Schools distributing condoms to students

REFUTATIONS 1: Con attempts to degrade the value of using a condom by hyperbolically deeming it “extremely ineffective”, while even when used improperly, condoms have an 82% chance of preventing unwanted pregnancies. Notice how the fact that when utilized properly, the chances of preventing an unwanted pregnancy spikes to a startling 98%. [1] Con provides no studies or sources indicating any sort of correlation between age and the improper implementation of condoms, thereby rendering this point speculative and consequently, moot. Con states that the availability of condoms lulls teenagers into a false sense of security regarding intercourse due to the apparent exaggeration of condom effectiveness. In order for this point to hold any weight, Con must provide evidence that a majority of schools misrepresent said effectiveness; otherwise this is again, speculative. Furthermore, the misrepresentation (if it existed) does nothing to damage the fact that making condoms readily available can in no way increase the risks of sex as it in fact, accomplishes the exact opposite. “A recent study conducted in Philadelphia high schools found that school-based condom programs do not encourage sexual activity. Philadelphia high schools have made condoms available through a comprehensive school-based health resource center. Sixty-four percent of students questioned at the health centers reported engaging in sex; the same number as students in schools that lack health centers and condom access programs. In Massachusetts, the availability of condoms in schools also did not lead to increased sexual activity. A study comparing condom use before and after the program found a 43 percent increase in condom use in sexually active students. No study has conclusively shown that making contraceptives available to teens leads to increased sexual activity, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. ”[2] This study clearly refutes the entirety of Con’s first contention. The study also shows a clear increase in condom usage and accordingly, a decrease in the risks of sexual intercourse (unless Con would contest the male condom’s effectiveness at reducing unwanted pregnancies and STIs). 2: Presenting condoms to students in a publicly funded environment will offend students of a wide range of faiths and their respective families, including those of the Catholic faith, many of those of the (Orthodox and Conservative) Judaic faith, and many of those of the Protestant faith. [2] By giving students access to condom and encouraging their use, public schools are interfering with the fundamental religious beliefs of students and their families. If one is against making condoms available to students because it may offend students of certain faiths, one must also be against several other aspects of high schools such as serving pork and other meat in the cafeteria as it would offend the Islamic community. This was the exact argument I attempted to avoid with my redefinition of “distribute”, albeit this is slightly tangent to my previously intended target. Schools with condom-access programs are in no way forcing any students to use or even accept condoms. If being exposed to the mere notion of condoms will deeply offend a student practicing the religions Con has mentioned, the world outside schools would therefore be horrendous and intolerable. “Opponents of sex education also believe that these programs violate the rights of parents to education their children about moral behavior and religious values. But the truth is that these programs do not preclude the right of a parents to teach a child anything. They simply prevent the use of the public schools to impose religious beliefs on students. Those who argue that the mandate of schools is only to teach academic subjects forget that public high schools are the best place for sex education and condom availability programs because the schools are full of teenagers and of adults who are trained and willing to counsel them. ”[3] The completely passive exposure to different ideals and opinions is abundant in modern society, in fact, that is the premise of a learning environment such as a school. If parents do not want their children to use contraceptives such as male condoms, they have every right to attempt to instil said beliefs into their child. Condom-access oriented safe-sex programs do nothing to directly undermine this. In fact, as bolded in the passage above, schools are not to impose any one religion’s beliefs and teachings on the students, and succumbing to parents practicing the aforementioned religions would be indirectly doing just that. Also note that Con has presented no sources pertaining to objections by parents to the distribution of condoms. 3: Con is misrepresenting the aims of safe-sex programs in schools when he states “If the school wants them to not have sex, why would it give them condoms that they could use as contraception during intercourse? Hence, the distribution of condoms contradicts a school's attempts to promote abstinence. ” What Con neglects to realize (or rather communicate), is that schools and their faculty are generally not in 100% agreement with themselves regarding teenagers engaging in sex. Schools simply promote abstinence for teens as the first choice of action and, by having the logicality to realize only a minority will choose this option, also provide the option of safe-sex via open male condom availability. Con again states that making condoms readily available will lead to increased sexual activity (which I have already proven is false[2]) and that said increased sexual activity, if it existed, “may lead to situations in which [students] may be physically hurt or exploited, due to their lack of mental maturity and physical vulnerability”, which is completely unsupported and therefore irrelevant. CONCLUSION I have therefore refuted all of Con’s contentions and coincidentally, their converses coincide with and have become my arguments. As the distribution (as re-defined in my first round) of condoms is not detrimental to students in terms of safety, the promotion of sexual activity, or the religious beliefs, there stands no reason to deny schools the opportunity to safeguard their students from the risks of unprotected sex. Thank you. I await Con’s response. _____Sources1. . http://www.youngwomenshealth.org...2. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...3. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...