Is buying your child birth control supporting/encouraging sex?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

She wishes he didn't skydive at all, but realizes there's nothing she can do about it. So, she buys him protection. Here, she doesn't like it, doesn't condone it, but she *is* supporting his skydiving by giving him something to make it safer

If I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), the person you describe is already skydiving, just without Cypress. So I fail to see any encouragement here. It might be considered support, but not necessary because the person is already skydiving, and will not skydive more when he gets Cypress. I'd say in this case she is most likely supporting *herself*, not him.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

When I was younger, after missing days from school from incapacitating cramps, my mother took me took the doctor. The doctor suggested putting me on birth control to help with the pain, etc. At that time, I was taking the prescription to feel better, not to feel better about having sex. In fact, at that time, I will still a virgin, and stayed that way for about a year. I don't think buying pills is encouraging kids if they're brought up with morals they can live by. Just my two cents if it's worth anything.

My high school sweet heart experienced the same problems every month-usually three days of cosmic pain-and when she wanted BC, her parents flip'd out......since I was the one that told her about the benifits, I was the bad guy! Poor girl went about 4 more years until she could get BC and the relief she needed.

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

If I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), the person you describe is already skydiving, just without Cypress. So I fail to see any encouragement here. It might be considered support, but not necessary because the person is already skydiving, and will not skydive more when he gets Cypress. I'd say in this case she is most likely supporting *herself*, not him.

You are correct, the son in my skydiving example is already skydiving. The gift of the CYPRES may or may not increase the number of skydives the son makes. However, one thing it won't do, is make the son think "I'm going to skydive less now that I have an AAD." The AAD is going to make the son skydive more often or, at least, more comfortably. Therefore, it supports his skydiving and that's a *very* short step (if any at all) to encouragement. (Again, I don't want an AAD debate. Let's just assume that both the mother and son feel that an AAD makes skydiving safer.)

Same thing with a parent who gives their child birth control. The child may or may not have more sex, but the decision to have sex will be made easier because they have birth control.

Saying that the mother is likely supporting herself may be true but is a side effect. Generally, even if the secret intention of the giver of protection is to make the giver feel more comfortable with the recipients actions, giving someone protection from the consequences of their actions is supporting (even encouraging) their actions. That doesn't change just because there's a stigma associated with said actions.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You are correct, the son in my skydiving example is already skydiving. The gift of the CYPRES may or may not increase the number of skydives the son makes. However, one thing it won't do, is make the son think "I'm going to skydive less now that I have an AAD." The AAD is going to make the son skydive more often or, at least, more comfortably. Therefore, it supports his skydiving and that's a *very* short step (if any at all) to encouragement. (Again, I don't want an AAD debate. Let's just assume that both the mother and son feel that an AAD makes skydiving safer.)

Well, let's imagine what happens if the son does not receive AAD from their parents. Will he skydive less because of this? Most likely not; he has already started, and as we know those first steps are the most difficult for anyone. Does he *need* AAD to skydive? No, he doesn't - because he is already skydiving. I wouldn't even say that he would jump more after getting AAD - for most people the number of jumps they make is limited by available time and money, and so far I have never yet heard of a person who would do four jumps a day instead of two just because he got an AAD.

Also while comparing those things we need to keep in mind one important difference. The AAD is expensive, and - as a wild guess - probably most of the people who do not use them now would get them if AAD costs $25 instead of $1200. However condoms are so cheap that even a teenager can afford them - while he most likely cannot afford an AAD. This may also affect the final decision.

Quote

Same thing with a parent who gives their child birth control. The child may or may not have more sex, but the decision to have sex will be made easier because they have birth control.

It depends on person. Again, from my own experience most of us at this age didn't really care about birth control and STDs, relying in old good "well, she looks clean" for STDs and old good "put it out" for birth control. Sure not everyone was involved into this, however those pals and gals who didn't would not do it even if you put a big condom over their whole body. And their decisions not to have sex for a few of them I knew really well was definitely not lack of birth control.

Anyway, even adults with easy access to all the available birth control and STDs protection not always use them - just look on the AIDS increase. So I can hardly see how it affects the final decision

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[HeadCone 0]

Do you know anyone who feels that using an AAD is safer than not using an AAD skydived less because they had an AAD?

Do you know anyone who had less sex because they had birth control?

Don't get mired in the details. When you give someone protection from the consequences of their actions, you're supporting their actions.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Do you know anyone who feels that using an AAD is safer than not using an AAD skydived less because they had an AAD?
Do you know anyone who had less sex because they had birth control?

Well, you can extend this analogy further: do you know anyone who had less sex because they got new Adidas jeans? Most likely not; so does it mean that new Adidas jeans support or encourage them to have sex?

In my opinion we can only say that something encourages/supports the action when we have clear evidence that providing that "something" will lead to more actions performed, and not providing it leads to less actions performed.

Quote

Don't get mired in the details. When you give someone protection from the consequences of their actions, you're supporting their actions.

The details are important here. Unlike AAD condoms are cheap, and if a person would only have sex with protection (and it is the only think which stops them from having sex), they don't need to wait when their parents buy it for them. They can just go and buy condoms themselves, as they are cheap, and therefore that means they gonna have sex no matter whether the protection provided is from you or from local Safeway.

Now could we say Safeway supports/encourages sex by selling condoms to anyone?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

Well, you can extend this analogy further: do you know anyone who had less sex because they got new Adidas jeans? Most likely not; so does it mean that new Adidas jeans support or encourage them to have sex?

That's the point. That giving someone protection does NOT make them want to do it less, but rather more or, at least, the same amount. And even if they're just doing it the same amount, they're doing it safer.

Quote

In my opinion we can only say that something encourages/supports the action when we have clear evidence that providing that "something" will lead to more actions performed, and not providing it leads to less actions performed.

I don't limit the definition of a supporting/encouraging action to one that increases the number of times the action is performed. In my opinion, providing something that makes the action better/safer can also be considered support/encouragement.

If you want to go with the numbers definition, then, in general, aren't people more likely to do something when it's safer to do so?

Quote

The details are important here. Unlike AAD condoms are cheap, and if a person would only have sex with protection (and it is the only think which stops them from having sex), they don't need to wait when their parents buy it for them. They can just go and buy condoms themselves, as they are cheap, and therefore that means they gonna have sex no matter whether the protection provided is from you or from local Safeway.

And let's say the son in the AAD example is a millionaire and can buy one for himself as if it's nothing. That's irrelevant. The topic is about the act of giving an item of protection to someone, not if they can get it somewhere else.

Quote

Now could we say Safeway supports/encourages sex by selling condoms to anyone?

Perhaps. Now if Safeway was giving them away for free. Absolutely.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[billvon 3,078]

>It's like giving them to keys to the car and telling them not to drive while you're away on vacation.

No, they already have the "keys" to their reproductive organs; you can't prevent sex by withholding condoms. It's more akin to telling them not to drive your car while they're away, and also reminding them to never, ever drink and drive.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

That's the point. That giving someone protection does NOT make them want to do it less, but rather more or, at least, the same amount. And even if they're just doing it the same amount, they're doing it safer.

Well, it depends. If having protection is important for them for having sex, they can buy it themselves, and have sex as well. Your provided protection just saves them $1, which is not a big deal. If they do not want to use protection, they will not use it even if you provide them with it.

The biggest difference between AAD and condoms is that there are people who skydive but cannot afford AAD. But condoms are affordable almost by everyone, and the number of persons who would like extra protection during sex (and increase their sexual activity thereafter) but cannot afford it is not significant - because condoms are cheap.

Quote

I don't limit the definition of a supporting/encouraging action to one that increases the number of times the action is performed. In my opinion, providing something that makes the action better/safer can also be considered support/encouragement.

It looks now like we're discussing two different things, and that we both are right :)
My view of the situation is that there is action (buying protection), and there is decision (to have or not to have sex).

You are discussing how the 3rd party would consider just your actions itself. Looking on the situation this way I can agree that yes, by providing them condoms you support them in having sex, as there is nothing else condoms could be used for. Note that we discuss only how a 3rd party would judge your action, and not the cosequences.

However I'm discussing slightly different thing: whether there is any real connection between this action (providing condoms) and the child decision (having sex). And in my opinion the child decision to have or not to have sex is not connected to the actions described - i.e. whether you buy them condoms or not. They can have sex without you buying them protection (because if they need protection, they can afford it themselves), and they won't start having sex just because you give them protection (again, because if all they needed to have sex is protection, they would get it themselves)

Quote

And let's say the son in the AAD example is a millionaire and can buy one for himself as if it's nothing. That's irrelevant. The topic is about the act of giving an item of protection to someone, not if they can get it somewhere else.

Yes, in this interpretation you are right.
So the difference is that you interpreted the topic like "How my actions of buying my child birth control would be considered by a 3rd party"?
And I interpreted it as "Does buying your child birth control affects their decision to have sex"?
That's the difference. For example, if I bought my skydiver friend condoms, my actions would be considered as encouraging him to have sex. But it would not mean that my action would affect his decision to have sex.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[NCclimber 0]

Buying your child birth control is tacit approval.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Buying your child birth control is tacit approval.

No, it's not.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Buying your child birth control is tacit approval.

It's cheaper than a fuck troph..,er, Baby.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[billvon 3,078]

> Buying your child birth control is tacit approval.


No more so than buying a fire extinguisher for your house is giving tacit approval to arson.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

> Buying your child birth control is tacit approval.

No more so than buying a fire extinguisher for your house is giving tacit approval to arson.

Talk about your shitty analogy.

Come on people, face it, giving a teenager birth control and saying "I'm not encouraging anything... but if you do have sex, be safe", is more permissive than simply discouraging pre-marital sex.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

> Buying your child birth control is tacit approval.

No more so than buying a fire extinguisher for your house is giving tacit approval to arson.

Talk about your shitty analogy.

What's the alternative to Some dumbass moral warm and fuzzy? having your twelve year old having their own infant?

Yes--keep your moral high ground--it's better than keeping your child from having their own children while still in high school.

Friggin fundies.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

> Buying your child birth control is tacit approval.

No more so than buying a fire extinguisher for your house is giving tacit approval to arson.

Talk about your shitty analogy.

What's the alternative to Some dumbass moral warm and fuzzy? having your twelve year old having their own infant?

Yes--keep your moral high ground--it's better than keeping your child from having their own children while still in high school.

Friggin fundies.

What a dumb fucking reply!

I said nothing about which might be the best course of action. You seem intent on attacking me for something I didn't bring up. Maybe someday, you'll be able to distinguish what people say and what you imagine was implied.

[Fast 0]

Quote

Quote

> Buying your child birth control is tacit approval.

No more so than buying a fire extinguisher for your house is giving tacit approval to arson.

Talk about your shitty analogy.

Come on people, face it, giving a teenager birth control and saying "I'm not encouraging anything... but if you do have sex, be safe", is more permissive than simply discouraging pre-marital sex.

It may be more permissive but it is more benifitial as well. Discouraging it while not permissive in most cases won't change anything. It is going to happen regardless of the fact that you tell them no.

Which side of that argument you support your statement doesn't reveal, but the implication and assumption that most people would make is that you do not support the birth control and do support abstinence.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[billvon 3,078]

> is more permissive than simply discouraging pre-marital sex.

And buying a fire extinguisher and showing your kids how to use it is more permissive than simply saying "never, ever start any fires." Indeed, birth control is MORE important in this regard. Only a few kids have an innate drive to start fires - all kids have an innate desire for sex.

The drives for sex, food, sleep etc are natural drives, and only a fool would "hope they go away" by ignoring them. They won't. If a kid is going to deal with those drives and remain healthy, those drived have to be discussed, not ignored. (Although the most important part of this is explaining how birth control works and what the risks are, not buying the stuff directly.)

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Buying your child birth control is tacit approval.

I don't understand what are you trying to say.
If the child decides he wants to have sex, he does not need your approval anyway.
If he does not to have sex, your approval doesn't really matter.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Come on people, face it, giving a teenager birth control and saying "I'm not encouraging anything... but if you do have sex, be safe", is more permissive than simply discouraging pre-marital sex.

The real problem here is that if the teenager ignores your "simply discouraging pre-marital sex" efforts - as me and most of my friends did when we were teenagers - the result might be much worse than in "but if you do have sex, be safe" case.

Basically your whole reply is based on false assumption that there is something wrong with pre-martial sex. JFYI, not everyone shares this opinion; personally I am sure that marrying someone you haven't sex with yet is the stupidest thing someone could do. And I would definitely encourage my daughter to have sex with the person she wants to marry BEFORE actual marriage - I have seen a lot of people who did not get married after this, and not getting married is much better than having a divorce.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Come on people, face it, giving a teenager birth control and saying "I'm not encouraging anything... but if you do have sex, be safe", is more permissive than simply discouraging pre-marital sex.

The real problem here is that if the teenager ignores your "simply discouraging pre-marital sex" efforts - as me and most of my friends did when we were teenagers - the result might be much worse than in "but if you do have sex, be safe" case.

Yeah - I wonder how many teen pregnancies can be attributed to "My parents wouldn't buy me birth control!"

Quote

Basically your whole reply is based on false assumption that there is something wrong with pre-martial sex. JFYI, not everyone shares this opinion;

Just because you think it's okay if your daughters are the neighborhood sluts, that doesn't mean everyone else agrees.

Quote

I am sure that marrying someone you haven't sex with yet is the stupidest thing someone could do.

And yet, so many happily married people have done so. I'd guess that most people who have married, throughout history, have made their vows before sampling the goods. Are you saying they all are/were morons?

Quote

And I would definitely encourage my daughter to have sex with the person she wants to marry BEFORE actual marriage

See my reply about sluts.

Quote

I have seen a lot of people who did not get married after this

You say you know lots of people who decided not to get married because the sex was bad? That's rich.

[Fast 0]

As much as you are unwilling to accept it your view of the world and stance on that position, at least in this country, is on significant decline and has been for some time.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

As much as you are unwilling to accept it your view of the world and stance on that position, at least in this country, is on significant decline and has been for some time.

Please enlighten us as to what specifically is my "view of the world and stance on this position"?

How do you know how much I am "unwilling to accept it"?

[bigtexan 0]

Quote

Yeah - I wonder how many teen pregnancies can be attributed to "My parents wouldn't buy me birth control!

and other comments in your post on this topic.... like

Quote

Just because you think it's okay if your daughters are the neighborhood sluts, that doesn't mean everyone else agrees.

...............
this is you thinking of yourself first and what people may think of you should your child do this or that. Not you thinking of the well being of your child and/or the child they may create behind your back.


i wonder if you have children. if so - with views like these - it is more likely your the one who is going to be rasing a high school students child - not me.. I am doing my best to prevent this from happening.


loves

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Yeah - I wonder how many teen pregnancies can be attributed to "My parents wouldn't buy me birth control!

and other comments in your post on this topic.... like

Quote

Just because you think it's okay if your daughters are the neighborhood sluts, that doesn't mean everyone else agrees.

...............
this is you thinking of yourself first and what people may think of you should your child do this or that. Not you thinking of the well being of your child and/or the child they may create behind your back.

Are you saying you would be fine with your daughter being the neighborhood slut? And that this would somehow benefit your daughter?

Quote

i wonder if you have children. if so - with views like these - it is more likely your the one who is going to be rasing a high school students child - not me..

What are you talking about?