All Vermont middle and high schoolers (age 11 on up) will have access to free condoms under new law

[27lw]

I’m a little baffled why the government is giving children tools to engage in an activity they can’t legally consent to.

The only explanation is our old friend “Liam D”.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[PaulinVA]

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

I don’t know. I think classic liberalism is a really good thing. Modern day liberals are totally different from classic liberalism. From Wikipedia:

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law

Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights, , including civil rights, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

 

[FaithHopeCharity]

@0Scarlett_nidiyilii @(name removed by moderator) yeah, this year I recently transferred from a public school to a Catholic school and there is a huge difference on how this topic is discussed. In my public school I remember being almost encouraged to have sex as long as we use a condom. As well as being told that we should have sex as long as its “safe sex” because it will give you “experience” for later on.

This along with other nasty things my public school taught, is just disgusting. I’m blessed to be in a Catholic school where natural law and objective morality is taught.

 

[FaithHopeCharity]

As a high school student, the second task is almost impossible unless you plan to homeschool your child and as well as completely restricting use of devices. Back when I was in my public school, my friends would have parents strict to an almost extreme extent and they still find themselves in a sinful lifestyle even though the parents had been trying g to prevent it.

Personally, I think children, by the time they become a little more mature should be given freedom in a sense that trust is involved. For example, my parents gave me less freedom when I had been a video game addict because they knew that if I cant control my video game use, they knew I couldn’t control temptations to well. Where as opposed to now when they see me praying the rosary everyday, biking to church on my own, serving our local parish often, and overall respecting them more and as well as my responsibility, they give me an almost limitless freedom per se because they trust me completely now.

I think if the parents can get their children to actually prove themselves worthy of said freedom, they should receive it. And this freedom I get give me experience in the world and this experience helps me stay strong as I reject what I know is wrong.

 

[FaithHopeCharity]

Morals are parental territory. If it it’s anything like when I was in school 20ish years ago it’ll be the mixed message.

Would you rather they teach abstinence only and leave those who engage in activity to higher risks than might otherwise occur?

If morals were just “parental territory”, then I guess parents that teach their children to have sex are completely fine, right? No, natural law exists and if it didnt nobody’s morality would be right. Natural law should be taught regardless of the parents opinions.

This is the classic “if its going to happen anyway, might as well make safer for them to do so” attitude. This is a flawed idea and should be reconsidered. Think about it this way, if people decided that human trafficking should be legalized because it happens way to often anyway and if they made it legal it would be less dangerous for the victim, would this make it right? No, absolutely not. And think about what your attitude is exactly saying ti children. Its saying “Don’t have sex because your not at that age yet, but I suppose if your gonna do it anyway, take these condoms and do it in a safe environment like your bedroom”. Like what? This is one of the most logically flawed ideas I’ve ever heard.

I don’t mean to offend you, but as a teenager myself, I hate to see this idea becoming the norm.

Al in all God Bless!

 

[TheLittleLady]

Children over the age of reason have free will. It is our job as parents to model relationship with Christ and His Church, Catholic morality, to provide our children a safe place to ask questions, to model compassion.

Chances are our kids are going to sin sometimes. We teach them how to get back up when they fall.

No one guarantees we will raise impeccable people.

 

[TheLittleLady]

In the US, the evangelical Protestant group “the Gordon’s” give away New Testaments, complete with instructions how to get saved with sinners prayer, on the public sidewalks outside of public schools. As a Catholic, I have complained to the school about this proselytizing aimed at kids.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Scripture says to be in the world but not of the world. I raised my kid to know how to have his own faith and morals, not by being a hothouse flower but by example.

 

[stpurl]

I’m glad you clarified. Again, the original post seemed to (a perception) imply that if Catholic parents would only do this action (even the way you posted about, ‘here’s an idea’ as if this was something the dull-witted reader had never considered) then the kids ‘would not need to seek out the forbidden’, truly making it appear that the conclusion was, if a child was seeking out the forbidden, it was because of the parents’ lack of making the child ‘comfortable’ and thus, the parents’ fault.

 

[Wannano]

In the US, the evangelical Protestant group “the Gordon’s” give away New Testaments, complete with instructions how to get saved with sinners prayer, on the public sidewalks outside of public schools. As a Catholic, I have complained to the school about this proselytizing aimed at kids.

I think you meant “The Gideons”? I actually agree that a public school should be free from all religion including secular humanism. Ain’t gonna happen!

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

If morals were just “parental territory”, then I guess parents that teach their children to have sex are completely fine, right? No, natural law exists and if it didnt nobody’s morality would be right. Natural law should be taught regardless of the parents opinions.

It’s pretty clear that little to no agreement will occur on this, not even on “natural law”. There are parents who do teach it’s ok (with caveats presumably), at least when I was growing up. Therefore it’s best to leave simmer things to parents or risk the “tyranny of the majority” situations.
My point is that a large part of parenting is the fact that your child interacts with those who holds differing morals, religious, and cultural norms. It’s a thing they will navigate in our interconnected world.

This is the classic “if its going to happen anyway, might as well make safer for them to do so” attitude. This is a flawed idea and should be reconsidered.

It ain’t perfect but it deals with imperfect situations … Imperfectly. Humans being humans and all.

if people decided that human trafficking should be legalized because it happens way to often anyway and if they made it legal it would be less dangerous for the victim, would this make it right?

Would it become less dangerous though? Legalizing the “work” might help but at the cost of other issues. Imperfect solutions for imperfect Humans

A real example is abandoning babies. It’s a crime and deadly for the baby and occurred far too often. To combat this, fire stations, and a number of places allow parents of need borns to safely and “anonymously” surrender newborns without consequence.

 

[mythbuster1]

When I was in public school, we had Bibles in the Library in the reference section, beside the holy books of other religions. Personally, I never made use of that resource, but it was there.

 

[twf]

Anyone who is OK with the concept of an 11 year old having sex is a sick, perverted monster who should never be allowed within 10 miles of any child. Only a sicko deviant off the reservation type could ever in a million years not do everything in his or her power to prevent such a perverse tragedy. And yes… 11 year olds having sex with 11 year olds is a perverse violence against nature that any sane reasonable adult would stop at all costs.

 

[mythbuster1]

Safe Haven Laws are an idea they got from the Catholic Church. Foundling holes have been a thing for centuries.

 

[mythbuster1]

I expect things will get worse, with sex ed requiring such behavior instead of merely approving of it.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Good idea, it will help lower the STI and teenage pregnancy rate, should also lower the number of abortions. Good move Vermont.

 

[mythbuster1]

About that: historical data shows that any benefit received from more widespread condom use is swamped by an increase in sexual activity.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

They didn’t actually solve the problem.

 

[FaithHopeCharity]

It’s pretty clear that little to no agreement will occur on this, not even on “natural law”. There are parents who do teach it’s ok (with caveats presumably), at least when I was growing up. Therefore it’s best to leave simmer things to parents or risk the “tyranny of the majority” situations.
My point is that a large part of parenting is the fact that your child interacts with those who holds differing morals, religious, and cultural norms. It’s a thing they will navigate in our interconnected world.

Alright so I had not originally looked at your profile and assumed you were Catholic. That’s my fault on that part as I know unbelievers don’t necessarily belive in natural law or a Catholic one at that. On this note though, I have to mention that when I say ‘teach your children correct morals’ I do not mean force your morals upon them, I mean teach them the correct moral while also explaining why those morals are correct. This is why it is so important for parents to have the ability to explain in a simple yet almost philisophical way of why things are bad or good. If you believe killing someone is wrong, you wouldn’t just say “don’t kill people its bad”, you would say that along with an explanation and trust they will follow that.

I must also mention that I think it is better for the child to learn their lessons from their actions. By providing children with condoms and educating them that if they are to have sex, they must wear condoms, you are giving them more if a reason to do so because by providing options to make a bad deed less impactful as a consequence, you lessen the overall moral value to what you said was wrong originally.

It ain’t perfect but it deals with imperfect situations … Imperfectly. Humans being humans and all.

I agree that humans are not perfect, but we should know and understand that there are ways we can at least strive to become better. And there are better ways to handle this, which I have already stated.

Would it become less dangerous though? Legalizing the “work” might help but at the cost of other issues. Imperfect solutions for imperfect Humans

This was not the best example as it was just at the top of my head. But in saying this, my response to this would be the same for the one above.

A real example is abandoning babies. It’s a crime and deadly for the baby and occurred far too often. To combat this, fire stations, and a number of places allow parents of need borns to safely and “anonymously” surrender newborns without consequence.

Alright in this case I would have to say this is actually a good example but does not relate to this specific topic. I think my last response should have included a detailed explanation of the morality specifically behind this situation. With the topic of discussion, it is more damaging to offer a child an opportunity to have sex in a manner that makes things easier for them. This entails with what I have said above.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Alright so I had not originally looked at your profile and assumed you were Catholic

They should put a tiny icon next to our names one day to denote denomination. I’m not objecting to natural law, I’m not concerned enough to argue against it. I’m just suggesting that such reasoning when dealing with a non Catholic group (the pubic school) isn’t fruitful.

This was not the best example as it was just at the top of my head. But in saying this, my response to this would be the same for the one above.

Just thought of a more ludicrous but helpful example.
Don’t commit robberies. But if you do, don’t kill people and consider wearing a vest.

One isn’t condoning the robbery, but instead suggesting harm reduction for both victims and perp.

by providing options to make a bad deed less impactful as a consequence, you lessen the overall moral value to what you said was wrong originally.

So you want them to have higher chances of STDs or pregnancy if they disobey the morality? Would this mean they shouldn’t teach how to use condoms either?