Philadelphia fails at sex-ed
City distributes condoms to minors
What do 11-year-olds and condoms have in common?
The average American adult would respond with, “Not much.”
The Philadelphia Department of Public Health begs to differ. The organization launched a campaign this week that will mail condoms directly to the doorsteps of 11-19 year olds who fill out the order form on its website under the link labeled, “mail me condoms,” according to takecontrolphilly.org.
“Playing it safe just got easier,” the Take Control campaign said on its website. “If you live in Philadelphia and are between the ages of 11 and 19 you can now have condoms mailed directly to you for FREE.”
Of course, parental consent is not required.
The reason for mailing condoms to the preteens’, teens’ and young men’s doorsteps is an effort to remove the shame element from the condom purchasing (or picking them up from a free clinic).
“Maybe it’s difficult for you to stop by one of our sites to pick up condoms. Or maybe you’re just shy or feeling weird about picking up condoms,” takecontrolphilly.org said on its website.
Providing minors with an unlimited supply of condoms to prevent the rise of teen pregnancy is the equivalent to throwing money at a problem rather than trying to fix it. This scenario is an absolute waste of taxpayer dollars.
Kevin Burns, executive director of Action AIDS, a health clinic in Philadelphia disagrees.
“I think it is (an appropriate age). If children are old enough to be having sex, which they are in that age range (ages 11-19), they need to have protection,” Burns said.
“Over the past several years, teen pregnancy rates across the country have been on the decline because of long-term efforts to educate children about sex. It is irresponsible to give an 11-year-old child a condom and assume that this is sex education,” Dr. Manny Alvarez, a Fox News columnist, said.
Dr. Alvarez is 100 percent correct.
It is absolute lunacy for adults to argue that abstinence-only education is an ineffective method of preventing teen pregnancy, yet think that mailing free condoms to the door of every hormonal teenager in Philadelphia who requests them will solve the problem.
Takecontrolphilly.org could not be a more misleading website. The content for the website was written by a cheerleader for promiscuity. Explanations for severe STDs such as Chlamydia were written in juvenile form, merely explaining that it causes barrenness in many women. The definition does not explain any of the other dangerous side effects.
The website also failed to mention that STDs such as HIV/AIDS are fatal.
“Having sex is a big responsibility. Any time you have sex you are at risk for getting a sexually transmitted disease (STD). The more you know about STDs, the better you can protect yourself. Click on the links below to learn detailed facts about STDs and how to keep yourself healthy ,” takecontrolphilly.org said.
Describing the act of intercourse as a “big responsibility” makes it sound like sex is a duty or an obligation for teenagers to fulfill.
Mowing the lawn is a big responsibility for an 11-year-old. Having sex is not.
There is a significant difference between educating young people to make wise choices about sex and expecting them to fail in that arena.
When the Philadelphia Department of Health resorts to blindly distributing contraceptives to the city’s youth, it is evident that the root of the problem is that parents and teachers in Philadelphia are no longer educating children for mind, body and spirit. They are setting up the youth of Philadelphia for failure.
Katie Bell fails at logic. You have conceded the point that the teenager has to request the condoms, meaning they are not “blindly distributing contraceptives.” This means that they are already choosing to have sex. The question then becomes whether they should have access to the tools to have that sex safely or they should be hung out to dry. As you point out, AIDS is fatal.
Furthermore, you seem to take special offense at the notion of education teenagers (or pre-teens as it were) in the dangers of STDs. I’m not really sure what you think is wrong with this, but it seems to me as if this is more likely to encourage abstinence than “Just say no” kinds of campaigns.
Also: you say it’s lunacy to claim that free condoms will solve teen pregnancy when abstinence only won’t. The difference is that only one of those options provides teens with the tools to prevent pregnancy even if they give into those hormones (which you seem to imply, correctly, are very powerful draws for teenagers). Hint: it’s the one that gives them the tool to prevent pregnancy.
It is always interesting to me that people seem to think that sex is inevitable. Just 30 years ago, that thinking would have been………way out there. It is today’s casual, well they are going to do it anyway, mentality that has given the O.K. to this type of destructive behavior by younger and younger children. What is wrong with parents taking the lead again and making it plain that sex is for older people who can procreate and take care of their children. I just fail to understand what is taking place in society and is so destructive to the natural family. I am quite sure some viscious person will immediately justify his “new” thinking after reading this. God Bless you.