False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie uses his usual trick of telling you something is a moral obligation, even though he has no grounding for that — as if the Bible was full of advice on how to get sinners to (allegedly) sin more safely. See Birth Control In The Schools? Providing Contraceptives Is A Moral Obligation:
The Oregonian tonight has posted a story about two Canby High School seniors, Hunter Mead and Peter Schultz, who are pushing a proposal to allow their school based health care clinic to provide “birth control in the form of pills, patches, rings or the Depo-Provera shot.”
As a minister in the United Church of Christ, I want to applaud this proposal and thank the students who have put it forward.
Then he tries the “abstinence doesn’t work” canard, ignoring that the advent of Planned Parenthood philosophies overlaps the exponential rise in out-of-wedlock sex, STDs, poverty and abortions.
The thing that false teachers and other liberals like Chuck miss is simple human nature: Giving taxpayer-funded birth control to teens is an implicit and explicit message that you expect them to have sex. And guess what? They’ll listen to the “we expect you to have sex” part and ignore the “but you must use protection” part.
And of course, these methods won’t protect children from many STDs and the emotional damage they’ll get. But Chuck & Co. will be too busy releasing endorphins over how “loving” they are to care about that.
Does Chuck favor passing out clean needles because it is important to be safe when using drugs? Is he one of those moronic parents that gives alcohol to kids and lets them get drunk in his house because “they’ll do it anyway?”
Do these people think the parents have any right to know that their children are being given powerful drugs? Would these schools let the children bring even an Advil with them to take on their own?
Also see “Don’t have sex, because you will get pregnant and die.”
6 thoughts on “Free birth control in schools? What could go wrong?!”
if you think kids aren’t going to have sex because you tell them jesus doesn’t like it, you are living in a fantasy world. abstinence programs have failed miserably. do you have any idea how many of teens that attend church end up pregnant out of wedlock? do you know how many of them are forced into unwanted marriages and end up in divorce? and hiv/aids is infecting hundreds of white, heterosexual “christian” kids everyday… but of course, i guess that is just your unconditional loving god extending his hand of punishment, right? and don’t eat lobster!!! its an abomination!
Thanks for visiting. You’ll do better if you respond to what I said and not what you think I said.
I never claimed what you said. I know that people will sin. I also know that they will pay the penalty for those sins for eternity if they don’t repent and trust in Jesus.
I’m not the one in the fantasy world, who thinks that if you just give condoms to kids that they’ll not only use them but use them properly (because teens have a long track record of obedience and attention to detail, right?).
The lobster / shellfish argument is full of holes but is appealing to many because so few bother to study the passages. I address five serious problems with it in flaws of the shellfish argument. http://tinyurl.com/l2qjtc
So now you have a choice: You can keep repeating a fallacious sound bite, or you can get educated on what the Bible really says and reconsider your views. If you have specific objection to how I analyze the Bible there, please share it. Did I get the Hebrew words wrong? Did I get the context of the key passages wrong? Etc. But don’t waste my time with your sound bites.
What convoluted thinking can anyone have to make the claim that encouraging sexual immorality is the moral thing to do? Does Currie just sit around thinking about what oxymoron he can next spew out?
Just like the moral thing to do is to force girls to get Gardasil injections so they can have sex without worrying about HPV – and now at least 26 are dead!
Well, at least they won’t get HPV!!
“And guess what? They’ll listen to the ‘we expect you to have sex’ part and ignore the ‘but you must use protection’ part.”
Yes, exactly! And in retrospect, it seems obvious that that would happen: The “safe sex” people can’t send the latter part of their message without also sending the former; the former is necessarily inseparable from the latter.
It’s funny, the “safe sex” people talk as if it were totally impossible to have any impact on people’s behavior in their choice of whether to be sexually active, but at the same time talk as if it were totally worth trying to change people’s behavior in their choice of whether to use “protection”. If I recommend that they recommend abstinence and early marriage, they’ll say, Some people will fornicate no matter what you do; but they would never conclude, by the same token, that the fact that some people will have “unprotected” sex no matter what they do should keep them from recommending protection. I don’t think I’ve ever heard one of them realize the inconsistency.
Neil, I made that exact same point about the needles and drinking parties on Currie’s blog combox today. He responded by quoting you and accusing me of a) being you or b) stealing that thought from you. I did a google search on the quote and found your site, and that was my first time ever visiting – so rest assured that I did not steal your thought…. and neither did the thousands of other people who have had the same one because it’s an entirely logical connection to make! Just wanted to let you know that he read your blog. Keep fighting the good fight, brother.
Thanks for visiting and commenting. It is no surprise that false teacher Chuck would do that. You did a great job of engaging him. And how pompous of him to say you were acting badly by not using your full name!
It isn’t surprising that he would dodge your question (and mine) and refer to it as “silly.” But it is completely relevant: His aim is to teach kids to sin more safely. But don’t expect much from Chuck. He’s a “reverend” who takes his 6 yr. old daughters to gay pride parades. Seriously. He’s that perverse.
This was a particularly nauseating quote of Chuck’s:
He is pro-legalized abortion and pro-taxpayer-funded abortion, yet he claims to protect the vulnerable?! Who could be more vulnerable than unborn human beings? Yet Chuck says that Jesus thinks it is OK to crush and dismember them if they are unwanted.
I know he reads my blogs without fail. Once when he reflexively played the race card on a pastor who held a biblical view of marriage and sexuality, I pointed out that Chuck had accused a black pastor of being racist. Chuck immediately made a correction and pretended that someone else had notified him.
P.S. to Chuck — I am glad you are such a faithful reader! Repent and believe, before it is too late. The god you created in your own image is not the real God to whom you will answer one day for all your blasphemies.