[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by slap_j

I don't have any kids so I will just pose this question to you and anyone else who does. Illicit sexual behavior has been going on since time immemorial. Nowadays it seems to be far more acceptable. Is there any place for condoms or BC in mitigating foolish behavior or does that only facilitate the problem? And short of becoming a culture warrior what does one do otherwise? In a secular school system you can't really be hawking biblical narratives about sex (which, I think, is the most potent alternative to condoms and whatnot).

Quite simply, I believe you teach the truth. You don't have to use the Bible to do it.

Statistically speaking, the BEST way to avoid teen pregnancy and/or sexually transmitted diseases is to not have sex. That goes beyond a Bible teaching. It's the truth. Condoms are not 100% effective. Birth control pills are not 100% effective. Even when using them there is always a risk that something unwanted can happen. Abstinence does not have that risk.

I admit it Josh, I don't know the best way to deal with the issue. The minute you mention abstinence people automatically play the religion card when the truth is that it is the BEST solution to the problem.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Bryan, I really can't believe you are trying to make this an argument...

It is stupid for kids to get birth control without parental knowledge. Heck, its dangerous to give out condoms.

I have a class 4 latex allergy. Believe it or not, latex allergy is on the rise, objectively speaking. A latex condom can do far more damage than you think possible, even kill. (I mean a mere bump of a latex glove has sent me into full blown anaphylaxis.)

Birth control has side effects. If parents are needed to approve treatment and get prescriptions the rules need to be consistent. What about girls who are at risk for blood clots, but would not know the family history?

And I might add that I work on the frontlines with inner city kids, most of whom are sexually active, and the pregnancies and the stds are the smaller of the problems you end up facing.

Bryan, I don't know what Bible you read, but God is a god who lets the consequences hit. If you think that is unbiblical, maybe you need to look at the God of scripture. Because it sounds like he is quite a bit different than your expectation.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by slap_j

I don't have any kids so I will just pose this question to you and anyone else who does. Illicit sexual behavior has been going on since time immemorial. Nowadays it seems to be far more acceptable. Is there any place for condoms or BC in mitigating foolish behavior or does that only facilitate the problem? And short of becoming a culture warrior what does one do otherwise? In a secular school system you can't really be hawking biblical narratives about sex (which, I think, is the most potent alternative to condoms and whatnot).

I tell the truth. I have had friends die of aids. I have known kids who ruined their life. I think the problem is that kids see the sheltered world of tv, where sin does not reap what it sows. But on the streets, it does.

I don't have to go past their friends and family's narratives to warn them. And I do. And the average age the kids at our youth group lost virginity is 14. and thats with a couple virgins in there. Scary stuff.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I think the problem is that kids see the sheltered world of tv, where sin does not reap what it sows.

That's definitely a problem. In videogames as well, but I don't want to go on a tangent.

I don't have to go past their friends and family's narratives to warn them. And I do. And the average age the kids at our youth group lost virginity is 14. and thats with a couple virgins in there. Scary stuff.

I'm guessing that lots of kids would forgo the prophylactics even when they're readily available. Does that sound about right?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by slap_j

I'm guessing that lots of kids would forgo the prophylactics even when they're readily available. Does that sound about right?

They do. At least our kids do.

[Gustin]

Originally Posted by Bryan

actually, that's the pharmacists job.

It's the pharmacist's job to clearly display the instructions given them by the doctor and to be there for any questions the patient may have. Even if the doctor provided no directions, 99% of pharmacists have default instructions for birth control (not to mention nearly all BC is in packaging that tells you to take which tablets on day 1, day 2, day 3, etc because the last tablets of in a package are placebos).

I think we're just dealing with the case of someone being an idiot... Not likely the doctor's or the pharmacist's fault.

[bowstaff981]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I think the problem is that kids see the sheltered world of tv, where sin does not reap what it sows. But on the streets, it does.

This is so true. In one of my classes senior year in high school we had a discussion about abortion. I was really amazed at how the people in the class reacted to my stance of "If you don't want to have a baby then don't have sex". They thought they deserved a second chance (in this case, abortion) and were oblivious to the fact that they had endless chances to not have a child before becoming pregnant. It's sad how society has adopted this no consequences attitude.

[scarlet.starlet]

Originally Posted by bowstaff981

It's sad how society has adopted this no consequences attitude.

I prefer to think of it as a "reduction of consequences" attitude. Without it, women who were giving birth would not receive epidurals. Instead, it would be "Well, if you didn't want to feel pain, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant!"

Without it, cars would not have seatbelts or other safety features. "The only 100% safe way to avoid car wrecks is not to drive! I wouldn't want to provide an airbag to cushion you from your decisions."

Without this attitude, you would not have medication for your mild allergies, colds, coughs, or headaches. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger!"

If you can alleviate someone's suffering at little or no cost to yourself, it is the right thing to do. Always.

[tlj009]

I prefer to think of it as a "reduction of consequences" attitude. Without it, women who were giving birth would not receive epidurals. Instead, it would be "Well, if you didn't want to feel pain, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant!"

Without it, cars would not have seatbelts or other safety features. "The only 100% safe way to avoid car wrecks is not to drive! I wouldn't want to provide an airbag to cushion you from your decisions."

Without this attitude, you would not have medication for your mild allergies, colds, coughs, or headaches. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger!"

If you can alleviate someone's suffering at little or no cost to yourself, it is the right thing to do. Always.

I disagree. Sin should and does have consequences no matter how much we try to eliminate them. Whether the consequence is spankings for a child or being a single parent for premarital sex, there are and should be consequences.

[OiBoyz]

So you're against medicine when you're sick? Or seatbelts in your car?

[tlj009]

So you're against medicine when you're sick? Or seatbelts in your car?

No. But then again, neither of them has to do with the consequences of sin.

[OiBoyz]

No? I thought sickness and death were a result of sin. But what do I know?

[tlj009]

No? I thought sickness and death were a result of sin. But what do I know?

Not the sin of the individual. At least not in most cases. But that is really a side topic.

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by tlj009

No. But then again, neither of them has to do with the consequences of sin.

Right -- seatbelt laws are in place due to the laws of gravity, momentum, motion, etc., not because of sin. The jury is out on medicine though -- I'm sure God did not design us to fall apart and get sick, which means illness is a result of sin in the world and in our own lives (lifestyle-related conditions, etc.). But that's not a part of this thread.

We are not saying teens should have sex, get pregnant, and live with the consequences. We're saying that the fear of a teenage pregnancy (more-likely-than-not with complications) is not a bad thing to have put into a teen's mind in the "sex education" process. If you mitigate the consequences then there is no incentive to be responsible, because you can have your cake and eat it too when there are no consequences. The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with instilling a little "holy fear" in a kids' mind about the real risks of sex at that age -- not just those related to pregnancy and STDs, but the emotional and relational damage caused by being promiscuous.

In other words, we don't let our kids play on the highway, and if they get hit, oh well, they have to live (or die) with the consequences. No, instead every time we see road kill or see a news story about a terrible car crash, it is a "teachable moment" for our kids to learn the consequences of certain behavior, in order to prevent them from playing on the highway in the first place. If we know they know the risks, and they do it anyway, then they live with the consequences, period.

Anyway, no one has seemed to address the fact that currently schools cannot give minors even some Tylenol without parental consent. How are they legally getting around this for prescribing birth control pills? And what of the larger issue of schools circumventing parental authority?

It really is a tough issue though. In one school district with active/involved parents, the schools can come across as over-stepping the parents, but the same school in a district with absent or uninvolved parents would see it as a social responsibility to clothe, feed, and provide medical attention to the kids, because they are not getting it at home, even if that means skirting around medical release policies, etc.

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by Epaphras

Right -- seatbelt laws are in place due to the laws of gravity, momentum, motion, etc., not because of sin. The jury is out on medicine though -- I'm sure God did not design us to fall apart and get sick, which means illness is a result of sin in the world and in our own lives (lifestyle-related conditions, etc.). But that's not a part of this thread.

We are not saying teens should have sex, get pregnant, and live with the consequences. We're saying that the fear of a teenage pregnancy (more-likely-than-not with complications) is not a bad thing to have put into a teen's mind in the "sex education" process. If you mitigate the consequences then there is no incentive to be responsible, because you can have your cake and eat it too when there are no consequences. The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with instilling a little "holy fear" in a kids' mind about the real risks of sex at that age -- not just those related to pregnancy and STDs, but the emotional and relational damage caused by being promiscuous.
In other words, we don't let our kids play on the highway, and if they get hit, oh well, they have to live (or die) with the consequences. No, instead every time we see road kill or see a news story about a terrible car crash, it is a "teachable moment" for our kids to learn the consequences of certain behavior, in order to prevent them from playing on the highway in the first place. If we know they know the risks, and they do it anyway, then they live with the consequences, period.


.

This is stupid because number one since when do teens care? (look teens aldrey know all this we are smarter about sex then you get us c rdeit for i know 11 olds that know a lot about and can tell you more then you want to know both good and bad sides)
Look no mater how you make it sound teens will still have sex you cant scare
Instinct out of them

You can try to stop some but no way you can stop all Heck in the old times you could get killed for commenting adultery and it did not stop them

on a side note if you put "holy fear" in them by some mircale watch them never want sex




Edit
It is like a drugs you tell teens all about how bad it is you will die from it (enter threat here) dose not help
A parent should have a talk will a teen about it not by saying it can kill or it is a sin but a parent to kid talk about the future how they would have to take care of a kid or something (not being a parent it is not my call)