Parents, Condoms and Hypocrisy
In 1994 The New York Times ran an article written by Anna Quindlen. Her article is a well written piece in regards to the distribution of condoms in the New York City public schools. Up to this point, the school district had been passing out condoms to teenagers who did not require any permission from their parents. Lawsuits were filed, and the appeals courts decided that this violated parents right to confidentiality. Quindlen writes to show us that this is absurd. Parents should be talking to their children and the school districts shouldn’t need to take safe sex into their hands. Like we all know all too well, this isn’t a perfect world, and that isn’t what happens.
In Quindlen’s first argument, she paints a scenario in our minds of a sixteen-year-old boy who has pain when he urinates. The boy heads to the nurse’s office, where he is told he has a sexually transmitted disease. Quindlen continues the scenario with the nurse telling the boy this could have been prevented had he used a condom. When the boy asks for condoms, the nurse told him she would have to check the list to see if his parents had requested that he not receive the condoms. She asks the reader how would the boy respond? Would he wait patiently while she checked? Would he go from being a seemingly clueless kid, to one who now recognizes that this is a great way to protect the parents and keep kids healthy? Or, would he simply leave and later catch a much worse condition? While this scenario is pretty persuasive, and prompts the reader to think about how the confidentiality law may play out in the schools, it is important that we also keep in mind this hypothetical scenario could have also gone in many other directions. For an example, what if the kid went home and had a long man to man talk with his father learning about the risks, safe practices and the morality of being sexually active? The kid could also have been so scared and mortified, that he vowed to never have sex again. Quindlen also brings in Dr. Alwyn Cohall, a pediatrician working in several clinics for the school district. Dr. Cohall believes that the …show more content…
She supports this by pointing out the US Department of Health and Human Services published an advertisement discussing condom use and abstinence but the National Conference of Catholic Bishops stated the ads “promote promiscuity”. Furthermore, the well-known television network ABC, refused to air the commercial during its peak family viewing times. Quindlen believes that these commercials would jump start the conversation needed between the kids and the parents if they were played during the prime time, when families are gathered together watching the television. Putting the pieces together, she claims you cannot be against the commercials, but at the same time promote talking to our children about sex. The activists and the Conference she believes are making the start of that conversation much harder, and therefore are hypocritical. To further prove her point of hypocrisy, she points out that ABC airs the popular television show Rosanne which is much more frank, and talks about many issues including sex and
In 1994 The New York Times ran an article written by Anna Quindlen. Her article is a well written piece in regards to the distribution of condoms in the New York City public schools. Up to this point, the school district had been passing out condoms to teenagers who did not require any permission from their parents. Lawsuits were filed, and the appeals courts decided that this violated parents right to confidentiality. Quindlen writes to show us that this is absurd. Parents should be talking to their children and the school districts shouldn’t need to take safe sex into their hands. Like we all know all too well, this isn’t a perfect world, and that isn’t what happens.
In Quindlen’s first argument, she paints a scenario in our minds of a sixteen-year-old boy who has pain when he urinates. The boy heads to the nurse’s office, where he is told he has a sexually transmitted disease. Quindlen continues the scenario with the nurse telling the boy this could have been prevented had he used a condom. When the boy asks for condoms, the nurse told him she would have to check the list to see if his parents had requested that he not receive the condoms. She asks the reader how would the boy respond? Would he wait patiently while she checked? Would he go from being a seemingly clueless kid, to one who now recognizes that this is a great way to protect the parents and keep kids healthy? Or, would he simply leave and later catch a much worse condition? While this scenario is pretty persuasive, and prompts the reader to think about how the confidentiality law may play out in the schools, it is important that we also keep in mind this hypothetical scenario could have also gone in many other directions. For an example, what if the kid went home and had a long man to man talk with his father learning about the risks, safe practices and the morality of being sexually active? The kid could also have been so scared and mortified, that he vowed to never have sex again. Quindlen also brings in Dr. Alwyn Cohall, a pediatrician working in several clinics for the school district. Dr. Cohall believes that the …show more content…
She supports this by pointing out the US Department of Health and Human Services published an advertisement discussing condom use and abstinence but the National Conference of Catholic Bishops stated the ads “promote promiscuity”. Furthermore, the well-known television network ABC, refused to air the commercial during its peak family viewing times. Quindlen believes that these commercials would jump start the conversation needed between the kids and the parents if they were played during the prime time, when families are gathered together watching the television. Putting the pieces together, she claims you cannot be against the commercials, but at the same time promote talking to our children about sex. The activists and the Conference she believes are making the start of that conversation much harder, and therefore are hypocritical. To further prove her point of hypocrisy, she points out that ABC airs the popular television show Rosanne which is much more frank, and talks about many issues including sex and