 'myths' just never die. If poor women ever had babies for the welfare payments, that practice has long since been stopped by the states who actually decide how much money a welfare benefit will be.
Because states have tightened the eligibility rules, and clamped down on long term misuse of the welfare system, out of necessity. Most states couldn't afford to be generous even if they wanted to - which they definitely do not.
The problem with demanding accountability from parents & teens is that some parents won't be accountable and the teens just can't - so what do we do about those babies & children?
This is why 'pro lifers' are seen as hypocrites: they care about the unborn, but the actual born are on their own. If their parents [or what passes for them] are lousy, tough luck, kid, it's not our problem.

No real myth when you look at the numbers. Today you have more people than ever before on welfare. The average payout per person is the highest it has ever been. Many charts and links with some here on EO.
And that isn't counting all the other benefits like free or subsidized housing, phones, cable, free medical, free or subsidized utilities and the list goes on. Having many kids is still profitable for many. They even have a government website that guides people through getting as many benifits as they can. That doesn't mean you don't help people but lets not fool ourselves as to what all these government programs really are.

 

[davekc]

The reality is condoms help prevent disease, ec..but what we're really doing is putting a stamp of approval on 'no consequences' sex.


Funny how it's now thought of as prudish, but when I was young, I was taught (not just by church people) to wait...I was taught about making it special. Waiting showed you respected the girl. I suppose it's old fashioned now, but I wonder if anyone even talks to young people today about abstinence. All I see is, 'well, they're gonna do it anyway'...... how about we teach them to keep it special, not just part of dating.



Dale

Sent from my SPH-D700 using EO Forums mobile app

abstinence? You can't say that. It isn't politically correct. That would mean refraining from something and that is not right.

 

[LDB]

Anyone that doesn't think some of the people are cranking out babies one after the other for more benefits isn't thinking. If my dad were still alive I could get a list and it wouldn't be a short list. It's way too easy to get and keep and there's way too little shame and stigma and responsibility attached. Hell, we even call them entitlements now so the village people can feel good about giving them and supporting them and receiving them.

 

[asjssl]

No real myth when you look at the numbers. Today you have more people than ever before on welfare. The average payout per person is the highest it has ever been. Many charts and links with some here on EO.
And that isn't counting all the other benefits like free or subsidized housing, phones, cable, free medical, free or subsidized utilities and the list goes on. Having many kids is still profitable for many. They even have a government website that guides people through getting as many benifits as they can. That doesn't mean you don't help people but lets not fool ourselves as to what all these government programs really are.

You do have a pojnt...but What about the increase in population..it will naturally increase everything else...crime...birth rate....welfare recipients...just a lot more people than 30 years ago..



Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Turtle]

You do have a pojnt...but What about the increase in population..it will naturally increase everything else...crime...birth rate....welfare recipients...just a lot more people than 30 years ago..

Well, no, it doesn't naturally increase everything else. It may increase raw numbers of things like crime, welfare recipients, and births, but it won't increase the crime rates or the birth rates, for example, nor will it increase the percentage of the population on welfare. Crime rates and birth rates are per 100,000 population, not total raw numbers. That's why it's called a rate.

The problem is not more people therefore ergo thus there are more people receiving welfare, but substantially higher percentages of the population who are receiving it. And they are percentages that could not occur just from statistical error or from normal variations.

For example, in 2000 there were 17 million people on Food Stamps. Today it's 47.2 million. That's a jump of 278 percent. The population didn't increase by anywhere near that amount in twelve years. In the four years between 2006 and 2010, federal housing assistance increased by an insane 42 percent. And it wasn't because 42 additional percent of people were out of work, it's because the federal government expanded the rules of eligibility, and people got in line to gots to gets me some a dat. Why work your butt off when you can sit back and live on the federal dole?

In 1965 just 1.7 percent of Americans were on welfare (of some kind). In 1990 it was 5.2 percent. Today, it's 1-in-5, or 20 percent. That's 1.7 to 20 percent in one generation.

Since January of 2009 welfare spending has increased by 41 percent. No amount of new babies or unemployment can account for that. What does account for it, however, is an increased number of welfare programs (11 different welfare programs in 1966, 63 in 2004, 128 in 1012), and widening the criteria for who is eligible to receive it.

It's all in the name of fighting poverty.

In 1965 the national poverty level was 14.7 percent. The following year LBJ declared war of poverty, and since then an absolutely insane amount of money has been spent to reduce poverty. How well does throwing money at the problem work to reduce poverty, you may ask? What's the poverty level today? 15.1 percent. <saaaa-nort>

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Do that day after day and before long he thinks your fish are his fish.

 

[davekc]

Turtle has precisely the right answer. And depending on what happens with immigration, those welfare numbers have a bunch more wanting to be added. We are even running commercials and billboards in Mexico to promote it.
But back to my original point. There are no myths if you take out the emotion and just look at the facts and numbers. As Turtle posted, throwing big money at poverty has got us more poverty.