The New York Times had a lengthy article a couple days ago: “Many State in Mexico Crack Down on Abortion.” The article is a litany of horror stories of women who were, it is reported, mistreated by a medical system that is opposed to abortion:
· A woman wasn’t treated in an emergency room because she was suspected of having an abortion and the police had to be notified.
· 300 doctors signed a petition asking NOT to be forced to administer the morning after pill.
· A number of women have been jailed for having abortions or killing their newborn infants.
· A young girl raped by her stepfather wasn’t allowed a late-term abortion.
In other words – and this is clear in content and tone of the article – women are being suppressed and abused by a government “were Roman Catholic conservatives have controlled government for more than 15 years.”
The article gives the impression that the government and Church are part of a systematic effort to make life miserable for women. I have my doubts.
But what I am absolutely certain of is that the article never discusses the reason why there is opposition to abortion – it kills babies. A reasonable perspective that a fair and balanced journalist would have included in the article would have been government or Church estimates of how many lives are saved each year in Mexico because of the campaign to prevent abortions.
The least they could do is include a gratuitous quote from a priest about how an abortion takes a human life. Any kid in a college journalism class would have done that much.
But not the New York Times.
Join the new media evangelization. Your tax-deductible gift allows Catholic.net to build a culture of life in our nation and throughout the world. Please help us promote the Church's new evangelization by donating to Catholic.net right now. God bless you for your generosity.
|Print Article||Email Friend||Palm Download||Forums||Questions||More in this Channel||Up|
|Published by: Mrs. M. Marinoni|
|Date: 2013-03-10 18:28:23|
|In response to RCK, there were far fewer unwanted babies from unmarried teenagers before the Pill and condoms! Girls were on the whole and quite rightly ashamed to risk having a child they could not look after. So they said no. Condoms and the Pill have been shown, in several recent scientific studies - including one at Harvard last year specifically about condom use, to increase promiscuous behaviour, and this inevitably has led to a huge surge of unwanted pregnancies world wide and it gets worse every year. Today, children as young as 7 in some English schools (I live in the UK) are being introduced to graphic depictions of sexual activity. By 12, they are being shown how to put condoms on. In mixed classes. The result is sexualisation of the western world's children before they are old enough to deal with the responsibilities. So, more abortions and more money for the clinics and the Pill makers.... I heard teenagers on a programme in England lay the blame for their promiscuity on their schools. They said the sex-ed lessons aroused them and as soon as they got home some of them began experimenting with friends. Instead of stimulating childrens' minds with healthy pursuits and dreams of adventure or culture etc. these schools are churning out sullen, unhappy, guilt laden young people who have it all too soon and are blase and cynical.
|Published by: RCK|
|Date: 2011-01-08 02:31:15|
|I was not taught sex ed by my parents. I was taught in a class in Elementary school just before going to 7th grade ai think it was. OR maybe it was going into 6th grade.
I am glad that my parents were not the ones to teach me about it. First of all, they could, and would not have done as good a job. I would not be free to ask all the embarrassing questions that I wanted, and needed too.
And to be honest, there is not garantee that the parent would get it right. I have heard an awful lot of BS from parents, about sex, and from kids who were solely taught by a parent.
You know sex educaton is really pretty easy to understand. Penis, sperm, vigina, womb, baby. But its the other things, that that go in a sexually charges society that we needed to learn. And parents are just not the best people to teach that. Nor, would I want them too. Some things that would be needed to be passed on to the kid might hurt and change the relationship between parent and child.
If parents did such a good job "like in the old days" as some like to parrot, we would not have so many babies born to teens in some cases. In other cases, kids are growing faster, and sex naturally comes earlier.
ITs a fact of life. Thats why some coultures encourge for teens to marry young. In the west, we in many case stretch out the getting married until much later. And by that time, many have has sex with many partners. And may have had babies (thanks to lack of birth control.) But thats getting a little better. The pushing of condoms in the poorer communities have had some headway into preventing unwanted babies, as well as spread of disease. And lets face it, these days, people will have sex before even knowing someones last name. They have multiple partners. Sometimes at the same time. There is an old saying. When you have sex with someone, you are having sex with everyone that they have had sex with. So thank God for condoms. At least so the kids will not kill each other with disease, and death.
Times are not as simple as many in the church seem to make them.
|Published by: JoAn|
|Date: 2010-10-18 07:48:44|
|What makes the parochial schools any different in the mandated sex education curriculae such as "Growing In Love" - see Mother's Watch web site for an in depth analysis of how it corrupts innocent minds. Parents and grandparents have pleaded with the USCCB to stop spoiling the minds of children unsuspecting that virtues are replaced with a modernized interpretation of what Jesus, not signfied as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, would do. Vices are to be tolerated, per G I L. If this shocks you, that's good but only a meager beginning as to the heresies once considered corruption of youth and a crime that is being taught and accepted with every dime put into the offerings. The voices of the claimed 'rights' of the UNcatechized parents to teach sex education in groups prevails while the natural divine rights of parents to educate their children is blocked out. How could the bishops disconnect from Supreme Authority - from Sacred Tradition that hands on children are not to be taught sex education in groups? Did Pope Pius the XI get it wrong?
Write a comment on this article|