All or nothing?

[portarica]

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.

What results did the NEA lie about? And how does the abortion industry benefit them?

Peace

 

[Corki]

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.

Teaching contraception to teens (or, more frequently, pre teens) teaches them that a) sexual activity is inevitable since they are all slaves of their hormones; b) all your friends are doing it so you should too as long as you are “careful” and c) the very worst thing that can possibly happen to you is to have a child.

There is nothing in a so-called “comprehensive” sex-ed program that aims to eliminate abortions. In fact, many of these programs present abortion as one of the “options” for the students to consider. The students are programmed to believe that a baby is a tragic consequence that can be cured by an abortion in much the same way that syphillis can be cured with a good course of antibiotics. This ultimately leads to MORE abortions, not only because it encourages the very behavior that results in pregnancy, but because babies are portrayed as the enemy.

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 .

(not St. Francis)

This kind of attitude is highly offensive to non-Catholics. Somehow any drive to present morals is portrayed in terms of Catholicism. As if non-Catholics could not possibly want the “best” moral choices for their children! If abstinence is the best choice; it’s the best choice. It doesn’t matter if you are Catholic, Baptist or Athiest.

BTW, I am not against trully comprehensive sex-ed. But “comprehensive” should mean wholistic; involving parents and other parts of the students lives (including Church). Comprehensive should mean that sex is presented as an experience for the whole person, not an impulsive reaction to a hormonal urge. ‘Comprehensive’ does not mean that contraception and abortion must be part of the curriculum.

 

[St_Francis]

Notes

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.

I think you are unaware of how heavily Rogerian thinking infiltrated the schools, many of which are using “re-worked,” ie, re-named versions of the same old same old, and of coirse the techniques with which the teachers were trained are still in place in classes like lit and history.*

Political correctness on both sides of the spectrum has stifled *the meaningful inclusion of creative and critical *thinking * in the educational process. Educators are afraid to even have any type of discourse involving controversy *.I think it shows a lack of confidence in our own ability to form reasonable positions about issues and in the context of this discussion a lack of confidence in our own religious beliefs.\quote]
I must say that “meaningful inclusion of creative and critical thinking” sounds really good, but is really pretty meaningless. we don’t teach the students anything on which to base critical thinking on, so all that exercise does, esp in the non-judgemental atmosphere of the school, does is to reinforce the validity of unformed adolescent thought.

An earlier post had brought up the question of the title of the OP, all or nothing. I must agree that title was inaccurate. The “all” is way too inclusive , it implys a range of ideas. A better title would have been -“My way or the highway”. There is such a reluctance to try or even think of better approaches to reaching the goals *Jesus had for us.

We have had 33 Doctors of the Church and 2000 years of highly trained highly prayerful people working on these problems. Do you really think that we can come up with a better way by watering down the teachings of the Church, by reducing our insistence on teaching good? Believe me, “giving in” on things like the teaching of contraception use in schools would be heading away from reaching the goals Christ set for us, not be some sort of improved approach.*

Jesus’s message was so much about possibilities and growth of the human race. Most of the social progress of humankind in the last couple of centuries can be traced to the ideals revolving around the social Gospels. Progress , both economically and of personal freedom and liberty sprung mostly from the ideal that every person had value. Freedom and liberty and evidence of God’s love for us expand as more and more people are included in the class of the least of our neighbors being treated as if they are Jesus in the guise of the least.

What we can see is that in the areas where we followed Christ’s teachings, we have improved. But at the same time, we deviated from His teachings in other areas, and in those areas we see nothing but shattered lives left in the wake.*

We cannot look only at the good, like the area of race relations, and say, see, things are better in this area so what we have been doing in all areas, including the sexual arena, must be good.*

Implicit in the concept of human value is the potential ability to make good decisions regarding ourselves and others. We know that “good” people can make bad decisions , after all we are all sinners, the real challenge is in helping “bad” people to make better decisions.

Right. And how best can that be accomplished? Certainlynot by teaching contraceptive use in the schools “just in case.”

If we don’t help all people to make better decisions we will have to live with the consequences of that decision.

Unfortunately those who suffer the most will be the ones who make the bad decisions and those they directly affect, like their children. And sadly,'these decisions will likely have eternally painful consequences.*

 

[St_Francis]

What results did the NEA lie about? And how does the abortion industry benefit them?

Peace

They don’t so much as outright lie, esp in publications, as they do obscure the truth. It was years before the truth of the bad effects of drug and sex ed were known, because there was no research on the effects, for example.

Instead, these programs were marketed with anecdotal evidence which was not even related to the stated goals of the program.

eagleforum.org/psr/2010/aug10/psraug10.html

I can’t make links work right now, but that’s the url for the best I could find on the NEA’s resolutions for this year. While on their site they list their education-related concerns and
do not tell you about passing resolutions regarding DC statehood, the International Court of Justice, privatization of Social Security, etc. I have no problem with the right of people to hold various views; I just do not understand a teachers’ professional association holding views on issues unrelated to education.

 

[streetpreacher]

So is that stance all or nothing or is it just giving up in the face of adversity .

As to enticing others into the faith with a watered down version, do you know of any religion that requires perfect adherence to what Jesus taught? Every religion has watered down Jesus’ message to some extent. From a practical standpoint following Jesus’ message with the total awareness of how it impacts each and everyone of our actions and omissions is just too difficult.

Peace

Some parents pull their children from those classes, at least the wise ones, and teach their children about the facts of life within the proper setting, ie. a nurturing family unit. I just think it’s hypocritical that our public school system took out all forms of prayer and moral instruction and replaced it with secular man made confines of thought. It would be bad enough if this was a communist country, but it’s the parents own free choice that elects to have the school system teach this very basic moral set of teachings.

They don’t touch abstinence because it alone without any kind of moral authority and implications, such as what happens to the soul, of course it fails, but to include the full teaching would require delving into matters of the spirit, and that clearly would be crossing the line for them to do so, and again, back to no prayer in school…so, all or nothing is the only way until parents start pulling their children from the classes.

We are right along giving up to a point along not making as strong of a united front and stance about it, this is a given, and something we all should put some thought into along at least some passive resistance movement to send a message clearly home to them about this and many other matters.

 

[Brendan]

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.

As Catholics, we understand that Wisdom is really a person, as Love and Existance are.

Human wisdom, real Wisdom is doing what God desires.

God does not desire His People to engage in intrinsically evil acts. Ever.

I’m really surprised that you consider the instruction on how to participate in intrinsically evil actions as somehow being a good thing to teach children. If anything, it brings about Christ’s admonition on those who cause little one to sin ( Matt 18:5). Personally, I cannot see how being cast into the sea wearing a big rock to be anything close to wisdom

That wisdom doesn’t entail advocating for unwise or even stupid decisions, but being prepared to at least conditionalize those decisions with some semblance of preparation and knowledge.

Do we tell those aborted kids that we are sorry, but you are just collateral damage in the pro-life arena? Sorry I was just following the rules? Sorry Mandy or Peter or Mary or Maria, Frank ,Christine, Norma,Kevin, Doug , Raquel Riley, Emily, Josh, Kim, Ng Juan, Deng, Priscilla, Jesus, Hillary, sorry sorry sorry…

Peace

How about taking your point a bit further. There are those who die from spousal abuse. Perhaps the Church should be on the forefront of while encouraging absintance from wife beating, to also promote the use of boxing gloves and offer training. After all, even with an abstinence program, there will certainly be those who engage in this sinful practice. Would it not be better to offer more comprehensive wife beating education and would cover all circumstances that might be encountered?

Would you approve, of such a program or would you tell those dead Mary’s, and Sandra’s and Peggy’s and Yolanda’s that you were just following r’ules’.

 

[Graubo3]

But government does have the right to teach children about contraception

Who says??? Why stop at teaching contraception? Maybe a field trip to your local Planned Parenthood clinic would be just as instructional/educational? Who knows what a kid may learn there and what they could aspire to be for the “betterment of society”. You could teach them business, finance, and mathematics with the monies that come in. You could teach them about anatomy and physiology with the subjects of the mother and the aborted baby. You could teach environmental science dealing with the discarding of “waste” and recycling. Career choices. Maybe foreign language exposure. Endless possibilities for education when the government has so-called “rights”.

So is that stance all or nothing or is it just giving up in the face of adversity .

It is an “all or nothing” stance. Good people have been silent too long and let the “experts” in charge. Sounds like you gave up, “go along to get along” Cumbaya! God entrusted my children to…? ME! I have one chance to do it as close to right as possible. Thank God we have the freedom to homeschool! Have a nice weekend.

Peace, Graubo

 

[RosaryFan]

Some parents pull their children from those classes, at least the wise ones, and teach their children about the facts of life within the proper setting, ie. a nurturing family unit. I just think it’s hypocritical that our public school system took out all forms of prayer and moral instruction and replaced it with secular man made confines of thought. It would be bad enough if this was a communist country, but it’s the parents own free choice that elects to have the school system teach this very basic moral set of teachings.

They don’t touch abstinence because it alone without any kind of moral authority and implications, such as what happens to the soul, of course it fails, but to include the full teaching would require delving into matters of the spirit, and that clearly would be crossing the line for them to do so, and again, back to no prayer in school…so, all or nothing is the only way until parents start pulling their children from the classes.

We are right along giving up to a point along not making as strong of a united front and stance about it, this is a given, and something we all should put some thought into along at least some passive resistance movement to send a message clearly home to them about this and many other matters.

Yes, yes, yes! Thank you for this wonderful post. I do have one question for Portarica. Are you here to learn or just to antagonize? A review of all your posts indicates you are here to antagonize.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

It isn’t even about the information being taught, as another poster stated. It is about the assumptions behind the information: These are absorbed by the kids like a sponge soaks up water, because the messages are unstated but clear as a bell.

*Sex is a natural and good activity, like exercise. It has no moral consequences, is value-neutral, and is better to indulge in than to deprive oneself of pleasure.

Children have a right to know about sex, and children have the intelligence and moral clarity to decide when is the “right time” for them to begin having sex.

Parents are not the right authority to turn to for information about sex.

In fact, parents will deceive children about sex (and by extension, other things). Agencies like Planned Parenthood can be trusted to help guide kids the right way when it comes to sex. Unlike parents, Planned Parenthood tells kids the truth about sex.

The sex educators in school have children’s best interests at heart.

There is nothing bad or sinful in any kind of sex or any sort of relationship that includes sex.

Children should be taught about sex as young as age 5.

Babies are an unintended consequence of having sex and can be dealt with through abortion.

Artificial means of birth control are always reliable, and if they are not (contradiction) there is always abortion.

There is no shame in any sexual activity.

Sexual instruction is as important as any academic subject, which is why it is being taught to children in school.*

These are just the ones that come to the top of my mind. So destructive to allow this education to fly under the radar. When will parents come to their senses?

 

[St_Francis]

PortaRica,
Here is a link to a blog entry which explains why we need to take an all-or-nothing approach. The writer very clearly explains the attitudes which lead to acceptance of abortion and their relationship not only to contraception but to sex ed.

conversiondiary.com/2008/01/how-i-became-pro-life.html

 

[TheRealJuliane]

PortaRica,
Here is a link to a blog entry which explains why we need to take an all-or-nothing approach. The writer very clearly explains the attitudes which lead to acceptance of abortion and their relationship not only to contraception but to sex ed.

conversiondiary.com/2008/01/how-i-became-pro-life.html

Fantastic story! I wish all pro-abortion supporters could think as well. The Holy Spirit was obviously working in this young lady!

 

[portarica]

As Catholics, we understand that Wisdom is really a person, as Love and Existance are.

Human wisdom, real Wisdom is doing what God desires.

God does not desire His People to engage in intrinsically evil acts. Ever.

I’m really surprised that you consider the instruction on how to participate in intrinsically evil actions as somehow being a good thing to teach children. If anything, it brings about Christ’s admonition on those who cause little one to sin ( Matt 18:5). Personally, I cannot see how being cast into the sea wearing a big rock to be anything close to wisdom

That wisdom doesn’t entail advocating for unwise or even stupid decisions, but being prepared to at least conditionalize those decisions with some semblance of preparation and knowledge.

How about taking your point a bit further. There are those who die from spousal abuse. Perhaps the Church should be on the forefront of while encouraging absintance from wife beating, to also promote the use of boxing gloves and offer training. After all, even with an abstinence program, there will certainly be those who engage in this sinful practice. Would it not be better to offer more comprehensive wife beating education and would cover all circumstances that might be encountered?

Would you approve, of such a program or would you tell those dead Mary’s, and Sandra’s and Peggy’s and Yolanda’s that you were just following r’ules’.

Lets speak to your example of spousal abuse and reality. Do you think that spouses should be aware of how to minimize to minimize the consequences of the negative consequences of spousal abuse? Should we tell people about the Catholic agencies available that help the abused? Or should we just tell the spouses to obey their abusing partners?

It is very easy to make up comparisons to support certain holdings when you assume that even the most extreme arguments are valid. But not all the arguments are valid just because somebody can come up with an example like teaching abusing spouses to observe the Marquess of Queensbury rules of boxing.

Do we want to prevent as many abortions as possible? Or do we want to do the mental gymnastics to support positions that may lead to more abortions, but allow us to feel comfortable with our present approach to the issue ?

I personally don’t care to compromise the most critical issue of preventing abortions , even if I have to compromise some other issues to eliminate as many abortions as possible.

Sorry, I’m just shortsighted about that. I think abortion is abominable and eliminating it is my highest priority.

Peace

 

[TheRealJuliane]

We all think abortion is abhorrent, but the problem is that unless society makes a change in the way we view sex and sexual intimacy, nothing will change. More birth control is not going to stop abortions. When babies are seen as the enemy of having sex, any baby that is conceived while using birth control will be more easily aborted. Perhaps there would be fewer abortions if everyone used ABC, or if everyone were sterilized, better yet. You could put birth control in the water and then give people a pill to counteract the chemicals if they had permission to reproduce.

It’s not just one element that we can take out and fix, while leaving all the other elements in place. It’s all of a piece - the concept that life can be about physical pleasure whenever we want it although God made sex to create children inside a marriage between a man and a woman. We are going against God’s will for us, abortion is just the extreme end of that process. The whole thing is messed up, and trying to decide what part one will compromise on will never work.

 

[portarica]

PortaRica,
Here is a link to a blog entry which explains why we need to take an all-or-nothing approach. The writer very clearly explains the attitudes which lead to acceptance of abortion and their relationship not only to contraception but to sex ed.

conversiondiary.com/2008/01/how-i-became-pro-life.html

Actually it explains why an abstinence approach may work better than a course teaching about how to make sex enjoyable and risk free.

That is not the point , it is like arguing that the Yankees will win the world series because they play the Baltimore Orioles as many times as anyone else. I might agree that abstinence might prevent more abortions than lousy sex education classes do, but it doesn’t mean that the all or nothing approach beats a good comprehensive sex education class to prevent the most abortions possible.

Peace

 

[portarica]

We all think abortion is abhorrent, but the problem is that unless society makes a change in the way we view sex and sexual intimacy, nothing will change. More birth control is not going to stop abortions. When babies are seen as the enemy of having sex, any baby that is conceived while using birth control will be more easily aborted. Perhaps there would be fewer abortions if everyone used ABC, or if everyone were sterilized, better yet. You could put birth control in the water and then give people a pill to counteract the chemicals if they had permission to reproduce.

It’s not just one element that we can take out and fix, while leaving all the other elements in place. It’s all of a piece - the concept that life can be about physical pleasure whenever we want it although God made sex to create children inside a marriage between a man and a woman. We are going against God’s will for us, abortion is just the extreme end of that process. The whole thing is messed up, and trying to decide what part one will compromise on will never work.

It is foolish to even start to think that contraceptive usage will somehow be abated by what ever we catholics believe about it. The other point about your tact is that most people do not believe that the sole purpose of sexual relationships between men and women is to create life within marriage. When we try to tell people, who do not believe that the sexual act is reserved only to make babies, how to run their complete sexual life, we get laughed out of the building.

Whether or not that viewpoint (about holding a negative opinion of Catholic doctrine about sex) is correct or not, when we insist that other people must have the same views as we do , it does damage to anti -abortion efforts.

Peace

 

[portarica]

It isn’t even about the information being taught, as another poster stated. It is about the assumptions behind the information: These are absorbed by the kids like a sponge soaks up water, because the messages are unstated but clear as a bell.

*Sex is a natural and good activity, like exercise. It has no moral consequences, is value-neutral, and is better to indulge in than to deprive oneself of pleasure.

Children have a right to know about sex, and children have the intelligence and moral clarity to decide when is the “right time” for them to begin having sex.

Parents are not the right authority to turn to for information about sex.

In fact, parents will deceive children about sex (and by extension, other things). Agencies like Planned Parenthood can be trusted to help guide kids the right way when it comes to sex. Unlike parents, Planned Parenthood tells kids the truth about sex.

The sex educators in school have children’s best interests at heart.

There is nothing bad or sinful in any kind of sex or any sort of relationship that includes sex.

Children should be taught about sex as young as age 5.

Babies are an unintended consequence of having sex and can be dealt with through abortion.

Artificial means of birth control are always reliable, and if they are not (contradiction) there is always abortion.

There is no shame in any sexual activity.

Sexual instruction is as important as any academic subject, which is why it is being taught to children in school.*

These are just the ones that come to the top of my mind. So destructive to allow this education to fly under the radar. When will parents come to their senses?

Which school district has what you posted as a curriculum? It is wonderful to make a post about all these totally negative things about sex education, but what does that accomplish?

If some teenagers saw your reasons for not having sex ed classes and then said if all that was posted was true, I won’t engage in sex and if what was posted was found to be false and /or exaggerated I’ll have sex, what would be the outcome ?

There are a myriad of non- religious doctrinal reasons why young people shouldn’t engage in sex. And most of the reasons apply to a wide range of kids. Why not tell them the real reasons instead of fighting to not tell them the real reasons ?

Peace

 

[portarica]

Who says??? Why stop at teaching contraception? Maybe a field trip to your local Planned Parenthood clinic would be just as instructional/educational? Who knows what a kid may learn there and what they could aspire to be for the “betterment of society”. You could teach them business, finance, and mathematics with the monies that come in. You could teach them about anatomy and physiology with the subjects of the mother and the aborted baby. You could teach environmental science dealing with the discarding of “waste” and recycling. Career choices. Maybe foreign language exposure. Endless possibilities for education when the government has so-called “rights”.

It is an “all or nothing” stance. Good people have been silent too long and let the “experts” in charge. Sounds like you gave up, “go along to get along” Cumbaya! God entrusted my children to…? ME! I have one chance to do it as close to right as possible. Thank God we have the freedom to homeschool! Have a nice weekend.

Peace, Graubo

It is easier to just insist upon an abstinence only policy that doesn’t work than to work to get a truly comprehensive program instituted. Just say “no” is so easy, its what the republicans did to get the healthcare bill passed in its present form instead of working their butts off to get Jesus’ work done instead of the Republican party’s.

Actually taking the kids through PP would be a good idea , maybe show them where they end up in an abortion mill or get them asking questions that we have to answer in an intelligent manner that prevents abortions by giving the kids the ammo to make the right decisions.

Maybe we have to tell the kids why people get abortions and why those reasons are not reasonable. Not the just the rules they break when they get an abortion, but what conditions put them in a frame of mind to get an abortion and why there is no reasonable reason for someone else to compel, by word or deed, the aborting of a baby.

Peace

 

[St_Francis]

Maybe we have to tell the kids why people get abortions and why those reasons are not reasonable. Not the just the rules they break when they get an abortion, but what conditions put them in a frame of mind to get an abortion and why there is no reasonable reason for someone else to compel, by word or deed, the aborting of a baby.

Peace

Abstinence-only does teach them why women get abortions: because they had sex when they could not handle having a baby.

Women do not get abortions because their birth control fails, they do not get abortions because they never put a condom on a banana, they do not get abortions because they are poor, they do not get abortions because their future would be ruined.

Women get abortions because they had sex when they were not prepared to have a baby.

If the type of sex ed you are talking about *worked, *then, believe me, women would not be getting pregnant, because there has been a ton of sex ed since the 1970s.

Since the liberals in our society have deemed that any possible thought of a restriction on consensual sexual activity is so very obviously based on religion, we cannot teach the truth to children in government-funded schools. Since we cannot teach the truth, we must stop teaching it altogether, because we are teaching them *lies. *

You think the non-directive, Rogerian approach is no longer in the schools, You think that the list above is not explicitly or implicitly taught in sex ed: you are *naive. *

You have an idea. Fine. We have told you what is wrong with your idea: it is not Catholic, goes against God’s will, does not accomplish what you expect it will accomplish, and yet you are holding tight to this idea. Fine. What more can we say? Because you are clearly not listening to us.

 

[markomalley]

Actually it explains why an abstinence approach may work better than a course teaching about how to make sex enjoyable and risk free.

That is not the point , it is like arguing that the Yankees will win the world series because they play the Baltimore Orioles as many times as anyone else. I might agree that abstinence might prevent more abortions than lousy sex education classes do, but it doesn’t mean that the all or nothing approach beats a good comprehensive sex education class to prevent the most abortions possible.

Peace

How about teaching chastity comprehensively vice teaching abstinence?

Teaching the spiritual component of relationships, particularly relationships that go into the physical dimension. Teaching so that the people understand the unbreakable spiritual bonding that occurs with physical relationships so that the learners can at least mentally appreciate the importance of remaining chaste according to their state in life and so they understand the importance of abstinence outside the context of marriage and the utter importance of fidelity no matter what the state of life.

Teaching that, no matter one’s state in life, one should live that life sacrificially, rather than egocentrically
[bibledrb]Rom 12:1[/bibledrb]

 

[streetpreacher]

How about teaching chastity comprehensively vice teaching abstinence?

Teaching the spiritual component of relationships, particularly relationships that go into the physical dimension. Teaching so that the people understand the unbreakable spiritual bonding that occurs with physical relationships so that the learners can at least mentally appreciate the importance of remaining chaste according to their state in life and so they understand the importance of abstinence outside the context of marriage and the utter importance of fidelity no matter what the state of life.

Teaching that, no matter one’s state in life, one should live that life sacrificially, rather than egocentrically
[bibledrb]Rom 12:1[/bibledrb]

Adding onto this context, especially in today’s society where we don’t have the umbrella of the church and form to solidify a dedication between two people that become physically involved. To in the context of being souly dedicated to each other, even outside of the formal context of marriage, to enter into it and remain monogamous, even if the initial bond and union were not on the complete formal up and up, to continue to remain chaste to each other, and not play the proverbial field. How entering into a physical relationship holds a great deal more bearing and not at all to be taken lightly. How having multiple partners is NOT beneficial what so ever, instead of what the world teaches, which insists upon turning it into a game, trying out many partners before settling with one. Backing up into earlier biblical context, there was not so much fanfare on a marriage, to the point, where once physical intimacy is initiated, the couple are joined for life, that the act of coupling itself was significant and the two were thus obligated to be married, consummation of it was entering into the contract of marriage.