Skip to main content

View Diary: Students at Boston College may face disciplinary action for distributing condoms (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  These people from Boston College... (2+ / 0-)

    ...who're freaking out over the existence of condoms are the political extremists.

    Safe sex is not a lifestyle. It's being safe. Only people who are delusional think that preventing safe sex will prevent sex. There have been exhaustive studies that prove such thinking to be absolutely, insanely wrong. If they actually cared about people, they'd want them to be safe, but instead they freak out because OMG condoms r from Satan!1!!

    •  No, political extremists are those who think (5+ / 0-)

      a religious institution that people voluntarily choose to attend  has no right to have rules saying that, while you are on their property, you can't completely flout your violation of their fundamental religious doctrine.

      That's political extremism -- saying a religion shouldn't have the right to practice its own religion on its own property with people who CHOOSE to be a part of that religious institution.  I can't think of a more extreme position than that.

      A reasonable view is that a religious institution that people voluntarily choose to attend has a right to adhere to its religious views on its property.

      You have every right to complain if they tried to impose these kinds of rules in a PUBLIC institution, or if they try to impose their views on people who DON'T choose to come there and who DON'T agree to abide by the rules of the institution when they choose to come there.  

      •  Politically extreme... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, nanorich, schnecke21

        ...is a college thinking it has a right to put itself in its students' pants.

        •  how is it doing that? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk

          how is it putting itself in its students pants?

        •  BC clearly isn't doing that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bailey2001, VClib, Wisper

          nobody is monitoring whether its students choose to have sex, or whether they use contraception.

          A Catholic institution learned that students, who chose to become part of that Catholic institution and agreed to abide by the rules of that Catholic institution, were publicly and openly distributing something that clearly violated their religion on campus from dorms owned by that Catholic institution.  They asked the students to stop, and the students refused to stop.

          I presume that any BC student who wants to have sex is intelligent enough to go to a drugstore off campus to get condoms, like most of the country does.  

          •  I guess you haven't ever heard of dorm searches (0+ / 0-)

            and drug tests which can detect birth control pills then?

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 08:39:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  no (0+ / 0-)

              i have never heard of boston college scouring dormitories and then illegally forcing students to take drug tests in order to detect completely legal medications. also i have never heard of any university in the united states doing this.

              •  Do you have any idea how easy and cheap it (0+ / 0-)

                is to add birth control pills to the standard random drug screenings?  And just what makes it any more illegal than any other drug testing?

                You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:04:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you're getting carried away (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wisper

                  is there any school in the united states that requires students to take random drug tests for legal medications?  if i'm not mistaken, there's only one or two college's that have tried for force all students to take random tests for illegal drugs -- and im pretty sure those cases are all being litigated vociferously. you're positing a scenario that is exotic, dystopian, and completely beyond the scope of the situation being discussed here. it's a non-issue. we're not talking about swat teams kicking down people's front doors and dragging them away for possessing birth control. we're talking about the administration of a catholic university insisting that students in campus housing respect certain tenets of catholic church doctrine with respect to their behavior, and that they not use their dwellings on school property to distribute condoms.

      •  Their students get federal student aid; they ain't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nanorich

        Private.

        •  huh? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk, VClib, Wisper

          the government lending students money to pay for tuition at a private university doesnt somehow transform that university into a public institution.

        •  They are a private university and can have any (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk, VClib

          rules they want.  If they say you must wear uniform, you have to wear them.  If they say you have to attend religious classes to graduate, you have to do it.  If they say curfew is 8 pm...it is 8pm.  if they say no boys in the dorm rooms, no boys are allowed. If they say no tv, computers or internet in dorms...that's the rule.  

          A student signed up for it, pays to attend and can leave at any time that they don't like the rules.

        •  a2nite - this issue has been litigated (0+ / 0-)

          accepting federal student aid and research grants do subject any university to federal rules regarding those programs. However, it doesn't change the university's primary property rights to enforce rules on it's campus and to have rules for students who live on campus. In the eyes of the law BC is clearly a private college and not subject to the same rules as a state funded public university.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:26:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Again, why does it make any difference whether (0+ / 0-)

        or not it is on their fucking property or not?  Give me one good reason why it wouldn't be the same if they were handing out condoms in front of the local mall (with the mall's permission).

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 08:39:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  valid point (0+ / 0-)

          A private college or university can probably legally set any code of conduct it wants for behavior on or off its campus. I agree.

          •  We've been in agreement thru this thread (0+ / 0-)

            but a private university dictating action that can or can't be done off-campus with no formal tie to the school?  I think thats some shaky ground.

            I agree that the students couldn't bill themselves as an official group using BC's name, colors, mascot or logo.  

            What if a student wanted to volunteer in a Boston planned parenthood clinic?  Outside of studies, nothing on campus and with no affiliation with the school.... if the School found out and took action against a person for this I think they could be at some litigious risk.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:01:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Caring... (0+ / 0-)

      If they recommend abstinence when it comes dealing with sexual behavior then they are more caring than the people handing out the condoms.

      Condoms are not foolproof.  They can break, come off, etc. At which point STDs ... oh wait... gotta check my pc card at the door.. STI's I mean, and pregnancy become a factor.

      With abstinence there is no possibility of pregnancy and therefore no possibility of needing an abortifacient / abortion.  And I'd venture to say that STI's are a non-factor in this scenario as well.

      So which is more caring for the individual?  Promoting something that keeps them safe or something that has only the "potential" to keep them safe?

    •  At this point (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffeetalk, VClib, Wisper

      it's fairly obvious the problem is people just don't like the Catholic Church and this is just a way to slam it.  

      However,   This isn't new doctrine, the student group had been warned and it's sort of non news.  

      Like, by the way, the Pope is Catholic.  That kind of non news.

      I'm a Kennedy Catholic.

      by EquiStar on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 07:20:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very true (0+ / 0-)
        it's fairly obvious the problem is people just don't like the Catholic Church and this is just a way to slam it.  
        Truthfully, Im more interested in the 1st Amendment issue here (and people's clear distorted fantasy about it) and am just skimming the comments, but I've no doubt somewhere is a comment about the people enforcing this policy are all child-molesters or knowingly helped cover up child molesting.

        I am a pretty hardcore atheist but this blind Catholic bashing shit is getting old.  Its just now openly accepted on Daily Kos like gay bashing is on Red State.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 11:57:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site