Schools: Teaching abstinence vs giving condoms.

[Vorguen]

By law your parents are responsible for you until you are 18. There is a reason why it is made this way and it is because teenagers are not responsible. They tend to make poor choices, and it is up to the parents to raise them and bring them up as they see fit. However, if schools are prying this much into students private lives, it leaves them with inconsistencies in their upbringing and can seriously mess with all the parents efforts to set their kids off in life properly.

 

[Wrath`]

By law your parents are responsible for you until you are 18. There is a reason why it is made this way and it is because teenagers are not responsible. They tend to make poor choices, and it is up to the parents to raise them and bring them up as they see fit. However, if schools are prying this much into students private lives, it leaves them with inconsistencies in their upbringing and can seriously mess with all the parents efforts to set their kids off in life properly.

Condums don't interfere with people's private lives, it's an object, but not a weapon. If you were taught well enough by your parents or your parents are caring, you should make correct desions on what to do with it. Me giving you a hamburger is not interfering with your private life if your parents dont want you eating beef. If they cared enough about you you would make the right choice.

 

[Narukari]

By law your parents are responsible for you until you are 18. There is a reason why it is made this way and it is because teenagers are not responsible. They tend to make poor choices, and it is up to the parents to raise them and bring them up as they see fit. However, if schools are prying this much into students private lives, it leaves them with inconsistencies in their upbringing and can seriously mess with all the parents efforts to set their kids off in life properly.

You're right, every parent is allowed to raise their children the way they want. That includes taking them out of a sex ed class or even taking them out of public schooling all together. A single parent does not dictate what the entire school curriculum is, nor can the entire school system be custom tailored for every individual student.

A parent is capable of getting involved in the school system. They can talk to their kids about what goes on in school, talk to the staff of the school, and go to the school board meetings where they discuss what the curriculum is for different classes. Parents have to take some initiative of their own. Raising a child does not happen automatically by the school system. The school might hand out condoms, but it is up to the parents to teach their children when the proper time to have sex is.

 

[Vorguen]

You're right, every parent is allowed to raise their children the way they want. That includes taking them out of a sex ed class or even taking them out of public schooling all together. A single parent does not dictate what the entire school curriculum is, nor can the entire school system be custom tailored for every individual student.

A parent is capable of getting involved in the school system. They can talk to their kids about what goes on in school, talk to the staff of the school, and go to the school board meetings where they discuss what the curriculum is for different classes. Parents have to take some initiative of their own. Raising a child does not happen automatically by the school system. The school might hand out condoms, but it is up to the parents to teach their children when the proper time to have sex is.

You are right, but these problems could be much more easily solved. You can either have the schools not hand out condoms and teach students where to find them themselves, or have the parents give permission for students to get condoms from the nurse (or any other more controlled method than handing them out in the halls).

 

[Narukari]

You are right, but these problems could be much more easily solved. You can either have the schools not hand out condoms and teach students where to find them themselves, or have the parents give permission for students to get condoms from the nurse (or any other more controlled method than handing them out in the halls).
Reply With Quote

In the halls?

I thought we were talking about in the classroom, teaching abstinence and/or handing out condoms. If they are handed out in class, that means it was part of the curriculum that had to be approved. Teachers can't just run wild in the classroom, they have to submit what they are going to do so that any problems can be taken care of beforehand. They are taken care of at meetings that parents are openly invited to.

How is it hard to have parents voice what they agree or disagree with. If enough parents voice their opinion to the school board then it will be looked into for that district. If none of the parents voice their opposition to it, then they must not care enough for it to matter.

There is no point in having a national law enforcing something like this. All that will happen are more problems like "no child left behind". Leave it to the individual districts and students parents to decide if it is a major problem.

 

[ArcPoint]

Anyone know about the law that it's illegal to have sex if you're under 16 or something? That's the age limit in California at least, I'm not sure how low/high the age limit goes for other states... can someone do some research on this? I'm not sure I'm looking in the right places.

 

[Vorguen]

In the halls?

I thought we were talking about in the classroom, teaching abstinence and/or handing out condoms. If they are handed out in class, that means it was part of the curriculum that had to be approved. Teachers can't just run wild in the classroom, they have to submit what they are going to do so that any problems can be taken care of beforehand. They are taken care of at meetings that parents are openly invited to.

How is it hard to have parents voice what they agree or disagree with. If enough parents voice their opinion to the school board then it will be looked into for that district. If none of the parents voice their opposition to it, then they must not care enough for it to matter.

There is no point in having a national law enforcing something like this. All that will happen are more problems like "no child left behind". Leave it to the individual districts and students parents to decide if it is a major problem.

Although my high school never handed out condoms period, I remember going to a tennis tournament to another local high school and seeing a stand in the hall when I went to the restroom. That originally shocked me quite a bit, and that is what started my original distaste for schools doing this. I understand that teachers have certain rules and guidelines that they need to follow but that is when parental consent comes into play, if condoms are going to be handed out in class or at the nurse's office.

Do you think all parents know they can make a difference in their school community? Many parents don't even have the time to visit these kinds of meetings.

 

[Narukari]

Although my high school never handed out condoms period, I remember going to a tennis tournament to another local high school and seeing a stand in the hall when I went to the restroom. That originally shocked me quite a bit, and that is what started my original distaste for schools doing this. I understand that teachers have certain rules and guidelines that they need to follow but that is when parental consent comes into play, if condoms are going to be handed out in class or at the nurse's office.

Do you think all parents know they can make a difference in their school community? Many parents don't even have the time to visit these kinds of meetings.

If a parent doesn't know by the time their kid is in high school that they are allowed to go to board meetings, then they already have payed very little attention to their children's education. This is also not the only way parents can voice their opinions. They can set up private meetings with just about any of the school staff including the principal and board members. It isn't hard to voice your opinion. Just because you personally don't think teens should have access to condoms at school doesn't mean that their parents think the same way. If they don't voice their opinion, they won't ever be heard.

If a parent cared this much about it, they could make time to set up a meeting with some of the school board members. If a school has been distributing out condoms for a year or longer, obviously not many of the parents believe it is a major problem.

 

[Vorguen]

I went to a private school, where parents have little say on what goes on with their children's education and school policies (unless you are a heavy donater) because the school gets it's "popularity" or good niche in the community for being the best college-preparatory high school in the city.

As for parents being able to make decisions (in other private or even public schools) there is still a problem. Wouldn't this whole issue be solved much faster if condoms were handed out strictly under individual parental consent only?

 

[Narukari]

How would that be faster? That would require laws to be passed. Why go through all that when lots of school policy is self governed by the community. If one community has a problem with it, they can protest it. If another community is fine with it, they can leave it as it is.

Why should we start taking power away from the school districts, just to please a few people who don't even live there?

 

[Vorguen]

I don't want to decide what school my children go to based on their policies on condom-distribution. I want them to get the best education. If all schools went by this policy I wouldn't have anything to worry about choosing a second-best school over these kinds of problems. Now, I am sure many parents feel the same way.

 

[Narukari]

The thing is you wouldn't though. If you had a problem you can go to the school board with it. If many other parents agree with you. They will stop giving out condoms in that district. If your the only one that feels that way, then nothing will probably get changed.

Should we start taking away everything in a school because a single parent doesn't like it?

Would your children go to private school right now, or public school?

edit: You are not forced to choose a school based on "condom distribution". If you believe that that one factor will outweigh any other factors of that school then it is your choice to do that. My parents are more afraid that the government will intervene more in school policy which takes away choices from the parents whose kids attend that school.

 

[Vorguen]

You have a very utilitarian view on this subject though, you believe that the opinion and desires of the many are outweighing the needs and opinions of the few. So what if someone lives in an area that is strongly liberal? This could be most places in California. Chances are you can be a parent living in an area where nobody agrees with you, and you are forced into placing your kids into a school with policies you are not comfortable with. In this situation, the parent would have no effect on the outcome of the policy, just like a democratic vote in Texas has no outcome to the result in a presidential election.

 

[Narukari]

The problem is that if we have to respect the view of every individual on a single subject, then we have to respect them on every area of education. This would just make the whole school system stop functioning. Just one parent would have to walk in and say they don't find Shakespeare appropriate reading to shut down the entire English course at the highschool. When they ban Shakespeare from the English course, what about the 500+ sets of parents who do want it in the course. Are their opinions null because one parent doesn't like it? What about the parents who want the school to have available condoms for when children?

Utilitarian view? How does avoiding a system in which a single persons beliefs are forced upon the whole community have anything to do with having a utilitarian view?

edit: If we want to use the presidential election as an example, how would we ever have a president if the only way to become president is to have the vote of every single district?

 

[Vorguen]

It took one atheist parent to take God out of the pledge of allegiance and prayer out of public school. Why can't one parent change a policy simply to being based on "parental consent"?

 

[Narukari]

Separation of church and state is part of the constitution, not up to school discretion.

Did any of this actually happen on a national scale? Are you talking about forced prayer and not all prayer? I can see a district dealing with these things, but I don't think it's national policy yet.

In my high school we say the pledge every day, and nobody polices the halls saying I'm not allowed to pray.

This is an entirely separate situation than dealing with condoms. The reasoning behind getting rid of forced prayer and forcing kids to say "under god" in the pledge, is that there is a law requiring the separation between church and state. The law will always come before personal preference in schools.

If it was deemed illegal for anybody under 18 to touch a condom, then it would only take one parent to get them removed from school grounds, but that isn't the case. Condoms are just a safety tool, and it will take way more than just one teens parents to change school policy.

edit: More info on the pledge of allegiance.

In 2002, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, he challenged the pledge of allegiance being taught to his daughter in public school. It was thrown out of the supreme court because he wasn't the custodial parent.

In 2006, Frazier v. Alexandre, a 1942 law requiring that students to stand and recite the pledge of allegiance was deemed unconstitutional based on the first and fourteenth amendments.

Document of the Frazier v. Alexandre case

 

[Vorguen]

Right, but schools are not forcing students to pray. Schools are not allowed to talk about religion in anyway, even educational.

I know precisely what condoms are but they are used for something which parents are not always comfortable with their kids doing. Teenagers have been known to do many irresponsible things and having condoms can encourage them to do more.

Condoms don't need to be handed out at high schools period. If they are handing out condoms then I want them to hand out weapons for self defence.

Schools are educational institutions not distributional instutitions. This is just proof of how much schools are meddling in the affairs of their students.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

I know precisely what condoms are but they are used for something which parents are not always comfortable with their kids doing. Teenagers have been known to do many irresponsible things and having condoms can encourage them to do more.

Condoms do not necessarily encourage them to have sex. It's very easy to obtain condoms from your local CVS or any other drug store. Hell, you can get em at a gas station if you need them in a pinch. It doesn't encourage anything more than being safe if you are going to do it. If you're going to be stupid, be on the safe side of stupid.

Condoms don't need to be handed out at high schools period. If they are handing out condoms then I want them to hand out weapons for self defence.

I agree with this statement, but that logic doesn't make any sense. Like I said before, handing out condoms doesn't encourage anything because of their attainability. Guns, on the other hand, are not.

Schools are educational institutions not distributional instutitions. This is just proof of how much schools are meddling in the affairs of their students.

All the schools are doing is trying to protect their students from unforseen circumstances such as pregnancy, STDS. You will never stop every teenager from having sex. It is more productive to give them the means to be safe then to try to keep everyone abstinent.

 

[Narukari]

Right, but schools are not forcing students to pray. Schools are not allowed to talk about religion in anyway, even educational.

Schools ARE allowed to talk about religion. Teachers aren't allowed to reinforce their beliefs in the classroom though. It is common for a history class to cover the religious aspects of old wars, or covering world cultures. And schools can always set up a bible study that the students can attend if they want. It just can't be forced.

I know precisely what condoms are but they are used for something which parents are not always comfortable with their kids doing. Teenagers have been known to do many irresponsible things and having condoms can encourage them to do more.

Having a condom does not encourage having sex. I doubt any teenagers go "Lets have sex, but it's too much of a hassle to get a condom so lets not do it. They will have sex, and possibly try the infamous "pulling out".

Condoms don't need to be handed out at high schools period. If they are handing out condoms then I want them to hand out weapons for self defence.

Of course they don't need to hand them out, but I believe the decision should be made my the parents in the community along with the local school board, not by law to force the decision one way or the other for all schools.

It is illegal for students to carry weapons on school grounds, therefore it isn't up to school policy to make this decision.

Schools are educational institutions not distributional instutitions. This is just proof of how much schools are meddling in the affairs of their students.

I don't even understand how this is supposed to make sense. Schools distribute many things, not just condoms. We've had the forest service come in and give young trees to students to plant in their backyard. Is this also wrong?

Schools are a major part of a students affairs. They aren't separate. There is no way to teach a student without influencing them. The point of knowledge is to be able to apply it to the real word. Just having knowledge will change the way a child grows up. Shouldn't the parents decide the exact school regiment that they want for their child and a school could never teach them anything else? What if a parent decides they don't want their child to have any sort of education at all. Shouldn't that also be the parents decision.

 

[Wrath`]

Right, but schools are not forcing students to pray. Schools are not allowed to talk about religion in anyway, even educational.

I know precisely what condoms are but they are used for something which parents are not always comfortable with their kids doing. Teenagers have been known to do many irresponsible things and having condoms can encourage them to do more.

I'd like to see proof on how it is encouraged more kids to have sex. You keep saying it yet you have yet to back it up with something factual, I don't think there is any scientific study saying condums lead to sex.

Condoms don't need to be handed out at high schools period. If they are handing out condoms then I want them to hand out weapons for self defence.

In a self defence class you get weapons, your body, most self defence classes utilize your body, so there you go you have weapons and the skill to protect your self if you take the class, and if you take health you should have the skills and tools also defende yourself against some STD's (aka condums)

 

[Vorguen]

Condoms do not necessarily encourage them to have sex. It's very easy to obtain condoms from your local CVS or any other drug store. Hell, you can get em at a gas station if you need them in a pinch. It doesn't encourage anything more than being safe if you are going to do it. If you're going to be stupid, be on the safe side of stupid.



I agree with this statement, but that logic doesn't make any sense. Like I said before, handing out condoms doesn't encourage anything because of their attainability. Guns, on the other hand, are not.



All the schools are doing is trying to protect their students from unforseen circumstances such as pregnancy, STDS. You will never stop every teenager from having sex. It is more productive to give them the means to be safe then to try to keep everyone abstinent.

What you are telling me is that condoms are very easy to obtain. If they are, then schools don't need to be handing them out. It's not their job to protect the students. That is the job of the respective students parents. If they are so readily available then all the school needs to do is teach students how to find them, because that is what schools do, they teach.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

Like I said, I agree that schools don't need to be handing them out. You can protect kids with just the knowledge that if you are going to have sex, be safe.

 

[Aorist]

Abstinence-only sexual education is really not as effective as handing out condoms.

a study ordered by Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex in their teenage years as those who did not

So people are just as likely to have sex with or without abstinence classes. They might as well be safe doing it.

As has been said, giving out condoms isn't going to magically increase the amount of sex. People aren't going to be not having sex just because they don't have a condom.

I'm not even sure the parents should get a say in whether they're given out. The parents certainly aren't going to be able to stop teenagers having sex, and are likely to be ill-informed about the statistics. The best parents should do is encourage their children not to have sex.

Condoms, while they aren't practically difficult to get, still are a scary thing to get. If teenagers have a choice between, say, the pulling out method or the like, and using their own money, walking into a store and openly showing to other people that they plan on having sex, what do you think they'd do?

 

[Narukari]

I'm not even sure the parents should get a say in whether they're given out. The parents certainly aren't going to be able to stop teenagers having sex, and are likely to be ill-informed about the statistics. The best parents should do is encourage their children not to have sex.

The problem is that this is the other extreme. There are very conservative communities where this would appall almost every teens parents. They should have a choice to go to the school board with a petition to remove the condoms from the school district.(This wouldn't guarantee them getting removed, but parents have a huge voice in school districts) Like before, if the government can mandate that condoms are allowed in school, that starts closing doors in how much communities have control over their own children.

Condoms, while they aren't practically difficult to get, still are a scary thing to get. If teenagers have a choice between, say, the pulling out method or the like, and using their own money, walking into a store and openly showing to other people that they plan on having sex, what do you think they'd do?

This is the perfect reason why condoms are becoming available in schools now. Especially in small communities, you can't just walk into a drug store and buy condoms over the counter. It's very likely that the person who you're buying them from know your parents personally.

 

[Aorist]

Yeah, I'm not advocating complete removal of control from the parents. But there are things that shouldn't be up to the parents - things like corporal punishment, creationism v evolution in science, and this. It is a slippery slope, though, and we should be careful.

 

[CT Chia]

Why should schools be the teacher of problems dealing with sex with younger individuals? I feel this is a responsibility of the parent, not of the school.

 

[Vorguen]

That has been my argument since the beggining. Schools are not supposed to be tackling problems for their students that their parents are supposed to be doing already. If anything, all they should be doing is educating students about the problem and about possible solutions, no more.

 

[Aorist]

But how are you meant to distinguish things that a parent ought to teach and things that the school ought to teach?

Maybe parents should be responsible for teaching me maths? Science? Ways of analysing Wuthering Heights? How to play badminton?

No. The reason parents aren't informing us of these things is that they generally haven't any expertise in the area. Even if your parents are professional badminton players/mathematicians/scientists/literary critics, that doesn't mean that everyone at school is. The same goes for sex education. I mean, while everyone knows Tab A goes into Slot B, can you guarantee that your parents know that the pulling out method is flawed? Or the correct way to use a condom?

Furthermore, parents are likely to exhibit bias. A Catholic parent may skip over condom use. Education is necessary to make sure everyone is at the same level of knowledge.

 

[ArcPoint]

That's wonderful, education IS supposed to make sure they're at the same knowledge. But that's not the thing in question, the thing in question is the schools going BEYOND education, and actually GIVING them the means necessary to have safe sex under the premise that "they're going to do it anyway." Which is an absolutely absurd line of thinking. That's like offering required dumpster diving courses since you can't stop people from being homeless.

 

[Aorist]

No, an equivalent analogy would be giving them dumpster-specific haz-mat suits, so that if they do take it up, they'll be safe.

Without the condoms, students would probably be just as likely to have sex - I'm having trouble envisaging a student going "Oh well, I've got no condom, better not have sex, then". All sources I have looked through on this topic are inconclusive, though.

However, as per the topic that we are debating, a study ordered by Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex in their teenage years as those who did not. The study can be found at http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf

All that handing out condoms would do is increase the number of people that have sex safely. Even if the number of people having sex increases, the extra people will at least be having sex safely.

 

[Vorguen]

Why should schools be deciding this however? Parents are the ones responsible for their child's safety, not the school.

To expand on that, schools don't hold a child's hand when crossing the street, they teach him to look both ways. It's the parents who hold the childs hand because they are the ones responsible for their safety and the schools responsible for their education.

 

[Cheapless Jared]

Why should schools be deciding this however? Parents are the ones responsible for their child's safety, not the school.

I agree with the highest degree, the school board is not responsible to teach me(besides laws), what I can and cannot do in my perosnal life. My parents are, because the school did not give birth to me.

 

[Maniclysane]

I agree with the highest degree, the school board is not responsible to teach me(besides laws), what I can and cannot do in my perosnal life. My parents are, because the school did not give birth to me.

They're not teaching you anything. They're giving you condoms.

EDIT: I don't know if this is a cheap shot or anything, but I just saw this in another thread in the Temp Debate hall, one or two down from this one.

I agree, but you can't make anyone do anything. Nothing schools really produce is that persuading.

Would a condom convince anyone to have sex?

 

[Cheapless Jared]

Would a condom convince anyone to have sex?

no. That is, if they wanna not take risks, it might.

 

[Maniclysane]

Would battery's make me buy a gameboy? These posts make no sense.

If you don't plan on having sex, you don't get a condom. If you want to have sex, you get a condom. There's not "I have a condom, might as well have sex."

If you don't plan on getting a gameboy, you don't get batteries. If you want play gameboy, you get batteries. There's not "I have batteries, might as well get a gameboy."

 

[Cheapless Jared]

Would battery's make me buy a gameboy? These posts make no sense.

If you don't plan on having sex, you don't get a condom. If you want to have sex, you get a condom. There's not "I have a condom, might as well have sex."

If you don't plan on getting a gameboy, you don't get batteries. If you want play gameboy, you get batteries. There's not "I have batteries, might as well get a gameboy."

Point taken. I mean, if I have a splinter, I'm not gonna build a house with it.

 

[Narukari]

Why should schools be deciding this however? Parents are the ones responsible for their child's safety, not the school.

To expand on that, schools don't hold a child's hand when crossing the street, they teach him to look both ways. It's the parents who hold the childs hand because they are the ones responsible for their safety and the schools responsible for their education.

Um, what? Our school has people in orange vests that lead all the children across the street. This, once again, is decided by the school board based on funding. They aren't forced by the government to do one thing or the other so they can decide for themselves if paying a person to help children cross the street is feasable.

It is the job of the school to keep children safe.

 

[Vorguen]

No it is the job of the parents to keep their children safe. They can then push the school to enact certain safety measures to further help out the students in their safety. So if they want to do that as well with condoms, they can sign a permission slip. All problems are solved, the school can hand out condoms on a permission basis now.

 

[Aorist]

I agree with the highest degree, the school board is not responsible to teach me(besides laws), what I can and cannot do in my perosnal life. My parents are, because the school did not give birth to me.

Yeah, the fact that parents gave birth to you doesn't mean that they have the ability to teach their children properly. To put it bluntly, all parents need to have children are working sexual organs. Parents can be woeful teachers or world-class.

Teachers are taught how to teach. They know how to - they've had practice. Surely it is a better situation to have the informed teach the uninformed than the uninformed teach the uninformed.

Ideally, parents should be the ones teaching their children how to do everything. Thing is, you can't guarantee it.

 

[Vorguen]

What are you trying to point out? When have I ever said that parents should be teaching anything for the matter? If you read carefully, I stated that parents are responsible for their child's safety and it is not up to the schools to meddle in how a parent should protect and raise their child. It is up to a school to simply educate them. Yes, educate them, or like you put it, "the informed informing the uninformed."