This has been a hot topic in the U.S. off and on, and opinions seem to be divided along generation lines. What's your feeling? Does distributing condoms just encourage kids to have sex, or do kids not need any encouragement to have sex? Even if it does encourage kids to have sex, is it worthwhile if it can reduce pregnancies and disease?

There were something like eleven pregnancies (that we knew about) in my high school while I was there, in a school of 600 students. Frankly, I'm in favor of anything that will reduce that number. It's too many.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 1999

Answers

Count me in favor of distributing birth control information and devices in high schools. I've read that The Netherlands, just to giv ean example of a more sane society than the US, has one-tenth the unwanted pregnancies and one-tenth the abortion rate of the US, and they are very pro- sex education and contraceptive availability for kids.

Ignorance and puritanism kill. Education and pragmatism are "prolife."

-- Anonymous, December 06, 1999

I think the morning after pill should be available over-the-counter to anyone. Distributing condoms does not make someone have sex. They will have sex whether they get condoms or not.

I have a two year old daughter. I hope she feels comfortable in coming to me to talk about sex and birth control. When I was 17 I went to my mother about birth control. She turned six shades of purple and then called her doctor and made an appointment for me.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 1999

Despite my agreement that teens should have easy, unfettered access to birth control, I'm not sure high schools are the place for that. High schools are stretched to the breaking point just trying to give kids a basic education. They are the obvious place, however, to distribute information about where to get birth control.

I'm all for the morning after pill being sold over the counter here in the US.

That it is not available in this country is another case (like non- payment of UN dues) of our being held hostage by a handful of right wing senators whose main agenda is to keep family planning out of the hands of women not only at home but in other countries.

Bah.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 1999

I think kids do need access to condoms and other birth control methods, along with good education on how to use them. I just don't think distributing them in schools will happen, not for a long time. I work in this area, and I can say very clearly that no, giving someone condoms does not make them have sex. In fact if you couple it with teachings such as even using condoms is not 100% protection from HPV/genital warts and herpes, which can be spread from skin to skin contact, there is in a majority of cases a decrease in number of sexual partners. I feel the emergency contraceptive pill is the best thing since sliced bread; my understanding is that it is decreasing the rate of teen unwanted pregnancies and abortions...I also think that most young women today are incredibly smart and if offered affordable and accessible birth control, they will use it.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 1999

If they could come up with any serious numbers proving that access to contraception increased sexual activity, they would have the beginnings of an argument against it. On the other hand, if they can prove it, this might work out real well for academics: if they gave out free books and pencils, kids would learn to read and write better? Or if they gave away band instruments, we'd have a lot more musicians? How about chemistry kits?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 1999

I feel schools should distribute contraceptives like: condoms etc. to students because it could significantly decrease the number of STD's floating around in the world today. Though I am only in High School right now I feel that this could really help. I have seen many teen pregnacies in my school and am somewhat discusded by it. Some kids even have gotten pregnant AT SCHOOL! we had a girl get pregnant at the school dance. The administrators blamed it on the rap music because they couldn't have chaperones that were more responsible. so who is to blame. what can we do about this. kids are going to continue to have sex no matter what other people say. so why not just promote safe sex?

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Sinners must be punished and STDs are God's way of punishing people for their wicked ways. We know from the Holy Bible that if offends God when people have sex out of wedlock. Furthermore, use of a contraceptive during intercourse if forbidden by the Catholic church. Giving out condoms to children is akin to aiding and abetting a sinner. God would not be pleased.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Dave, this schtick hasn't been funny for a while. At this point, I suggest you see a doctor about your compulsion to post stupid crap under fake names. There could be some underlying problems here.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Mary, I think you're a troll. But you raise an interesting point. If God in fact has a strong aversion to contraception now, I still strongly believe that God will come eventually support it.

God is very flexible about these things. Vaccinations were initially condemned because they interfered with the divine plan. Humans should not mess with who lives and who dies, the reasoning went. The early smallpox vaccine occasionally caused fatalities, and the Catholic Church authorities condemned it because of the few children who might have avoided smallpox or lived through it if they were naturally infected, but who died from the vaccine.

There were also theological debates about whether -- for those people who would have died of smallpox but lived because of the vaccine -- altering the natural time of death might cause some people to go to Hell who might otherwise have gone to Heaven. For example, people who would become murderers might escape that fate by dying naturally of smallpox as children, and thus go to Heaven. God accordingly strongly condemned the vaccine at first. But the deity eventually got used to it and now God no longer forbids vaccination -- indeed, it is even performed in church-run hospitals.

God also overcame an aversion to train travel. In the early 19th century reigious propagandists in France posted warnings that "le chemin de fer, c'est le chemin a l'enfer." (the railroad is the path to Hell). The damned railroad split up families, broke up traditional communities, and had many other unsavory effects. But somehow God showed enough flexibility to work the railroad into God's plans, eventually.

I have no doubt that birth control will follow a similar course. One obstacle to this is that the Catholic Church is now infallible. It wasn't back when it condemned vaccination and railroads. It only got infallibility in 1870. That, of course, makes it harder for the Church to retract stupid dogma. But I have no doubt that the Church and its God will find a way. They are very resourceful in a pinch.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Tom: That's an interesting perspective. I've always regarded infallibility as making it easier for the church to retract stupid dogma. I mean, it gives them a blank check, doesn't it? If the church says we can fuck like dogs in the street then we can, and we're still going to heaven! Woohoo!

This, by the way, is what I consider the single most damning body of evidence against the bible: it has absolutely nothing in it to challenge the aphorisms of the day. Slaves must obey their masters. Women must be subservient to men. And of course all the ridiculous attitudes towards sex. This is supposedly the WORD OF GOD here, how can it be so wrong? It is absolutely beyond me how any reasonable person can insist the bible was divinely inspired.

(And, um, sorry Beth. I'll try to resist the urge in the future.)

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

I think it's really a misunderstanding about what "divinely inspired" means. It ain't the same thing as "God wrote it." As you point out, one would hardly make the claim that God wrote something that's wrong as frequently as the Bible. But "divinely inspired" is a murkier thing.

Several of Saul Bellow's books muse on the difficulties that the divine encounters in trying to communicate with the human. I think Bellow was taking a page from Swedenborg see http://www.swedenborg.com.au/philosophy.htm) when he wrote about angels whispering divine secrets to men in their sleep. The angels can't be heard, though, because the flesh converts their messages to its own purpose, hopelessly scrambling the angels' meaning.

There is nothing to prevent the Bible from being divinely inspired in that lesser sense, although arguably that sets such a low bar that any text might then be eligible for claims that it was inspired. And this solution does nothing to solve the twin riddle of how to understand what the Bible is really saying and how much authority its words must be given.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

I would be a little more suspicious, Dave, of an "ancient" "inspired" book that only said what the current stands are, vis-a-vis political and societal roles.--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2001

Tom: I forgot about you over here. There are two problems with taking that way out. First, Jesus walked the earth. He had ample opportunity to provide clarification regarding the old testament. Further, you can hardly argue that Jesus was difficult to be heard. The whole "sleep scrambling the angel's thoughts" line of argument is rendered moot in the case of Jesus' teachings.

The second problem is that if we admit that some parts of the bible are BS, or open to wide interpretation, then what good is the bible at all? How do we know which parts are true and which are false? How do we know which parts tell us to do the exact opposite of what God wants? We might as well throw the bible away, as it then becomes useless.

Al: Whatever. The fact remains that the bible is a steaming pile of crap. There is absolutely nothing in it to prove it is divinely inspired, and plenty to indicate that it is not. I expect more from my God.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Guys, this thread is a thousand years old and we're way off topic, anyway. Let's move this discussion over yonder.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001