You are implying that the world at large (culturally correct) point of view supercedes that of a Catholic (and truly correct) point of view. It doesn’t.You enunciate a purely Catholic point of view, and while many might agree, this is not the way the world at large looks at sex.
It would be most improper to force everyone to live by culturally correct norms, especially when they are morally questionable.I submit it would be most improper to force everyone to live by Caholic norms.
Preserving ones Catholic beliefs does not in the least cause or allow much pain. Teaching contraception causes much pain and much damage.You seem willing to allow much pain and much damage in order to preserve your Catholic beliefs unsullied by talk of contraception.
Agreed for the most part, but it is not a guarantee. As I said, I have six step-nieces who were raised both at home and at church (in which they were all incredibly involved lifelong) that abstinence was the only acceptable option. 5 of them were pregnant before marriage, most as teens (the one who was not a teen was sexually active as a teen).It all goes to what your parents expect of you, what kind of a model your parents give you.
Accurate information includes the fact that all forms of birth control will fail on occasion. However, it also includes the information that if one is sexually active, there are ways to have safer sex that is substantially less likely to result in pregnancy or STD’s. It is also a question of actually understanding how one is supposed to use contraceptives effectively (the pill has to be taken every day, preferably at the same time, antibiotics will make it less effective, condoms have to be used every time, you can get pregnant your first time even if he withdraws, etc.). This is where the medically accurate information comes in.When I graduated last year, we had one girl who’d had a baby (while she was on birth control, thus disproving “safe-sex”) and a few other girls who were pregnant at graduation and had been using “safe-sex”. On the other hand, those of us who abstained were of course, not pregnant - imagine that!
They certainly portray sex as a casual thing without any consequences, emotional, physical or otherwise. This is inaccurate regardless of one’s religious beliefs or lack of them.While we are on the topic, maybe we should worry less about what teens are learning about sex in high school, and worry more about what they are learning through movies, television, and magazines. Most of these media glorify sex. They give teens this illusion that it is okay to have premarital sex, and in reality, this goes against God’s plan. Students are more influenced by what they see on tv., movies, and in magazines than what a teacher or school nurse is going to tell them.
I think you are not informed on the law. The state of course has a vested interest in these things and thats exactly why they are taught in public schools. Of course people can opt out of the system as long as they can prove a viable scholastic alternative. Health is always a concern of the state. It’s why immunizations are required, and certainly why sex education is offered in most states. You have still not explained what is to happen to children who do not have the benefit of parents who are able or willing to impart the knowledge on their own.No I wouldn’t be. Fortunately it is not in the interest of the state to decide what my children should know about such things, nor how to teach it to them.
No the state does not have a vested interested in teaching immoral alternatives even in the interest of health.
Actually, no the state does not trump my rights. It is my decision how to raise and educate my children on these matters.
**Well you believe that of course. But contraception has saved millions of lives. You may see it as an evil. Most of the world does not, just as most Catholics do not. **You are implying that the world at large (culturally correct) point of view supercedes that of a Catholic (and truly correct) point of view. It doesn’t.
**It doesnt? lol…that would come as a huge surprise to most of the world. You mistake saying that you believe Catholic teaching is the correct teaching. It may well be. But the world at large’s view does indeed supercede what the Church teaches. The is obvious on its face. **
It would be most improper to force everyone to live by culturally correct norms, especially when they are morally questionable.
Preserving ones Catholic beliefs does not in the least cause or allow much pain. Teaching contraception causes much pain and much damage.
**Well you believe that of course. But contraception has saved millions of lives.:nope: It is a strange argument that says contraception which is a means of preventing life and at times taking life is said to have saved life. ** [You may see it as an evil. [COLOR=“DarkRed”]The Church sees it as evil
QUOTE]In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
Saved millions how? Telling the lie that safe sex is…safe creates many more babies than teaching abstinance, which is the only 100% effective form of birth control.**Well you believe that of course. But contraception has saved millions of lives. You may see it as an evil. Most of the world does not, just as most Catholics do not. **
Sure I am informed of the law. There is no provision for usurping a parents rights to how, when, and if there children are taught sex education, and especially if they are taught contraception. If you are aware of such a law, please enlighten. My original post on this thread read:I think you are not informed on the law. The state of course has a vested interest in these things and thats exactly why they are taught in public schools.
Which equates to any so-called vested interested is that which is permitted them.The governors of these states need to be pressured to eliminate all sex education from public schools. It is not their place to teach such things
Actually one does not have to prove a viable scholastic alternative to opt out of the system, but that is a different subject entirely.Of course people can opt out of the system as long as they can prove a viable scholastic alternative.
If it were only offered, that would be a different matter. To say it can be forced upon ones children would be an infringement of parental rights. In addition, teaching contraception is not health education.Health is always a concern of the state. It’s why immunizations are required, and certainly why sex education is offered in most states.
Once again, would you say you have the right to decide whether I am adequately teaching my children? Would you say that if I refuse to teach my children contraception, the government has a right to force it?You have still not explained what is to happen to children who do not have the benefit of parents who are able or willing to impart the knowledge on their own.
Contraception has not saved a single life, let alone millions. In fact because some contraceptives are abortificacients, they have resulted in the loss of life.**Well you believe that of course. But contraception has saved millions of lives. You may see it as an evil. Most of the world does not, just as most Catholics do not. **
Bingo! Because Catholics teach that contraception should never be used nor mentioned in sex education does not mean that they should force that limitation on the rest of the country that patently believes the opposite. One does not only teach teens things that will be immediately used. One is also, ideally, preparing them for the rest of their lives.Also it is wrong to say that because most of the world believes something, that it should be forced on those who believe the opposite.
That very much depends on the state in which one lives and whether one feels obliged to abide by the laws of his or her state in the matter.Actually one does not have to prove a viable scholastic alternative to opt out of the system, but that is a different subject entirely.
Oh, I certainly teach my child faith in the Gods, but this is an issue of morals and ethical behavior, not religion, for us.What needs to be taught is to have absolute faith in God and His plan.
Does this suggests that the opinion of most of the world is automatically right?**Well you believe that of course. But contraception has saved millions of lives. You may see it as an evil. Most of the world does not, just as most Catholics do not. **
Actually when I wrote:Bingo! Because Catholics teach that contraception should never be used nor mentioned in sex education does not mean that they should force that limitation on the rest of the country that patently believes the opposite.
I finished on a partial idea. I should have also added that what the masses believe doesn’t make it correct. In fact that is why majority rule doesn’t work. That is why we need to strive to have representative with moral backing to indeed legislate in line to moral criteria. This would include outlawing and banning contraception. Not just not teaching it in schools.Also it is wrong to say that because most of the world believes something, that it should be forced on those who believe the opposite
Yes, and the law is not an absolute. In my state it used to be true, but due to folks (myself included being an early pioneer) standing up for their constitutional rights have been able to get such laws changed.That very much depends on the state in which one lives and whether one feels obliged to abide by the laws of his or her state in the matter.
Actually you have atheism being taught. What a purely secular school funded by public funds needs to be teaching is education which is morally sound.You can’t simply say “Choose one God and one interpretation of that God’s plan for everyone.” If you do so, you run a substantial risk of having someone else’s idea of what God’s plan is being the one chosen,
There is not and has never been a law or court case that mandates what any parent teaches any child at home about sex or whether they do so. That sex ed is taught in the schools is only a supplement to what is (ideally) taught at home.Karen NC
you have made the case for teaching abstinence in Public Schools as well as the choice of weither your child shall receive contraception education.
This is a country where choices are given correct?
To make a choice one must have all the facts about what choices are out there and any dangers and consequencec of making such choices? facts and figures
When one is given a one sided view an educated choice or true choice does not occurr I think you would agree? All Sides
So not giving the percentages of teenage pregancy when contraception was used and used incorrectly should be part oif the class.
The choice of abstinence and the percentage of teenage pregnacies occurring here would be.
The chance of desease? HIV, BBP, VD, cancers, herpes, with or without contraception and protection should be taught. etc…
Cancers
Now with all this being said the smart choice would be?
Since Roe vs Wade has been the law and this type of sex education taught in the public schools and not at home over 40,000,000 abortions has been done in these United States. Yes a whole generation. I do not believe contraception is working. I believe it has failed.
How many are still infected with sexual desease, how many teenage pregnancies are occurring is the number dropping or increasing? I think the figures will shock you.
You know that might be an interesting question. I have no idea if there is a statistical favorite when you look at issues from a majority and minority point of view. Certainly, if one ups the majority, one would assume that the rate of correctness would improve. Obviously this never eliminates the possibility that a clear majority can be in error, and no doubt there are examples of this. Still, common sense naturally advises us that when we find ourselves in the minority, we have a responsibility to reexamine our proofs and look for more information. But I would argue that no opinion should “automatically” be right. That would seem uncalled for, unscientific, and against plenty of good examples to the contrary I would believe.Does this suggests that the opinion of most of the world is automatically right?
Well said.There is not and has never been a law or court case that mandates what any parent teaches any child at home about sex or whether they do so. That sex ed is taught in the schools is only a supplement to what is (ideally) taught at home.
The numbers do not shock me, I am quite familiar with them.
guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf
The teenage pregnancy rate in this country is at its lowest level in 30 years, down 36% since its peak in 1990. A growing body of research suggests that both increased abstinence and changes in contraceptive practice are responsible for recent declines in teenage pregnancy
The tables show that the pregnancy rate for women ages 15-19 and ages 15-17 was substantially lower in 2003 than it was in 1972. The pregnancy rate was substantially lower in 2002 than in 1986 (and even more so from the peak in the early 1990s) among sexually experienced women ages 15-19. Unfortunately, the US still has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates among developed countries.
STDs are indeed a problem, which is why teens need medically accurate information about them and ways to prevent them----all ways to help prevent them, including abstinence, ways to have safer sex and the need to be extremely choosy in one’s sexual partner.
You are arguing against something I have never said. I advocate teaching about abstinence and holding it up as the ideal, but I also advocate doing so in the context of medically accurate information on all aspects of sexuality. That includes all forms of birth control (including NFP) and the proper ways to use them, ways to have safer sex, the consequences (physical, emotional, financial) of engaging in sexual activity, the fact that every form of birth control has a failure rate and that that failure rate skyrockets if used inconsistently or improperly, the accurate facts about ways in which STDs are spread, myths about sex (can’t get pregnant the first time, douching prevents pregnancy, oral sex isn’t “real sex” and doesn’t share diseases, etc)----all of it. Sex ed is not only for teen years, but for their entire lives.
Full information so that they can indeed be armed to make the “smart choice”----not abstinence only and leave all the other (mis)information to be provided by their friends in the bathroom who likely have as little factual information as they do.
I would agree that only abstinance provides perfect protection but condoms have undeniably saved tens of thousands if not millions from HIV infection as well as the transmission of other cronic if not life threatening diseases. I certainly agree that abstinance should be taught and upheld, but I believe, that since the vast majority of people are in favor of contraception and its use, that this needs to be taught as well. We need to protect kids from death and disease, not protect them from information.Saved millions how? Telling the lie that safe sex is…safe creates many more babies than teaching abstinance, which is the only 100% effective form of birth control.
What’s lacking in this education is teaching abstinance and not teaching why abstinance is the best solution. What needs to be taught is to have absolute faith in God and His plan.
If a child knows morality and how it works with sexuality, he would know that an act of sex is an act of permanent consequences, rather than an act of a few moments of feeling good.
What we all need to realize is that our way doesn’t usually work very well, while God’s way always works.
**Nope, you are free to remove your child and place them somewhere else of course. **Sure I am informed of the law. There is no provision for usurping a parents rights to how, when, and if there children are taught sex education, and especially if they are taught contraception. If you are aware of such a law, please enlighten. My original post on this thread read: Which equates to any so-called vested interested is that which is permitted them.
**More’s the pity. **
Actually one does not have to prove a viable scholastic alternative to opt out of the system, but that is a different subject entirely.
If it were only offered, that would be a different matter. To say it can be forced upon ones children would be an infringement of parental rights. In addition, teaching contraception is not health education.
**wow, no kidding. So you don’t even have to educate your child any more? No wonder we do so abysmally internationally on the abilities of our kids to do math, and science. And I would beg to differ with you on the health question. Have you heard of HIV? Condoms are a huge health benefit here. **
Once again, would you say you have the right to decide whether I am adequately teaching my children? Would you say that if I refuse to teach my children contraception, the government has a right to force it?