From: slb3y@cc.usu.edu (Unterhund)
Newsgroups: misc.kids,alt.kids-talk,alt.parents-teens,misc.education
Subject: Re: Minors right of access to contraceptives?
Date: 13 Apr 92 10:19:23 MDT
Organization: United Order of Non-joiners

In article <2531@keele.keele.ac.uk>, csz55@seq1.keele.ac.uk
(Christopher Wrigley) writes:
> 
> I have decided to quickly sketch a synopsis of each side for brevity
> and reduced reading time:
> 
> A G A I N S T
> 
>        i)  The Catholic religion does not allow sex before marriage
>   and believe their children should not be exposed to this.
> 
     Offhand, I can't think of a religion that condones premarital
sex.  Nor can I think of a religion that has been able to prevent it
completely.  What you are taught does not equate to what you do.  Data
point:  My parents were married in July 1965, Catholic.  I was born in
November that year.

>       ii)  The matter should be discussed _in_the_home and is not the
>   schools responsiblilty nor is it their right to address such issues
>   or practices in the school setting.
> 
     Not the schools' responsibility?  Schools are supposed to educate
kids.  They can't do that if people are dropping out to take care of
babies.  As I recall, dropout rates for teen parents are higher than
"normal."

>      iii)  The school, operating in this way, is upholding the parents
>   constitutional right to exersise full control over their children.
> 
     By giving the child greater ability to choose for themselves. 
Poor overlording parents.

>       iv)  Parents felt that the school was teaching the _opposite
>   ideals to children in contrast to the ideals encouraged in the home.
> 
>        v)  Giving condoms to children _encourages more sexual activity.
>   It was felt the children would be more likely to abstain if the free
>   condom opportunity was not available.
> 
     Both these points contradict what teenagers themselves have said
in interviews/surveys I've read.  The decision to have sex rides on
more than the availability of contraception.  It also deals with
personal standards, religious issues, etc., that are learned in the
home.

>       vi)  Misuse of contraceptives. (reports of using them as
>   waterbombs and placing them on classroom doorhandles etc.)
> 
     This doesn't sound like a very big deal to me.  Unless they're
using lubricated condoms on the doorhandles, that is.
> 
> F O R
>        i)  Primary reason: Will encourage _safer sex and has already
>   shown a clear reduction of people contracting the virus in those areas
>   where the new system is in operation.
> 
>       ii)  Supports other problems such as teenage pregnancy etc.
> 
>      iii)  Response to against (i): The contraceptives are available if
>   the child _wants them, s/he is under no obligation to avail of the
>   opportunity -- it is between parent and child.
> 
>   
> What do parents and kids believe is right?
> 
     I fully support the "for" arguments.  Trivial observation
demonstrates that teenagers have sex regardless of what's taught in
the home, church, school, etc.  I don't know how to change that
behavior.  I do understand that if we can't, risk reduction is in
order.
-- 
Patrick S. Clark            | "Got to pay your dues
Internet:  slb3y@cc.usu.edu |  If you want to sing the blues
Bitnet:    slb3y@usu        |  And you know it don't come easy."       
Disclaimer:  Ringo Starr's song.  I claim the unattributed stuff.