Sex Education IS NOW OPEN....

Esther wrote:No. but are you not surprised that I was able to point out to you the problems.

No. The argument you've been using is the same arguments that have been presented by those against the RHB and sex education before. They also did not read the RHB or materials relating to what sex education is.

Easy enough to spot by the misconceptions that are posted.

Esther wrote:A good christian Parent would never allow her daughter or son to have a illicit relationship like this. What would the sex-ed program would teach then? "curb early onset of sexual activity."? The premarital prob. is an immoral act. We are speaking of morality here. So this set of program "will lead to" is the right word to use when speaking of the outcome of this prog.

Again, I find it funny that you state that yet fail to see the irony of the argument against sex education.

Esther wrote:By the way contraceptives are immoral too. We are teaching morality here because it is the real solution to the problem. Although partly educ. (this HIV) It does not help. DOH and other entity informs their constituents it is their duty.

According to who? As I stated before, not everyone shares in the views you espouse. That's not even considering the justification of the view that artificial contraceptives are indeed immoral.

Esther wrote:Thanks now I know the exact reason why is it opposed. So the the entirety of the said program is almost similar to the reproductive bill being opposed by the church. see my ff. coments on cobtraceptives.

Only in part. I'm guessing you also haven't read the RHB. I still remember the priest who was interviewed by a morning talk show (can't remember if it was 2 or 7). He was asked if he had read the RHB. His answer was "no."

Esther wrote:Here comes subjective morality. of course if there are two contradicting party one is right other is wrong, being subjective you say both are right according to their belief. But for sure ONLY ONE is right. Right?

FYI contraceptions falls on immorality. ALL. So it will be opposed no big deal for that. No matter how good is the program - it will never make it moral.

To proved that the church is wrong on morality. One must depend that contraceptions is moral etcc...

It is immoral based only on your own beliefs. As I stated, not everyone shares your belief. Which means that using your belief as justification is nothing more than you imposing your morality on others. That is forbidden in the constitution.

Esther wrote:It is based on morality not on fear. Because we value the future of the children.

Actually, it is, since as you pointed out, you are speaking of "may lead to" scenario, not an actual one. That will change if you can provide evidence that sex education actually leads to such things.

Esther wrote:DOH has diseminate information on this as a government entity. all were informed, church
media men parents.etc... What's the use?

Now you're just shooting off excuses. You haven't even considered how well that dissemination actually got. What does the facts show us:

Compared to the monthly average in the last five (5) years (2003-2007)which was 20 per month, the AIDS Registry showed an average of 29 new HIV cases per month for 2007.

http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2008/philippines_2008_country_progress_report_en.pdf

Esther wrote:As a moral parent you would not allow your children to get addicted to or learn bad education. So basically your information are immorals. Would you teach them to your children. How about if your children goes on the premarital issue is that ok to you? because his using safe sex -educ.? You should be concern because Morality is absolute - you cannot make immoral - moral.

Once more: not everyone shares your view on what is moral and what is not.

Esther wrote:No need to learn them if involves immoral - oriented like you said.

And where did I say I consider sex education as immoral-oriented?
Far from it, that is a question I have been waiting for you to answer.

Esther wrote:Church teaches morality.
Parents guide their children on their curiosity. All is well before without these program. What was lost is the sense of teaching on values and morals. that is the problem.

You did not answer the question, again. I asked you: Did the church or your parents teach you the reproductive processes?

I doubt it. And I also doubt your statement "All is well before without these program." If that was true, this program would never have been made. But as I have shown through data, that is not the case. Even here in the Philippines.

For years, the church has opposed sex education in schools. They have spouted the same rhetoric that you have been saying - should be the parents, teach morality, etc. They have always had their way as seen in the fact that we have not yet had a fully implemented sexuality education curriculum. What is the result:

De Leon said the latest data from the National Statistics Office showed that of 1.7 million babies born in 2004, almost 8 percent were born to mothers aged 15-19.

Almost 30 percent of Filipino women become mothers before reaching their 21st birthday, he said. In 2000 alone, young mothers gave birth to 818,000 babies, he said.

“This means that almost one of every 10 babies is born to a teenage mothers,” he said. He said this number could be bigger as births after March 5, 2005, were not recorded.

“We need to help these children for they are the next generation of parents, workers and leaders. In order for them to fulfill these roles… we must improve their access to education and information about sexuality and reproduction,” De Leon said in a separate statement.

Kiko dela Tonga, of Likhaan Foundation, said a recent study done by the Population Institute of the University of the Philippines showed that more than four million Filipinos aged 15-19 had already had sexual
intercourse.He said more than half of these are from poor families who do not have knowledge about contraceptives and reproductive health.

He said two of every five teenage pregnancies are unwanted ones; more than 46 percent of young pregnant women resort to induced abortion.

One of every four teenage mothers, Dela Tonga said, quit school to focus on child rearing or to find a job to help their families.

So, I have presented you with three separate data to show the effects of the church's way. Care to present evidence to the contrary?

Esther wrote:Did the church or your parents teach you the reproductive processes?

I don't need to argue against your stand. Can you can point to me why do you have to gamble the future morals of the children, knowing for youself morality is relative, there lies the uncertainty of your decision?

If that's what you want: Prove that sexuality education will lead to a corruption of morals.

So far, all you have presented is nothing but a "may." You have not
presented anything that would even hint that it "will." So that's
nothing more than an unfounded fear - one that is exclusive you your
group - and yet you would deny everyone the chance of learning something
because of that fear.

I have presented data that showed the adverse effects of your stand. Time for you to show something that validates your argument.

[quote="Esther"]The church my parents never taught us to get into an education which are immorally oriented. e.g. contraceptives etc..[/quote="Esther]

Nice to get a straight answer.

You said that people learned about the reproductive processes in school. Tell me, what did you learn and how did it affect you?
[b][color=blue]


Care to discuss that? I find it funny since contraceptives are approved as safe for use and even recommended by doctors and professional health care workers.

Esther wrote:Did the church or your parents teach you the reproductive processes?

I
don't need to argue against your stand. Can you can point to me why do
you have to gamble the future morals of the children, knowing for
youself morality is relative, there lies the uncertainty of your
decision?

If that's what you want: Prove that sexuality education will lead to a corruption of morals.

So far, all you have presented is nothing but a "may." You have not
presented anything that would even hint that it "will." So that's
nothing more than an unfounded fear - one that is exclusive you your
group - and yet you would deny everyone the chance of learning something
because of that fear.

I
have presented data that showed the adverse effects of your stand.
Time for you to show something that validates your argument.

Esther wrote:The church my parents never taught us to get into an education which are immorally oriented. e.g. contraceptives etc..

Nice to get a straight answer.

You said that people learned about the reproductive processes in school. Tell me, what did you learn and how did it affect you?

Esther wrote:As an adult we do not study on how to used
them but the effect of chemical in the body which affects the health,
to give helpful advised and warn others.

Care to enlighten us?

I find it strange since if contraceptives are so dangerous, why are they approved as safe for use and even
recommended by doctors and professional health care workers.

korrill wrote:

Really?







I don't see any "may" in any of your post. All one can see in your posts are direct accusations of sex education compromising the morals of children.



I didn't fail to realize that. I pointed it out, didn't I. But in case you missed it, I also pointed out another major issue regarding parents being the ones to teach children sex education:



Which is why I gave the example of my life and why we asked you: Where did you learn about the reproductive processes?



So tell us, what is taught in these sessions?

I'll just go out of my way and say that those programs you mentioned are very much isolated seeing as it is not even found in the DepEd's memos.



So please answer the question: How is sex education (taught in school) immoral?




There's a term for the argument you gave: Fallacy of Appeal to Emotions (Fear)

You used the russian roulette as a push to promote your particular brand of morality. Problem is, the russian roulette analogy applies equally for your position as with the others.

So tell us: Why should we adopt your morality?

You haven't shown how it is better than the others. You haven't shown that it is right and others are wrong.

You have yet to show us why we should have a problem with single parent families or ostracize them and their children rather than accept them. Or why we should condemn same sex couples raising a child the best way they can rather than applaud them for their efforts to give their child a good up-bringing.

Or why we should view teaching our children something that would help them make more responsible decisions in life as something immoral.

Simply put, that just rests on your belief. As I pointed out, not everyone shares your belief.



Allow me to change my question, then: Are you saying that those who subscribe to a secular view-point are immoral?

I find it amusing that there are still people who subscribe to the notion tha religion=morality.



And it doesn't answer a single thing which leads one to the conclusion that you really don't have an answer or basis for your claim.



So prove me wrong.

First:
Your argument is going circular and becoming out of context, your arguing using morality when, by your own definition of it has contradicted your own stand.

How come you are still persistent on asking us where do we acquire the knowledge of reproductive sexual education, as if it is good and we have to try it. We look at it too but not to try it. Only to find surely this is not the academic reproductive system taught in school. This is different it has immorallity based like that of the UN implemented on different countries.The contents are as you have said on your post ... contraceptives pills , condoms.

Where did we learn the reproductive system ? in academic of course. We learn the parts of our body. But the teacher in academic does not teach this kind of education.

2nd
Those who don't believe in God, but who believe in morality,have a problem. What is the basis for right and wrong? Is it reason? But different persons reason to very different conclusions on morality. They believe in right and wrong, but they are left with only opinion as to what is or is not right (moral). This type of search for moral truth ultimately should lead to God. In order for morality to be truth, there must be some type of unchanging truth and unchanging source of truth on morality. And this unchanging Truth can only be God.

The existance of God, and certain ideas about His Nature (that God is good, infinite, unchanging, perfect, etc.) can be known by reason.



Nice post Esther

harballah wrote:

Iyon nga ang problema brad kasi nagkakalat ang mga ito at allowed pa sa gobyerno, hindi ko sinasabing kayang sawatahin ang mga ito ngunit kung ipinagbabawal ang mga ito ay kahit papaano ay mababawasan ang mga batang nagkakaroon ng pananaw sa sex, minsan nga ay mayroon kabataan na sinubukan manood ng porno sex kung saan mayroon silang kaibigan na batang babae, alam mo ba ang ginawa nila ay ginaya ito at ginahasa ang kaibigan nilang bata, ano ba ang parusa sa mga batang lalaki wala po kasi nga daw menor de edad sila, ngayon ano na ang katarungan na makakamtan noong batang biktima. Sino ngayon ang dapat sisihin ang magulang ba o ang nagkakalat na kalaswaan na maski sa bangketa ay puwedeng mabili ng mga bata kasi ultimong diyaryo ay mayroon malalaswang larawan na nandoon.

Again, hindi solusyon ang SEX EDUCATION sa mga bata kundi ang solusyon ay ipagbawal ang mga malalaswang larawan at porno video, patawan ng mabigat na parusa ang gumagawa nito.

Ideally that might work. The magazines and tabloids and maybe some movies can be monitored. Problem is, with the way society and businesses work, not everything can be monitored. The internet alone which everyone has access to, which is hard to censure (being that we're not like China) is a repository for sexually explicit materials.

Again, the call to instigate Values Formation is the key. It's time for the Moral Institutions to do it right this time... cause it's obvious that they are failures for now.

Yidda wrote:First:
Your argument is going circular and becoming out of context, your arguing using morality when, by your own definition of it has contradicted your own stand.

Really? How so?

Yidda wrote:How come you are still persistent on asking us where do we acquire the
knowledge of reproductive sexual education, as if it is good and we have
to try it. We look at it too but not to try it. Only to find surely
this is not the academic reproductive system taught in school. This is
different it has immorallity based like that of the UN implemented on
different countries. The contents are as you have said on your post ...
contraceptives pills, condoms.

First: I believe I pointed out that misconception some posts ago.

Second: Not everyone subscribes to your moral codes.

Where did we learn the reproductive system ? in academic of course. We
learn the parts of our body. But the teacher in academic does not teach
this kind of education.

Answer this, please: What will be taught and how will it affect students' morals?

And in case you missed it, I posted three data sets that show the effect of your proposed methods. You can read my replies to Esther.

It would be nice if you can present data that would actually prove your claims.

Yidda wrote:2nd
Those who don't believe in God, but who believe in morality,have
a problem. What is the basis for right and wrong? Is it reason? But
different persons reason to very different conclusions on morality. They
believe in right and wrong, but they are left with only opinion as to
what is or is not right (moral). This type of search for moral truth
ultimately should lead to God. In order for morality to be truth, there
must be some type of unchanging truth and unchanging source of truth on
morality. And this unchanging Truth can only be God.

The
existance of God, and certain ideas about His Nature (that God is good,
infinite, unchanging, perfect, etc.) can be known by reason.

It is a funny misconception that believers have always spouted - that a
person can only be truly moral if he or she believes in a god. It is a
belief that is easily debunked by looking at the facts:

Transparency International ranks secular/irreligious nations as being more trustworthy.

The Global Peace Index ranks secular/irreligious nations as being more peaceful.

Gallup Poll shows secular/irreligious nations as being more tolerant of others.

And finally, in a country with a low-estimate of 20% atheists, the
religious data from English and Welsh prisons show only a .2% atheist
population.

As I pointed out before, religion is not the definition of morality. Nor does it hold a monopoly over it.

Morality is a cultural phenomena. What is moral in one place may not be moral in another. It is based on what a society finds acceptable - either based on tradition or beliefs. The only objective form of morality can be summed in the expression of the golden rule:

Do not do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you.

All other forms of morality - decorum, behavior, practices, and even views on such matters as contraceptives - are dictated by tradition or philosophy.

This is one of the reasons why the separation of church and state was established - no one religion may dictate upon others. Everyone is free to practice his or her own beliefs.

Yidda wrote:
First:
Your argument is going circular and becoming out of context, your arguing using morality when, by your own definition of it has contradicted your own stand.

How come you are still persistent on asking us where do we acquire the knowledge of reproductive sexual education, as if it is good and we have to try it. We look at it too but not to try it. Only to find surely this is not the academic reproductive system taught in school. This is different it has immorallity based like that of the UN implemented on different countries.The contents are as you have said on your post ... contraceptives pills , condoms.

Where did we learn the reproductive system ? in academic of course. We learn the parts of our body. But the teacher in academic does not teach this kind of education.

2nd
Those who don't believe in God, but who believe in morality,have a problem. What is the basis for right and wrong? Is it reason? But different persons reason to very different conclusions on morality. They believe in right and wrong, but they are left with only opinion as to what is or is not right (moral). This type of search for moral truth ultimately should lead to God. In order for morality to be truth, there must be some type of unchanging truth and unchanging source of truth on morality. And this unchanging Truth can only be God.

The existance of God, and certain ideas about His Nature (that God is good, infinite, unchanging, perfect, etc.) can be known by reason.



Nice post Esther

I think you've hit the nail on the head, especially with no. 2

thanks Yidda!

Pa out of topic lang.


I was about to ask this. If there's no God, let's say, is there a chance for us to know what is good and what is bad (morality)?

MarcCatholic wrote:Pa out of topic lang.


I was about to ask this. If there's no God, let's say, is there a chance for us to know what is good and what is bad (morality)?

hi, Marc.

I'm Lara. Maybe your question is pertaining to:

if we do not believe in God is there a chance for us to know what is good and what is bad (morality)? Am I right? if this is the question. my answer is YES to your question, anyway God will not go away even if we do not believe in Him.

If that is not the question pardon me for not paying attention with your question, and paying much attention with your picture.

MarcCatholic wrote:Pa out of topic lang.


I was about to ask this. If there's no God, let's say, is there a chance for us to know what is good and what is bad (morality)?

I think 'The Golden Rule' will essentially be manifested -- it will take quite sometime though, but people will ultimately get the general idea. Who would want to be inconvenienced and stressed-out with a lot of things anyway, right? People will ultimately realize in the end that it's a give and take situation.

That's how social mores develop.

Marc, of course, we would know what is good and bad, even if there is no God. The countries with Buddhist, Hindu, Hellenic, and Muslim faith don't have God (assuming that the Christians are correct that God is one and is only Christian) and yet they are able to devise correct moral laws.

Even social animals (puppies, ants, etc.) are able to form behavioral codes for harmonious interaction.

Humans have moral codes that are not biblical at all -- DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, GENDER EQUALITY, RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE -- are among the obvious examples.

Thanks to those who replied. Let's take Ateo's point that it would really still be possible to discern what it is good and bad in terms of morality. But, the intensity of that morality is now the question. How much could we value life if the concept of God is not known? And according to Element, it will take time, but how long is that? How many lives will be mistakenly treated because of the absence of a Supreme being concept? When is that golden rule be available? How about those people who were not able to know that? What are their bases of life? What is the essence of life for them? Were they still like those primitive people who defend their territories for nomads, and kill them if need be? How?


Super OT na to ha. Ahehehe! Thanks Esther for liking my photo. Naku. Wala lang.

did not god said to spread and procreate? there wasnt even a sacrament of marriage at the time of adam and eve and after them @_@

MarcCatholic wrote:Thanks to those who replied. Let's take Ateo's point that it would really still be possible to discern what it is good and bad in terms of morality. But, the intensity of that morality is now the question. How much could we value life if the concept of God is not known? And according to Element, it will take time, but how long is that? How many lives will be mistakenly treated because of the absence of a Supreme being concept? When is that golden rule be available? How about those people who were not able to know that? What are their bases of life? What is the essence of life for them? Were they still like those primitive people who defend their territories for nomads, and kill them if need be? How?


Super OT na to ha. Ahehehe! Thanks Esther for liking my photo. Naku. Wala lang.

Have you forgotten about the Inquisition, the Witch-Hunts and Holy Wars/Crusades? Remember these were instigated by a Church who strongly believed that God was on their side. So where's the difference in social mores formation if one believes in God or not?

The thing is, it's still the people themselves who determines and figure things out -- the 'God issue' is merely a backdrop for all these 'figuring out'.

Have you forgotten about the Inquisition, the Witch-Hunts and Holy Wars? Remember these were instigated by a Church who strongly believed that God was on their side. So where's the difference in social mores formation if one believes in God or not?

well said! the judeo-christian god carries with it centuries of blood and atrocities in thy hands, all done in its name and its glory.

many have died for the wrong reasons for these things you call morals.

sakundes wrote:

well said! the judeo-christian god carries with it centuries of blood and atrocities in thy hands, all done in its name and its glory.

many have died for the wrong reasons for these things you call morals.

With or without religion (God belief), good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.