Abstinence Only Programs?

[ahs]

Your bolding here is a strawman. I never said we should go around doing whatever we want.

Debora, I promise I was not attempting to do a strawman thing…I don’t even know what that really means. I was pointing out that you were not focusing on the whole quote by the Pope. You said that according to his words:

Well according to the POPE it is not intrinsically evil for a prostitute to use a condom to protect the other person from diseases.

Using a condom in this case wouldn’t be “an extra sin” added to the premarital sex taking place, it would be “a step in the right direction.”

By bolding the remainder of his quote, I was trying to point out this:

He did not say it is a “step in the right direction.”

He said it is the first step in a moralization. Meaning, the person’s conscience is awakening.

In other words, the words I bolded completed the thought of the Pope and gave more light to a more true interpretation of his statement, that, although contraception is a moral evil and we cannot go around using it for whatever reason, it’s use by prostitutes can be seen as some signal that the said prostitute is starting to develop a sense of right vs. wrong…though contraception use is still immoral.

I apologize if that came across as a “strawman”, but Corki is right:

…The poster who bolded it did not say what you are accusing him of saying. You stated it was a strawman. It wasn’t. You don’t understand what a strawman fallacy is. There are lots of strawman fallacies used in these forums but this is not one.

-ahs

 

[_Jenn]

Obviously joining the discussion late, but hey - better late than never, right? LOL

I voted neither. I don’t feel that it is the public school’s place to education my child on such a moral matter.

However, I accept that since my dh/I chose to send our child to public school, we are also accepting that he may be taught something that goes against what we believe. That doesn’t mean I take it lying down. Right now, at this point, I have no idea what he’ll be learning in that regard come high school, as he’s only in 4th grade right now.

1. But - I know what we’ll be teaching him well before he reaches high school.
2. When high school does roll around, I will find out what grade/class/semester/etc he will be receiving sex-ed, and I will request a copy of the curriculum in advance. That way, I know what he will be being taught, and my dh/I will be able to talk with him about it at home - what we feel/believe, why we believe x instead of y, etc.

I don’t object to him being taught what a condom is, etc. It is my belief that he needs to be informed of what is out there, and be able to form his own conscience/beliefs. What we want him to believe and what he, as a maturing (note I didn’t say mature) young man, will sometimes differ. But at least I will sleep at night knowing that not only will he be informed, but he will also know that his parents cared enough to know what he’s being taught and be open with him about their beliefs and show him what he needs to know in a loving manner. And once we have armed him with what he needs, we will be open to him at any hour of the day to talk, and will be always (just as we do now, and have since before he was born) praying for him.

 

[Debora123]

In other words, the words I bolded completed the thought of the Pope and gave more light to a more true interpretation of his statement, that, although contraception is a moral evil and we cannot go around using it for whatever reason, it’s use by prostitutes can be seen as some signal that the said prostitute is starting to develop a sense of right vs. wrong…though contraception use is still immoral.

The words you bolded were these:

“…not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.”

I thought you were strawmanning because I never said that 1. we can go around doing whatever we want, and 2. that it is the way to deal with HIV infection.

I guess you meant something else. My apologies.

My point with bringing this whole thing up was to show that it makes sense to conclude that condoms aren’t a sin when used between people who are unwed anyway. Unmarried sex is not aimed at being a full gift of oneself, neither is it aimed at being open to life. Therefore, wearing a condom in this case would be a non issue, and would not be an extra sin on top of the sin of premarital sex.

People responded to this by repeating that wearing condoms is always evil and immoral, even if the people involved are unmarried, to which I pointed out what the Pope said. People then said that the Pope meant something different and that wearing a condom in that case would still be wrong.

Why in heaven’s name would the Pope suggest that doing something wrong and evil could ever be a step towards morals, I do not know, and neither does it make any sense. Thus I stand by what I said.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Sometimes when we don’t understand…it’s because we don’t understand. Not because the subject matter makes no sense.

I would probably need a lawyer to clear up a legal document. It does not mean the legal document makes no sense…it means I don’t understand it.

That is why one looks for answers from a legitamate source, for example a Cardinal, who would speak the same “language” as the Pope.