Further on our ongoing discussion on Reproductive Health.
Fr. Joaquin Bernas wrote an interesting opinion about the ongoing debate about the Reproductive Health Bill 5043. He talked about the definition of abortion, religious freedom, and notably, the issue of sex education:
I would make special mention of the requirement of sex education. Sex education is a matter closely related to religious morality. Our Constitution allows the teaching of religion to children in public schools, but it requires that it be done only with the written consent of parents. A similar respect for the desire of parents should be provided for in the law. Our Constitution says: “The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.” As for sex education in private schools, any law on this should respect academic freedom which is also protected by the Constitution.
Fr. Bernas’ full article is here.
The way Fr. Bernas alludes to “academic freedom” and “consent” is to my mind an implicit argument that a child’s sex education ought to be optional, depending on the parents. His basis: sex education and religious morality are intertwined. His support: religion needs consent, so should sex education.
I personally wonder if parents who send their children to religious private schools in the Philippines (arguably for the superior education) can really opt out of theology class. Moot argument?
Interestingly, the faculty of the Ateneo de Manila (of which Fr. Bernas is also a part of) have a more definite opinion of sex education:
“In sum, although our youth are having their sexual debut at increasingly younger ages, they do so bereft of sufficient knowledge on reproductive health, particularly the consequences of early and unprotected sex. Curious and eager to know more about sex, they seek information from unreliable sources like their peers and pornographic materials, unable as they are to get that from socialization agents like their family or school,” the teachers said.
“Worse, some of them learn about sex from actual experience, without fully knowing how one could get pregnant or contract sexually transmitted diseases. Access to accurate and appropriate information and services on many aspects of sexual behavior, reproductive health, and sexuality is thus needed by our adolescents and youth, in light of increasingly risky sexual behavior among a significant number of them.”
The faculty’s full article here.
Between the two opinions above, it seems that the argument is to give parents the option to make their children ignorant of sex, or knowledgable of sex–but at risk of immorality?
Something doesn’t add up.
The Jesuits educated Rizal in his youth, thinking he would become like them. They didn’t realize he was learning how to think for himself. So they murdered him in 1896 and made up a story about him “retracting.”
It’s funny now how, when even their faculty rebels, they suddenly rediscover and demand “respect for academic freedom” for the child abuse that is called catechism class.
That is the Catholic Taliban for you.
Academic freedom is a misnomer–since the intention behind the message is to uphold the outdated and dangerous thinking that sex should be taboo, and any knowledge leads to immoral behaviour.
This not only results in children learning about sex by other (less appropriate) means, but also inadvertently results in poor population control.
The culprit: Moral codes are held as absolute by the Church, but inevitably these codes have changed over time–along with society, but many conservatives have trouble grapling with change, even necessary change. The value judgements surrounding this issue are piling up, but like any law it should be taken apart and smoothened to make it not just palatable to the tastes of many but still retain its essence and effectiveness.
Don’t get me wrong, I respect your moral coding. I spot again “value judgments”. See how it all piles up like madness? And you said – like any law it should be taken apart, etc., etc.
Value judgments and law (government) are both from man’s need for laws in general. It is NOT the need for morality but for LAW – in metaphysics.
GOD = law. in metaphysics.
Between chaos and order, choose order, even imperfect order.
The problem is not moralizing per se – but closed mindedness. We should not evade value judgments, nor demonize them–but be willing to subject them to critical opinion.
Very good! As order is the 1st law of the universe.
Unfortunately, there is no imperfect order in metaphysics. All is perfect, with no exception (impersonal).
Imperfection is opinion (personal). Then again, if in our opinion, it doesn’t produce the results we want (personally), then change direction.
Have you considered value judgments of the pragmatist? Do value judgments necessarily have to be moralist?
1. Moral codes and laws of state is one context. (previous topic)
2. Laws in metaphysics is another context.
3. Same words, used in different context, cannot be used interchangably in the same argument.
God is love. Love is blind. Ergo, god is blind.
Metaphysics and its laws is already another topic. It has no relevance and continuity of thought if you inject it haphazardly.
Love is blind? So this is your metaphysics, and it becomes your law.
Good question. Man has to pee in the middle of a main avenue bound by rules. It’s beneficial for him to pee on the wall, so he does. It works for him – so what?
But is it intelligent? You don’t call that pragmatic. Smart, maybe even clever, but pragmatic is more than that.
I think you are more in the what is expedient, which is more based on self-interest and could be at the exclusion of all the rest.
Moralism and pragmatism is a relationship that won’t work in many ways because moralism is vague and grates on logic most of the time.
But there can be some compromises made.
It doesn’t have to be glaringly Sex Education. Why rub in the faces of these people the very act that they must not commit?
It can be a subject that includes sex education for health, wellness and body awareness, also for first aids.
The time you deviated from logic and continuity of thought is when you used one word in another context and made it appear to mean the same when it was used in another context. I hope you got my example.
===Love is blind. God is love. Ergo, God is blind. (that’s what you did with the word “law” above.
I suggest you open a new article or topic to really discuss metaphysics or new age ideas on same footing. You tend to confuse people if you haphazardly inject it, while the *real discussion* becomes futile and nihilistic. Metaphysics is an interesting topic, but don’t haphazardly throw it anytime you see an opening to mention it. Clarity of thought for all of us lang.
On moralism and pragmatism- Unless the morality of the person is 2nd hand and religion/institution based, pragmatism will always be a (one of the) deciding factor of our morality.
Even then, I highly doubt that religious/institution based morality has no pragmatic motive! The question is “Who BENEFITS?” That is also the reason why religious laws and code of ethics get modified as time progress, it’s because its no longer relevant and pragmatic for the member/subscribers of such morals.
Should our morality make sense or not? Should morality be logical or not? I think it should, otherwise, its time to change it.
Intsik, it’s OKAY if you really don’t know what the topic is. God is anything you believe to be true for you, not necessarily theistic. It’s more about what you are “being”. I’m not here to make it simple for you, unless you ask.
Morality and moral codes are being taken up here, if you don’t see that as a mess. Must be your god is truly blind, but that’s okay.
Moralism may not be pragmatic, but the pragmatic may include moralism in its considerations – the reason there is pragmatic metaphysics, which must not be equated with New Age just because you don’t know either of the two.
I’m not New Age (I don’t use crystals, to begin with).
Metaphysics doesn’t merit your logical attention, and so, in your logic your grandmother’s case is more aligned and offers more profound insights to the above problem? If she is benefiting from what she is doing and is not tormented by it, in your logic, then how can it possibly be evil?
Unfortunately, too, pragmatism is not just about “benefits”; it’s about what works, whether in your opinion you are benefiting or not, tormented or not, and the bigger the social circle of a system working, then the better. This means, what works not only in your grandmother’s case and to her benefit, but for all.
How do you determine ‘what works’ without considering “beneficial”?
Sexual curiosity starts to develop as early as 10-12 years old. If parents and schools are not open to teaching sex to young people, the kids will just look for another medium like internet, books, friends. This might be more dangerous if not properly guided by parents. Fathers should teach their sons to masturbate until they are ready for actual sex with protection. Mothers should do the same to daughters.
My grandmother got married at 14 and had been sexually active before she had her menstruation at 16. Is she any more moral than a single 25 year old girl who fucks her boyfriend now?
Maybe 10-12 in general? My friends and I were curious around 4 onward, although we had no idea how exactly it is done or how it happens…
Intsik, my intro to sex education was medical and pragmatic between me and my dad (both pragmatic) before I turned 9 years old. The reason was a medical 1st aid book for the family that I liked reading for my little pragmatic concerns:
1. headache, flu, fevers
2. toothache, swelling gums, milk teeth-related stuff
3. how to detect a diff kind of fever that could mean a more serious illness (measles, chicken pox, mumps)
4. cuts, burns and bruises
5. earaches
Somewhere between those pages was about pregnancy, childbirth and homemade contraception. So before 9, I had read about them but not consulted my dad about them because they weren’t my problems.
So I kept reading this book and consulted my dad because pragmatics understand pragmatics. Was there parental paranoia about it? None. As far as a pragmatic is concerned, you are better off knowing about what you are going through.
Yes. it is the parents responsibility to teach sex education to their children.
But how many of the parents now are doing their responsibility in teaching their children sex education?
Probably just a few! majority of them either don’t have time because they are busy with economic survival, there are many children to feed and other reasons or
they are not capable and feels awkward and uncomfortable to teach sexuality education to their children! I have a friend who is a doctor who told me, it was easy for her to teach other young people about Sex Education ( in her NGO) but not to her daughter. She was worried then because she was close to her boyfriend, and her husband who is also a doctor has been hesitant just like her!
just a reminder – it is AGE – APPROPRIATE comprehensive reproductive health education, it will include VALUES!
it would be very important for our young people to form those values earlier, including sexual values and to decide “intelligently and responsibly” they have to be accountable of the CONSEQUENCES of their decisions and actions!
so, formal sexuality education would be a lot better than just knowing from their barkada or thru the various media outlets, internet etc.
Please remember also that most of the teachers are parents themselves, who can be better trusted than the barkada of your children!
My answer to the question, which is the title of this post is -YES. This should have been made mandatory 200+++ centuries ago.
Not all parents are good at this topic. What if they instead bequethed their own paranoia, or they aren’t able to address the more private? Or take their children’s decisions too personally?
The academia could hire a specialist on this subject, and make it amoral, clinical, unromantic. Religion tends to romanticize, for good or ill.
The blind god fell in the manhole where the jeepney and the cats are playing metaphysically arbitrarily cutting the water into two while jumping and sliding upwards according to Ishlamarush and as approved by Kahliliariz, the third. It’s immaterial.
Okay, so let’s now open our eyes to your case. So what about your grandmother? Let’s all think about your case and forget about the topic. Haha. Do you feel ignored for your grandma?