Schools distributing condoms to students

1. When the consequences are as drastic as unintended pregnancy and STD transmission, I would certainly call 82% efficiency of improper condom use extremely ineffective, especially when seven in ten US adolescents have sex before age 19 [1] and with high frequency. Correlation between age/experience and improper use: "...data demonstrate that effectiveness increases with experience, leaving those adolescents with the least experience at greatest risk for improper use." [2] Inexperienced adolescents, hence, are more susceptible to improper use, which puts them at greater risk for the aforementioned serious ramifications.Schools programs do, in fact, misrepresent and exaggerate condom effectiveness. Some of the myths leaked through these programs are debunked in this source. [3] As a result of these hyperbolic facts, many adolescents develop a false sense of security in regards to their use of condoms during sex, despite the fact that they are more susceptible to misuse due to a lack of experience, as evidenced before. A study at St. Francisco's Balboa HS resulted in the publishing of the following excerpt: "The number of students having sex doubled [after the instatement of the condom distribution program]… The schools overall pregnancy rate increased by one fourth. With an increase in pregnancies, it can be assumed that there was a similar increase in student exposure to sexually transmitted diseases." [4] Some credible studies certainly support the claim that sexual activity increases because of condom distribution programs at schools. This seems to match with what one would logically expect; condom use is advertised and, through that, students receive the message that sexual activity is expected of them... or at least not unexpected of them. 2. "Schools with condom-access programs are in no way forcing any students to use or even accept condoms."Schools are certainly encouraging condom use to students through their sex education programs. The pork comparison is not appropriate in this situation. Schools are certainly not just displaying condoms on trays like pulled pork sandwiches in the lunch line; they are advocating condom use and are thereby implying that sexual activity is not unexpected of the adolescents... and that it is okay as long condoms are implemened.Condom distribution at schools does, in fact, interfere with parents' rights. Based on the ruling of the court case Alfonso v. Fernandez, voluntary condom distribution programs in schools interfere with the rights of parents to rear their children as they saw fit. [5] Parents have a fundamental right to rear their own children, and these programs took away from it, so parents should be given the right to opt their children out of it. 3. "[S]chools and faculty are generally not in 100% agreement with themselves..." The opposition makes an unclear argument. The decision to distribute condoms or to promote abstinence is almost always determined solely by faculty, whether it be superintendents, members of the school district committee, or other working members of the school community. "Schools," by definition, are places of learning and hence cannot "agree" with policies... or anything for that matter. The opposition is politely asked to clarify. The distribution of condoms does, indeed, increase sexual activity, as the provided source claims. [4]In Conclusion:The opponent's refutations have been countered. Through these counters, CON proves to be the superior stance on the issue, proving that condom distribution in schools is detrimental and must therefore cease, a claim that PRO has thus far failed to effectively falsify. Thank you, and I greatly look forward to PRO's retort. ---[1] http://www.guttmacher.org...[2] http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...[3] http://www.abstinenceworks.org...[4] International Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1991, 6-16.[5] http://www.ordination.org...