The government does not have a “RIGHT” to teach my child about contraception. Just because they take liberties they shouldn’t be taking does not mean that it’s their right. That is why I chose to send my child to Catholic school, so that the government won’t be able to exercise their so-called “liberties” on MY child.
Yes, that says it all. We are to be in the world, but not OF the world. And it is all or nothing. It’s all salvation, or all Hell.
While much of education is summarized as just saying no, the effective educators let the child realize that in many instances the best position is to just say no. But to get there the most more effective methods involve a consideration of alternative approaches depending on the situation.
If it prevents abortion is it counterproductive to Jesus’ teachings?
It is wrong to do evil that good may result.
There was no watering down–Christ never taught that we do not have the right to self-defense, nor did he ever teach that states do not have the right to self-defense.
It sounds like you are saying that being against teaching children about contraceptives is cutting off our noses to spite our faces? I really don’t understand what you are saying here; to cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face is like this: Mom refuses Jack permission to attend an unsupervised party, so Jack refuses to clean his room which his mother has said he has to do before she will take him to see his friends. The only one who is hurt is Jack himself–he has misdirected his desire for vengeance.
Part of the ideal that Christ wants us to achieve is to forgive: Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. I don’t see what you are saying that would constitute a change in teaching?
Say with the issue of sex ed, which is where you started out. An all or nothing approach would be to say no sex ed whatsoever in any school at any time!!! But people might not accept that, so the compromise would be the abstinence program. Catholics could not go along with the teaching of contraception any more than they could go along with teaching how to safely break into homes in a shop class about changing a doorknob.
That story does not refer to the duty of rightful authority to condemn people, even to death if that is necessary. The Jews were not permitted to apply the death penalty–that is why they had to take Christ to Pilate in order to crucify Him legally.
I don’t know if you have kids or not , but if you want them to do the right thing you have to pass on the wisdom of experience to them. Not just the wisdom that is perfected , but also the wisdom about how to deal with unforeseen circumstances.
The stoning incident spoke in direct contradiction of the accepted punishment for adultery as specified in Lev.
Right, to people who were not the right people to be doing the stoning. Are observant Jews allowed to stone people in the USA for violating OT laws? And they weren’t allowed to do that under the Romans, either. So the Pharisees were trying to break one law to punish someone who had broken a different law. Under Catholic teaching, that would have been murder, which does not include properly instituted capital punishment.
What issue does it speak to? I think that is the point of contention.
You opened this thread and framed it around the sex education issue. Why is it “interesting” that that’s the main point of the discussion?
I assumed, apparently falsely , that there might be other issues brought up.
Yes, it is still counterproductive to Jesus’ teachings, even if it prevents abortion and can brew a pot of coffee!!
That’s a completely non sequitur argument. No condom prevents abortion!
Did you go to the NEA website and see where the NEA actually has a blog with the participants discussing the issues you mentioned? Can you provide info on any other organizations or companies that have such transparency?
You are not showing good faith because you characterize contraceptives as not preventing abortion. All the studies, especially those that predict abortion rates among contraceptive users show that improper use of contraceptives leads to higher abortion rates than those of the normal population. So if people are going to use contraceptives, proper usage leads to a lower abortion rate.That’s a completely non sequitur argument. No condom prevents abortion!
“Throwing away sperm” is not the issue with contraception (and I know you know this). The comparison you are trying to make is whether it is better to prevert the marital act or to kill an unborn child. That’s the only way to compare abortion to contraception. That comparison doesn’t even apply when you are speaking of school sex-ed programs.
The issue in school programs is whether it’s better to teach kids that sex at their age is a very bad idea and that abstinence is the only valid choice OR to teach them that sex is ok as long as it’s “protected”. It has nothing to do with abortion or even really about contraception.
I’m sorry, but I no longer believe you to be posting in any semblence of good faith. You are making things up to try to create controversey.
This is a long and sometimes very sad speech in MP3 format by Dr William Coulson, one of the founders of the Rogerian movement which had such a disastrous effect on our society. In it, he describes precisely how and why the drug and sex ed programs failed. This is the best and most comprehensive item I have found by him on this subject, otherwise I’d link to a text version of something he’d written.
The Rogerian movement has been discounted by most educators anyway. If anything the pendulum has swung the other way and there is a very profound lack of discourse within school systems. There is such an emphasis on conformity that critical Christian ideas originally proposed by Jesus such as the highest value of each person have sunk to the converse of the lowest common denominator.
Well, yes. That is sort of a summation of the purpose of moral theology. Making immoral decisions cannot result in good.
Agreed, unfortunately absent being in a catholic theocracy it may make sense to teach the various degrees of good, better and best or perhaps good, worse and worst .
Because they simply lie about the results. And anyway, they don’t REALLY want to prevent teen sex, because the abortion industry is big dollars.
You are saying that the correct use of abc is the way to reduce abortions while avoiding the fact that the real best way to reduce abortion is to not have sex.*
Right, abortion rates would be higher among those who use abc because they are obviously having sex while trying to prevent pregnancy. Those who see that they are not ready to have a baby and therefore abstain do not become pregnant at all and thus do not “need” abortions.*
It’s not an either/or situation as you posit. It’s not teach contraceptive use or see abortions; acceptance and teaching of abc have done nothing to bring down abortion rates.*
Right, so the thing to do is to teach abstinence, not abc use.*
No one is advocating sacrificing unborn babies for the sake of teaching abstinence, we are advocating teaching abstinence as effectively as possible to keep the sexual activity from happenning at all; hence no abortions at all.*
We have to advocate what we know to be right, what we know to be God’s will. How can we compromise God’s will? How can we teach people to sin?*
The problem is that the very teaching of abc to teens will cause more of them to engage in premarital sex for two reasons. One is that you are teaching a level of acceptability to people who unrealistically think that bad things won’t happen to them. The second is something called risk compensation, which is that reducing causes people to engage in that behavior more.