Schools distributing condoms to students

REBUTTALS 1. One of Con’s major pillars of argument is that improper condom use is extremely ineffective and therefore condom use should wholly be removed. Unfortunately, Con fails to realize the implications. Do you know what is even more ineffective in preventing unplanned pregnancies and STI transmission than improper condom usage? No condom usage at all. Con’s entire contention hinges on emphasizing the percentage of inefficiency when condoms are used improperly, while utterly failing to mention the case when condoms were not used at all. “A sexually active teen who does not use a contraceptive has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within a year.”[1] The 72% efficiency difference between using condoms and not using them is monolithic. Furthermore, data from several studies demonstrated that sexual activity has increased in 15-19 year old adolescent females from 37% in the 1970s to a high of 53% in 1999.[2] This shows a clear increasing trend in sexual activity in adolescents in a time period where programs involving condom distribution were virtually non-existent. As sexual activity increases among youth, the 72% difference in efficient prevention becomes exponentially more significant than it already is. It is undeniable that the condom availability programs significantly increase the usage of condoms during intercourse[2], however, Con claims the very same programs also increase sexual activity. From the very same source Con obtains his facts (the Alan Guttmacher Institute), I have already shown in my previous round that in studies of several high schools in Philadelphia and Massachusetts that absolutely no study has conclusively shown the making of contraceptives available to teens leads to increased sexual activity.[3] As further evidence, another study on a Los Angeles County high school involving 1,945 students showed “[t]here was no significant change over time in the percentage of males or females who had ever had vaginal intercourse or who had had vaginal intercourse during the year prior to the survey.”[4] Con on the other hand, has a single study wherein “The number of students having sex doubled [after the instatement of the condom distribution program]… The schools overall pregnancy rate increased by one fourth”. This drastic difference in numbers and results in comparison to the numerous studies I have presented from a verifiable source common to both Pro and Con indicates an extreme likelihood of the aforementioned study being an outlier and/or having other significant factors apart from the condom availability program. Therefore, it has been clearly shown once again that making condoms available does not lead to a total increase in sexual activity; rather it leads only to an increase in protected sexual activity, which is the end goal of sexual education programs. I must also bring to light the fact that this debate is focused on making condoms available to students, not on the other elements present in these programs in which the topic of condom availability is only present. As such, Con’s arguments vis-à-vis the misrepresentation of condom effectiveness and other unrelated program aspects are completely irrelevant. However, Con will probably disagree, and thus I will respond. One must also consider the sources from which these arguments are based. Con cites www.abstinenceworks.org for its take on the US Department of Health and Human Services HHS report on sexual education curricula. Upon further inspection and reading the HHS report itself, it is clear the website in question is not immune to bias. The site conveniently reports only portions of the program that, when taken out of context, seem to promote sexual activity. The site also fails to address the numerous programs such as “BART = Becoming a Responsible Teen” where “the findings of the curriculum effectiveness evaluations include: delayed sexual initiation, decreased number of sex partners, increased condom used for males having vaginal intercourse, increased overall condom use for all intercourse, etc.”[6:pg 27] I urge the readers to consult the HHS report itself[6] rather than the website filtering sections of said source. 2. Con states “Schools are certainly not just displaying condoms on trays like pulled pork sandwiches in the lunch line”, while in fact, that is exactly what condom availability programs do. I have already addressed this argument in my original post when redefining “distribution”, which Con has accepted. Advocacy is recommending an opinion, not forcing it down the audience’s throat as Con seems to think these programs do. Examples include schools that made condoms available in baskets and vending machines[5], wherein there is absolutely no compelling of students, rather, the schools are simply providing an option. However, in the event that a student is interested, 98% of schools with condom availability programs make counselling available[5] (again, making available does not equate to any amount of force). Con argues these programs infringe on the fundamental right of parents to rear their children as they see fit, however, a large majority of said programs provide an ample solution: “there are two common requirements for receiving condoms: parental consent and counselling. The first requirement is designed to reduce concerns about infringement of parental rights; the second is intended to defuse both potential objections that condom availability programs might be seen as sanctioning sexual activity”[5] From Table 2. Percentage of schools, by program characteristics[5], 81% of 431 schools in the USA with condom availability programs require parental consent before students are allowed to obtain a condom. In addition, 95% of said schools have health centres, wherein a blanket consent is required before the student can receive any health services[4]. These facts completely nullify Con’s case of infringement on parental rights to rear their children along with his citation of the Alfonso v. Fernandez case as it is clearly shown that a large majority of schools allow parents to deny and opt their child out of the program. 3. The objective of this section was to indicate that Con commits the fallacy of false dichotomy when only considering abstaining from sexual intercourse and using a condom during sexual intercourse. There is a third option that is prevalent in many high schools: students engaging in sex without contraceptives. I was simply stating that schools with sexual education programs do not make the same mistake of committing this fallacy and realize that students, no matter how few, will engage in sexual activity regardless of what anybody, let alone the school, does. Many programs involving condom availability programs also advocate abstinence as the only absolute method of prevention, as shown by the evaluation of several programs in the HHS Review of Comprehensive Sex Education Criteria[6]. The two methods of prevention are absolutely not mutually exclusive nor detrimental to one another; schools simply have the wisdom and experience to predict the behaviour of students and realize abstinence will never be the choice of all students and wisely present another option: safe-sex. CONCLUSION I have therefore once again refuted Con’s contentions against condom availability and urge a Pro vote. The real goal and issue the resolution addresses is simply a matter of reducing unwanted pregnancies and reducing STI transmission. Abstinence is undoubtedly the most effective, and making condoms available for students simply provides another line of defence. Thank you, and I look forward to Con’s response. _________ SOURCES 1. http://www.guttmacher.org... 2. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org... 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 5. http://www.guttmacher.org... 6. http://www.abstinenceworks.org...