That condoms should be subsidised by the government

gavstone21 (PRO)
First I would like to establish that generally, that which is subsidized increases in consumption and use. Look at the U.S corn industry, corn has been subsidized and now corn is very cheap, thus is used in many food items. Corn is used to feed cows and has made U.S meats the most powerful meat industry in the world. Although this subsidy is a little disagreeable for our health's sake, it nonetheless shows the effect of subsidies. Could condoms be an exception? No, A comprehensive study done on close to free high school condoms shows the effect subsidized condoms probably would have. Close to free condoms is not exactly partially subsidized condoms, which make the product less cheaper but not close to free, but that is just a matter of degree and would probably have although a less intense effect, still a proportional effect on the use of condoms.

In the study, when close to free condoms were provided for the high school, "There was no significant change over time in the percentage of males or females who had ever had vaginal intercourse or who had had vaginal intercourse during the year prior to the survey. The percentage of males who reported using condoms every time they engaged in vaginal intercourse during the past year increased significantly, from 37% to 50%, and the percentage of males who reported condom use at recently initiated first vaginal intercourse increased from 65% to 80%." ( https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/1998/03/impact-high-school-condom-availability-program-sexual-attitudes-and-behaviors )

Condom use reduce the amount of STDs spread across a population, and remain the cheapest contraceptive. Subsidizing them would increase use thus decreasing sexually transmitted diseases. The fact is STDs are increasing in the U.S, a CNN article stated that, "Reported cases of primary and secondary syphilis rose by 19%, gonorrhea cases rose by 12.8%, and chlamydia cases rose by 5.9%, from 2014. All three STDs are curable with antibiotics, but most infections go undiagnosed and untreated, according to the CDC." Would changing the cost of condoms have an effect on condom use to reduce STDs?

A study by the NCBI shows that, "OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the impact of price on condom use. METHODS: A program based on distribution of condoms at no charge was replaced with one providing low-cost condoms (25 cents). Pretest and posttest surveys asked about condom use among persons reporting 2 or more sex partners. RESULTS: At pretest, 57% of respondents had obtained free condoms, and 77% had used a condom during their most recent sexual encounter. When the price was raised to 25 cents, the respective percentages decreased to 30% and 64%. CONCLUSIONS: Cost is a barrier to condom use. Free condoms should be distributed to encourage their use by persons at risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. "

( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508904/ )

Subsidizing condoms would increase use, in turn would reduce STDs by a significant amount. We try to reduce suffering through our tax money ( Police, Welfare, Hospitals, Military ) , so this program would seam to be a good allocation of our resources.

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-06-09 16:49:53

| Speak Round

CoRay (CON)
Your argument suggests that receiving an STD is inevitable without using condoms, and that is simply not true. It is certainly MUCH less likely to contract the disease when using one, but it is by no means necessary. Abstinence is the only true way to completely prevent STDs, but not exchanging bodily fluids in any way will keep you safe from the majority of instances. Your argument also implies that STDS are received not by a lack of judgement, but by the so called "inconvenience" of condom availability. STDs are only contracted by individuals who think it unnecessary to take precaution in the act of sexual intercourse. Condoms are in no way unavailable. Most drug stores and pharmacies, as well as other locations, carry a supply of condoms.

Condoms are an optional form of protection in a personal and physical act. How people go about doing it varies from person to person. The study you have given to me says that condoms supplied to high school students will increase usage of condoms. This is in no way an accurate representation of what would happen if the government subsidized condoms. First of all, your study lacks any data regarding the spread of STDs among high school students, and we have no way of knowing whether or not this program made a significant difference in this category. Like I said earlier, condoms are not the only way of preventing STDs and they are certainly not a surefire way of doing so.

The general public needs to be careful of the way they have sex and how they use protection. Subsidizing condoms wouldn't provide any more convenience for the public, and it's not like they aren't properly educated. Safe sex is often taught in schools at the same time they take a sexual education class. The decreased cost of condoms would have extremely minimal impact, and it seems as if condoms being subsidized would provide more of an inconvenience for the government than it would help the public. Keep in mind the responsibilities the government upholds and thus how out of place it would seem to support something so trivial when compared to matters like global security, pollution, and feeding and supporting the people living in this country who need help the most.

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-06-10 01:06:23

| Speak Round

Cross-Examination

gavstone21: I assume we are considering the U.S government?

CoRay: That would be correct.

Return To Top | Speak Round

gavstone21 (PRO)
Round Forfeited

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-06-14 01:07:01

| Speak Round

CoRay (CON)
Round Forfeited