Abortions vs. sex education dilema

[Texas_Roofer]

… And so I’m facing a dilemma…

I was saying there is no place for so called sex education in public schools. It is not their job. It usurps parental authority and it fosters vice.

Discussing biology in biology class in one thing. Discussing the mechanics and emotions of sexual acts and all that goes with them as a way to impart “knowledge” to young minds is not proper to the school environment at all.

I offer this as well:

THE TRUTH AND MEANING
OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
Guidelines for Education within the Family

It offers a genuine Catholic understanding of these issues.

“The Church has always affirmed that parents have the duty and the right to be the first and the principal educators of their children.” (from above limk) vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html

It seems rather odd as the thread appears to want to prevent some if not many parents from this function? The thread responses appear to only accept the parents authority if abstinence in the only acceptably method of birth control approved by the parents. Public schools teach many things to include driving, automotive repair, bricklaying, hair care, football, etc, etc. Not all children attend all classes. Children can not attend sports practice or drivers ed without parental consent so why would sex ed. not be the same? More importantly where is the requirement that anyone teaching sex education must be less than honest? Is it your belief only people who support contraception and abortion are allowed to teach, or maybe that the facts are unknown thus only theories could be taught? Of course teaching theories as theories does not rise to “false” teachings. So what is the issue is it when the parents want sex ed in the school? or is it the church supporting the parents?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It seems rather odd as the thread appears to want to prevent some if not many parents from this function? The thread responses appear to only accept the parents authority if abstinence in the only acceptably method of birth control approved by the parents.

And should we accept parents teaching their children to steal, or commit crimes?

Yes, we do feel that morality is an issue here.

Public schools teach many things to include driving, automotive repair, bricklaying, hair care, football, etc, etc. Not all children attend all classes. Children can not attend sports practice or drivers ed without parental consent so why would sex ed. not be the same?

As a Catholic who briefly attended public schools in the '50s, I saw how “innocent, well-meaning” things like prayers were used as instruments of pressure – trying calling for the Hail Mary when it’s your turn to lead the prayers!

More importantly where is the requirement that anyone teaching sex education must be less than honest?

Where is the guarentee that everyone who teaches sex education must be honest?

Is it your belief only people who support contraception and abortion are allowed to teach, or maybe that the facts are unknown thus only theories could be taught? Of course teaching theories as theories does not rise to “false” teachings. So what is the issue is it when the parents want sex ed in the school? or is it the church supporting the parents?

Many parents object to what is taught as “sex education.”

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Alfred Kinsey’s 1948 and 1953 Studies

Premarital Sex Occurs in:
Males:
67-98%, depending on socioeconomic level.
68% by age 18 had experienced premarital coitus, (p. 549-52, and Table 136, p. 550, Male).

Females:
about 50%, (p. 286, and Table 75, p. 333 and Table 79, p. 337, Female).

indiana.edu/~kinsey/resources/ak-data.html

 

[junk]

Now, I’m not sure if Kinsey is the most credible source… His oft-quoted figure of 10% of men being homosexual is completely false, for one.

I’ll let others check that out

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Kinsey is not the most accurate, his work exposed the need to develop sampling theory, however anyone reading the work would have to develop personal problems to deny sex issues did not exist in the U.S. in the 1930 & 1940. Kinsey’s work is very important because it clearly shows all the sex stuff we see today was in fact on the minds of an equal representation of our Grandparents. Similarly the issues of sexual abuses and practices accepted by the Romains, Greeks, and Egyptians are all known to have shaped our history. Actually same for the Puritans, just in reverse.

 

[fix]

It seems rather odd as the thread appears to want to prevent some if not many parents from this function?

How so?

The thread responses appear to only accept the parents authority if abstinence in the only acceptably method of birth control approved by the parents.

I do not think any thing should be taught in regards to this topic. It ought to be left to parents, not the secularists.

Public schools teach many things to include driving, automotive repair, bricklaying, hair care, football, etc, etc. Not all children attend all classes. Children can not attend sports practice or drivers ed without parental consent so why would sex ed. not be the same?

Sexual powers are not remotely equaivalent to any of those things. That they are seen as such goes to the heart of the problem.

More importantly where is the requirement that anyone teaching sex education must be less than honest?

Who claims that?

Is it your belief only people who support contraception and abortion are allowed to teach, or maybe that the facts are unknown thus only theories could be taught?

It is my position that not everything that is legal is moral. So, yes certain things that are accepted as good, like racial discrimination in past days, do not need to be seen as ok to teach children.

Of course teaching theories as theories does not rise to “false” teachings. So what is the issue is it when the parents want sex ed in the school? or is it the church supporting the parents?

I have no idea what you are saying?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I have a lot of empathy for the concept that the public school should teach a limited subject list and teach it well. Similarly should parents decide to with hold contraception knowledge that is with in the parent’s right. When the parents chose to make statements as are common in this thread which in generally say sex education, contraception, and abortion are all positively correlated through intrinsic function, well they have the right to say that but no right to demand others support those statements.

If we teach people:

• teen pregnancy did not exist until ? ( 1960-pill, 1973-Roe v Wade, or what ever you wish)
• no grand mother ever actually raised her grand child as her child, that is an urban legion
• no one married because of premarital sex relations with or without pregnancy
• all marriages lasted
• no extramarital affairs occurred
• prostitution and homosexuality did not exist ( though the bible lists both along with fornication)
• etc, etc

Then we simply provide the proof we are not trust worthy. These teaching may well backfire creating increased problems.

 

[fix]

I have a lot of empathy for the concept that the public school should teach a limited subject list and teach it well. Similarly should parents decide to with hold contraception knowledge that is with in the parent’s right.

What do you mean by right? There is no right to do wrong. Teaching evil acts is never a right. One has the power to sin, but there is no true freedom to do what is wrong.

When the parents chose to make statements as are common in this thread which in generally say sex education, contraception, and abortion are all positively correlated through intrinsic function, well they have the right to say that but no right to demand others support those statements.

I think this needs to be correctly stated. No one is asking for statistical evidence that contraception is directly related to abortion and illicit sex. There may be such evidence but even if it did not exist we have right reason. Relying on devices to separate unitive and procreative elements of what God ordained is wrong and simply teaches another how to do wrong.

If we teach people:

• teen pregnancy did not exist until ? ( 1960-pill, 1973-Roe v Wade, or what ever you wish)
• no grand mother ever actually raised her grand child as her child, that is an urban legion
• no one married because of premarital sex relations with or without pregnancy
• all marriages lasted
• no extramarital affairs occurred
• prostitution and homosexuality did not exist ( though the bible lists both along with fornication)
• etc, etc

Then we simply provide the proof we are not trust worthy. These teaching may well backfire creating increased problems.

I have no idea how you jump to such conclusions? The point is teaching children that acting in illicit ways is wrong and has always been wrong. Mixing in error does not make a better child or a better conscience. It may introduce a stumbling block which we know from Christ is not a good way to be obedient to Him.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What do you mean by right? There is no right to do wrong. Teaching evil acts is never a right…

And there you go I do not consider this act as “wrong” or “evil” thus you wish to oppress my rights based on your assessment. The church does not say knowing or teaching sex education is illicit. The church says certain practices are illicit, of course their we are again teaching some sex ed as a means to justify preventing the teaching of sex ed.

 

[fix]

And there you go I do not consider this act as “wrong” or “evil” thus you wish to oppress my rights based on your assessment.

But right and wrong is not determined by you. They exist outside of you. There is no oppression in preventing the indoctrination of vice into children.

The church does not say knowing or teaching sex education is illicit. The church says certain practices are illicit, of course their we are again teaching some sex ed as a means to justify preventing the teaching of sex ed.

This is what we do know:

…In this area, society and the mass media most of the time provide depersonalized, recreational and often pessimistic information. Moreover, this information does not take into account the different stages of formation and development of children and young people, and it is influenced by a distorted individualistic concept of freedom, in an ambience lacking the basic values of life, human love and the family.

Then the school, making itself available to carry out programmes of sex education, has often done this by taking the place of the family and, most of the time, with the aim of only providing information. Sometimes this really leads to the deformation of consciences. In many cases parents have given up their duty in this field or agreed to delegate it to others, because of the difficulty and their own lack of preparation…**

…**, "This kind of critical reflection should lead our society, which certainly contains many positive aspects on the material and cultural level, to realize that, from various points of view, it is a society which is sick and is creating profound distortions in man. Why is this happening? The reason is that our society has broken away from the full truth about man, from the truth about what man and woman really are as persons. Thus it cannot adequately comprehend the real meaning of the gift of persons in marriage, responsible love at the service of fatherhood and motherhood, and the true grandeur of procreation and education"…
**
THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY

 

[Texas_Roofer]

But right and wrong is not determined by you. They exist outside of you. There is no oppression in preventing the indoctrination of vice into children.

This is what we do know:

In this reference is it confined to Texas Roofer? or who else does it apply to?

 

[fix]

In this reference is it confined to Texas Roofer? or who else does it apply to?

It applies to each of us obviously. Is truth relative?

 

[brandymmiller]

I’m not disagreeing with the ideas expressed here about modern sex education as such, but the idea that if it were stopped young people would stop having sex is clearly ridiculous.

It would probably be better if sex education in schools were continued, but altered. Sex education shouldn’t just be about where do babies come from and how can pregnancy be averted, but also about the emotional side to having sex. How important it is. And supporting young people to having the assertiveness to be able to say no.

I will agree that no amount of sex education, nor a lack therof, is going to stop some teenagers from choosing to have sex, just as we know that no amount of defensive driving classes stops some people from driving unintelligently on the roads. However, I will say that studies show (and common sense tells us) that when you give a person a false sense of security, such as are given with birth control and condom usage, the incidences of risky behavior (engaging in sex) increase. Teenagers are especially vulnerable to this because they already have a sense of being invincible.