Alison Davis was someone that I never met personally, although she was a friend of my mother’s. Alison lived on the other side of the world, in the UK. We live in New Zealand.
Through a series of events which can only be described as the Hand of God, Alison met my mother, Colleen, and subsequently was able to come to New Zealand in 2009 to share her story.
You see, Alison was no ordinary woman.
Alison’s life was one of great suffering. Born with spina bifida, she also had hydrocephalus, osteoporosis and a host of other conditions that at times made her pain unbearable. Alison also suffered from mental anguish.
For ten long years, Alison wanted to die. The pain was so much, the desire not to live so strong, that on numerous occasions Alison attempted suicide. She says that if euthanasia or assisted suicide were legal, she would have taken it.
But in time Alison found real hope. And in that hope she embraced her suffering. I am sure she offered up her suffering as a sacrifice in reparation for so many outrages against God. I know too that she offered her pain for those who needed her prayers.
The world has been blessed to have such a dedicated, inspiring woman walk amongst us. Her life, I am sure, will continue to inspire, continue to encourage and continue to be a voice for the most vulnerable in our society today the weak, the disabled, the unborn and those whose lives are deemed “unworthy of living”.
Currently the schedule allows for free vaccination of women aged between 9 and 19 years old; male patients aged between 9 and 25 years old with confirmed HIV infection; and transplant patients.
In a consultation document released by Pharmac on 6 November 2013, a subtle change is proposed for the ages of both men and women so that it is available free to women under the age of 18 and men under 25. Transplant patients would still be eligible.
Many believe that not all the information needed to make an informed decision is available. It also appears, for some people, to be a very risky vaccination, having caused deaths, sterility and various long-term diseases.
Is this a vaccine that should be given to children?
Japan doesn’t think so. They have recently pulled support for the administration of this vaccine.
Mothers whose daughters have died after having Gardasil don’t think so.
Yet Pharmac continue to fund it.
Dr Deidre Little, an Australian obstetrician gives an address entitled “Does anyone need Gardasil”. In it she discusses the vaccine, the adverse events, research and the experience of early onset menopause in her teenage patient.
I had a few ‘pro-choice’ activists visit me in the office this week. They were obviously wanting to know a bit about what we are doing, and were polite enough to visit in person. This differs greatly from my experience in the past. I remember a vigil outside an abortion clinic many years ago. One of the pro-abortion counter protesters had a sign reading, ‘If Mary had an abortion, there would be no Christians”. Obviously they were going out of they way to offend us. But not my visitors of this week. They actually were polite, although for one of them, it was a rather assertive form of politeness. After helping themselves to some of our literature, they were kind enough to give me some of their own.
As soon as it was put in my hand I saw something that was wrong. Their brochure said that there was “no association between abortion and breast cancer”. They are obviously referring to the work of Joel Brind, but they made a really bold claim. If they had stuck to a causal link between abortion and breast cancer, they would have had many official organisations to back them up. Joel Brind’s work is controversial, and is not widely accepted outside the pro-life community. But they crossed the line from talking about causality, to using the word ‘association’. And in doing so, they crossed the line between what is ‘officially’ accepted and what is propaganda.
If a young pregnant woman asks whether having an abortion will mean she is more likely to get breast cancer, there are some clear answers, and they aren’t at all controversial.
Research has demonstrated that having children lowers the risk of breast cancer. The younger the age of the women at the first birth, the lower her risk of breast cancer. Also the more children a women has, the lower her risk. Some studies state that each child lowers the risk by 7%. Breastfeeding also lowers the risk, by 4 -5% per year of breastfeeding. Obviously, if the women aborts the child, she doesn’t get the protection of a full term pregnancy.
Some organisations warn that there is a short term increase in breast cancer risk after childbirth, and a slight increase in risk for women who have their first and only birth after the age of 35. I really don’t think that pro abortion groups are going to want to mention this, after all, if they do, then are going to have to admit that for the majority of women, childbirth and breastfeeding provides significant protection against breast cancer. And a woman who receives an abortion doesn’t get the benefit of breastfeeding, or a full term pregnancy.
So lets go back to our young pregnant woman considering an abortion, and wanting to know how it affects her risk of breast cancer. If she is a teen, and having a first baby, there is a very significant reduction in risk of breast cancer by giving birth to her baby. If she is in her 20′s, there is still a significant protection against breast cancer compared with not giving birth, or waiting until her 30′s. If she has already given birth to a child before the current pregnancy, there is still a modest protective effect of giving birth to the child she is currently pregnant with. And with any child born, she can breastfeed, which also lowers her risk of breast cancer. She won’t get any of this protection if she has an abortion. So when a pregnant woman asks about abortion and her chances of getting breast cancer, the answer for most of them is that if they have the abortion, their chances of getting breast cancer will be higher than if they let their unborn child live.
And none of that relies on controversial science.
I explained this to my pro-choice visitors. One of them immediately expressed his doubts and said he was going to look up this information. I hope he does. He might receive an education.
The last few weeks has seen quite a resurgence in the subject of sex education, what is now referred to as sexuality education, in an attempt to cover up the insidious nature of this abuse of our children.
As a mother of seven beautiful children, I am alarmed at the rate at which things are moving. Just last week on the radio it was raised that sex education should be mandatory for every child. Yes, “sexuality” education is compulsory for all children in Year One to Year Ten, but parents have the right to withdraw their child from the classes. This proposal means that our children would be exposed to explicit, vulgar and value changing “sexuality” education and parents would have no rights to remove their children.
It appears that for the world, taking away the rights of parents to love, protect and teach their children is a #1 priority.
Another shocking resource has reared its ugly head in our country. It’s the “Every Body Education” programme. Developed by Kathryn Heape, a qualified teacher and “sexuality” educator, the programme aims to teach children from the age of 5 scientifically accurate information. That information, Kathryn told 3 News, includes information “about how the baby grows in the uterus, [and] we talk about how the penis’s job is to deliver the sperm to the egg through the vagina. It’s all very matter of fact.”
The Every Body Education programme is already being used in 5 North Island Primary Schools. Parents are outraged. And so they should be. This is unnecessary information, however scientifically accurate, for a five year old child to process, especially when it is given out of context in a classroom setting.
What on earth is Kathryn (who by the way has no children of her own) thinking?
Despite evidence to the contrary, Family Planning and their cohorts still insist on fixing the problem of teen pregnancy, STI’s and deviant behaviour by giving our children more and more graphic sex ed. When will they realise that the solution lies in raising the bar, not lowering it?
Parents, it is our responsibility to protect our children, to ensure that their education in love is one that aligns itself to the natural law.
We need to teach our children that marriage is important. We need to teach them self control and real respect for the dignity of others. We need to do this with the mind of the Church, who teaches the truth.
I never saw myself involved in a revolution. But I think we need to start a peaceful, but truthful one today! For the sake of our children and grandchildren!
Gabriel Kuby an author and convert to Catholicism speaks extensively on the global sexual revolution. Kuby calls this a battle: “It is a battle for the dignity of man, for the family, for our children, for the future. Ultimately, it is a battle for the Kingdom of God.”
What better things are there to fight for in life?
Will you join us in speaking up for children?
It is frequently stated that condoms are the solution to the AIDS epidemic. We have had condoms for a long time, and they are plentiful, cheap, and their use is advocated to virtually every school student in the country many times before they leave school.
In addition to this, we now have very effective medications for HIV positive people. They are capable of reducing the amount of the HIV in their blood to levels so low that they become undetectable. And when the viral load in their blood reduces to these levels, these people are considered to be virtually non infective.
So you could be forgiven for thinking that the AIDS epidemic is a problem solved, and it will soon just be another entry in the history books.
Except that in 2011 (the last year we have records for) the number of people newly diagnosed with HIV was higher than for any year during the 1990′s. And that number is a substantial drop from 2010. So why isn’t condom promotion stopping the epidemic in New Zealand and around the world? After all, it’s regularly said that condom use reduces the risk of becoming infected with HIV by 85%.
One answer to this question can be found in the same research papers that give us the efficacy of condoms.
There are some serious ethical (and moral) issues with medical testing. The standard method is to divide a sample of people randomly into 2 groups, and only treat one group. Then compare the disease or condition between the group that received treatment or intervention, to the other, or control group. But if the intervention is potentially life saving, then there are serious ethical issues in withholding that intervention from the control group.
As HIV was (and still is) a terminal disease, so if a researcher thinks using condoms will save the lives of people in the study, they ethically can’t withhold them from anyone. So they need an ‘ethical’ way of testing condom effectiveness. The standard method is to find a group of people that are going to be exposed to HIV infection, train them in condom use, and then record the condom usage and infection rates.
The usual group to study are couples where one has tested HIV positive, and one has tested HIV negative. These couples must be mutually monogamous, heterosexual, not be using intravenous drugs, and have not received unscreened blood products. They are all given intensive ‘safer sex’ instruction, usually on a regular basis. These studies frequently supply condoms too. Not surprisingly, a large number of couples simply stop having sex. The risk is too great. It’s the ones who continue that interest the researchers the most.
The researchers regularly survey condom use of the people in their study, and compare HIV infection rates of those who consistently use condoms to those who use them inconsistently or not at all.
Did you read that bit right? There are couples in the studies who don’t use condoms consistently or at all. And that is after receiving intensive and ongoing ‘safer sex’ education. It’s not just a small minority. Frequently those who do not use condoms at all or inconsistently number 50% or more of those taking part in the study. It’s hard to think of a group of people who might be more motivated to use “safer sex”, and yet this ‘safer sex’ approach isn’t keeping the majority ‘safe’. Add to that the real world failure rate of condoms, and you have a ‘safer sex’ strategy that isn’t that safe.
The condom and lube promotion is the main strategy here in New Zealand, and in many places around the world.
The sad irony is that although half of these people in these studies wouldn’t use condoms, all of them were prepared to be a faithful couple. If only this was advocated from the start, none of those people in the studies would have ever been infected with HIV.
The opening and blessing was witnessed by a capacity crowd of enthusiastic supporters. Approximately 50 adults and 15 children were present, twice the number that the Centre had seats for.
Frank Fischer, the Co-ordinator for the Dunedin John Paul II Centre for Life, started the afternoon by introducing himself, and his background in biomedical research.
The Centre is blessed with wonderful volunteers and they were introduced to the crowd, with a few words about what each of them are doing for the cause of life.
Dame Colleen Bayer, the Founder and National Director of Family Life International NZ talked about the work of saving babies from abortion and the role that the John Paul II Centres for Life have in this life saving work.
During her address, Dame Colleen mentioned a few of the recent babies saved, and the assistance required. Several of these mothers were visiting New Zealand for work or study at the time of becoming pregnant. Colleen told how Family Life International paid their medical costs of delivery through the Auckland and Wellington John Paul II Centres for Life. This amounted to thousands of dollars, a necessary expense as there is no other source of assistance available for these mums.
Dame Colleen also mentioned that each mum was different in their needs. Some mums that approached the Centres only needed to talk to someone, but many required ongoing and practical assistance.
Before he commenced the blessing, Bishop Colin Campbell expressed his enthusiasm for the Centre, and for pro-life work in general.
He reminded the crowd of the struggle to oppose the licence to perform abortions at Dunedin Hospital in the late 1980′s, and the more recent struggle over the abortions at Southland Hospital. He paid tribute to the work that Voice for Life, Pregnancy Counselling and Pregnancy Help have done over the years.
Bishop Campbell expressed his concern that the Catholic Church has been criticised for opposing abortion, but not doing anything practical for mums and families in need, but now there was a Centre in Dunedin which provides for any possible assistance. He then blessed the Centre.
Almost the entire crowd remained behind for afternoon tea, taking the opportunity to talk to
Bishop Colin, Colleen Bayer, Frank Fischer, and the volunteers at the Centre.
There are now three of Family Life International NZ’s John Paul II Centres for Life throughout the country. The Dunedin Centre adds to the two existing Centres, in Auckland and Wellington.
Family Life International NZ’s John Paul II Centres for Life provide a physical place where mothers and families facing a crisis pregnancy can come for practical help, support and friendship; so that they may give choose life for their babies. This offer of support is also extended to the sick, disabled, lonely and those who may find themselves targets of euthanasia-type practices. The Centres are also a hub for prayer, education and research on life and family issues.
Family Planning are desperately trying to save face after the public have been appalled at the Association’s plan to release a sexuality resource for children aged 5 to 8 later this month.
The resource has drawn attention to the fact that “sexuality” is already included right through each year level of the health curriculum. Even in Catholic schools “sexuality” education is compulsory, although parents do have the right to be informed and are given the option of removing their children from these classes.
In an effort to calm the waters, Family Planning’s Health Promotion Director, Frances Bird has used the old argument that “sexuality education is not sex education”. According to 3 News, Bird said “We’re not talking about sex – the act of sex – at all.”
And that of course, is likely to be true when it comes to our five-year-olds. The problem is, the content mostly becomes much less obviously disturbing at younger ages (although not in the case of the resource we are speaking of). Unless parents are aware of what the terminology actually means, and how their children can be manipulated, it can be very easy to think that what is actually being discussed is simply harmless talk about getting along with each other, and our bodies.
What exactly is sexuality education?
According to the Ministry of Education’s 2002 document “Sexuality Education – Revised Guide for Principals, Boards of Trustees, and Teachers” the term “sexuality education” refers to the following:
The curriculum emphasises the holistic nature of sexuality education (which has physical, social, mental and emotional, and spiritual aspects) and defines “sex education” as relating only to the physical dimension of sexuality education.
Family Planning, when explaining the term to parents and caregivers, have a similar definition, expanding it slightly:
Comprehensive sexuality education is learning about:
- the emotional, social, spiritual, physical and biological aspects of growing up
- human sexuality
- sexual and reproductive health.
It involves young people in expanding knowledge, exploring attitudes and developing skills in order to lead fulfilling and healthy lives.
Family Planning supports and has developed an ‘age appropriate’ approach to sexuality (and relationships) education. This means that programmes are developed in response to a child or young person’s stage or level of development.
So sexuality education in the eyes of those entrusted with our children’s care is to do with the whole person. The term certainly gives opportunity to those who wish to deceive that it’s not all about sex, making it seem like anybody opposed are unnecessarily concerned.
One should consider who is the arbitrator of an “age appropriate” approach. From family to family and from child to child the appropriateness of this sort of material is subjective.
Family Planning goes on to say:
Because sexuality education is much more than “the birds and the bees” it should start young. Normalising conversations about bodies, good and bad feelings, families and relationships and learning communication skills from a young age makes it ok for children to ask questions and build on their understanding as they mature.
The purpose of this resource and all sexuality education materials is to desensitise children from a very young age. In this way, as a child grows, ideas, behaviours and situations that have once been seen as irregular, immoral and odd, become normal.
Take the following illustration. This is a real example of a child’s work from Year 3 (ages 7 and 8). The parents had been told that the child would be filling out the names of body parts, but that private areas would not be included. Why is it necessary for the children to be scantily clothed? Why are the children – a boy and a girl – holding hands? The only answer can be to desensitise the children.
It must be noted that the teachers handing this worksheet out may not have been aware of the deep implications of doing so. It is also true that many good teachers will go along with what a resource says because the people who put it together know what is best, as it is their area of expertise. It should also be noted that the book from which this worksheet comes from is unknown. It may not be a Family Planning resource. But it is a good illustration of the type of material that can come before our children at school at a very young age.
Parents must also be aware that some teachers fully embrace the same ideology as Family Planning and they may choose to impart even more information than is required in the resource.
What does the Family Planning resource for Years 1 to 4 include?
According to the NZ Herald, the children at Year One (age 5) will learn the following:
- Working together as a class to create a safe classroom environment
- Discussing the meaning of respect and showing respect for others
- Describing themselves and their relationships with others, including similarities and differences
- Describing themselves in relation to their gender
- Exploring and sharing ideas about friends and classmates
- Using ‘I’ statements to express ideas and feelings
- Identifying body parts, including sexual parts
- Discussing changes to the body and ways to care for the body
There is much on the list to be concerned about. Parents need to ask if this is something that our children need to know at such a young age. Teachers, Principals and Boards of Trustees must seriously consider the appropriateness of these materials for the children in their schools before embarking on teaching this type of ideologically led propaganda.
What is Family Planning’s reasoning for needing this type of resource?
Family Planning’s reasoning behind the resource so far is two-fold. Frances Bird has given two explanations over the weekend:
- “young people are being exposed to more media and materials”
- “if you start to build the foundation knowledge for them, by the time they do learn about it [sex], they’re less likely to have early sex, they have fewer partners, they have less sex as well.”
But both of these reasons are seriously flawed.
Countering graphic media and materials by providing more graphic media and materials defies logic. The only true way to protect children’s innocence is to ban the showing of graphic media and materials to children. That must include advertisements in print publications, magazine covers in supermarkets, tv advertisements, and online restrictions. Providing resources such as the one Family Planning have produced only serves to feed the cycle.
As for the argument that earlier sexuality education will result in youth having fewer partners, have less sex and less likely to have early sex, one just needs to look at the evidence around to show how prolific teenage sexual activity is. People need to be aware when reading comments like this, that Family Planning are only talking about sexual intercourse, young people can “fool around” just as much as they like, with whomever they like, and that will never be factored in to the statistics.
The more sex is placed in front of our children, the chances of them being able to resist diminish. It is simple logic.
What can parents do?
It is absolutely critical that parents are fully aware of what is happening in their children’s schools and pre-schools. There are resources out there already that many parents would be surprised to learn the content of. Here are a few ideas to get you started:
- The first person to speak with is your child’s teacher. Speak respectfully and with genuine questions to find out what is included in the classroom programme.
- If, you discover that there are elements of the classroom programme that you are not satisfied with, and having discussed it with the classroom teacher, take your issue to the Principal.
- Your final point of call at the school is the Board of Trustees.
- Parents must bring this new resource to the attention of their classroom teachers, principals and Board of Trustees. Tell them that you do not wish to have such a resource available in the school.
- Withdraw your children from sexuality education classes. A letter should be sent home informing you that these lessons will be taking place and the intended content. You have a right to withdraw your child/ren. You also have a right to teach your children about these matters in your own home, with your own values at the time you see fit.
While these suggestions may not completely protect your children (there is no telling what might be brought up in the playground, or in the classroom by the teacher outside of the health lessons), they are opportunities for you to be pro-active.
What can teachers and principals do?
Teachers, every day parents put their trust in you to teach and protect our children. You have a massive influence on our children’s lives. Many of you feel ill-equipped to teach the children in your care sexuality education. Some of you may feel very uncomfortable about teaching this and you look to the various resources available for guidance on what to teach, parents understand that.
Please consider how sexuality resources may impact the children in your care. Please consider how easily the innocence of children is lost in these days where so much is foisted upon them. Consider how quickly our society is asking children to grow up.
Children, as you are aware, come from families. Sometimes those families have many, many issues. But families that face difficulties and neglect should not be the excuse for including sexuality education in our classrooms. Most parents have the ability to teach their children about sexuality. Our young children especially, do not need to be robbed of the innocence.
Please take the time to review your sexuality education programme. Is it necessary to include all that you do within the classes? Is there any way that you can involve parents?
Most importantly, please consult with the parents and caregivers in your school. Find out how you can help them teach their children. And please, do not purchase this Family Planning resource for your schools.
All those who work towards removing our children’s innocence, no matter how pleasantly they couch their rhetoric need to have their true agenda exposed. Parents, teachers, priests, ministers and all people of good will must work together to keep organisations like Family Planning out of our schools, out of our youth programmes, out of our families. We must work hard to ensure that our children’s innocence is protected for as long as possible.
by Michelle Kaufman
New Zealand Correspondent
Reposted from LifeSiteNews.com
WELLINGTON, New Zealand, November 1, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Sexuality education for five-year olds is one of the topics being discussed at a NZ Family Planning Association Conference currently being held in New Zealand’s capital city of Wellington.
The New Zealand Family Planning Association is an affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).
One of the keynote speakers at the conference is Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood.
“Positive sexual health” is the theme of the conference, a title that belies the association’s true agenda.
Part of that agenda is the release on November 28 of a “sexuality” resource aimed at five- to eight-year-olds.
According to a Family Planning spokesperson, the resource is not about sex, but about teaching children the differences between boys and girls and naming body parts.
Family Planning’s Health Promotion Director Frances Bird stated that the resource was needed because “young people are being exposed to more media and materials.” She went on to say that children are “presenting with some questions at a younger age that we didn’t see some 10 years ago.”
Family Life international NZ’s national director, Dame Colleen Bayer is appalled at this reasoning.
“The answer lies in restricting what media and materials young people get to see, not further assaulting them with even more inappropriate material” she said. “The media standards in New Zealand are shocking. Children cannot even watch a family movie on the television anymore without being bombarded with inappropriate images.”
Another family spokesperson, Bob McCoskrie reasoned that it should be up to “parents [to] determine what kids need to know at the suitable time.”
“A one size fits all approach doesn’t work,” he said.
Other topics being discussed at the conference include building a sexual and reproductive health movement; medical abortion; gender diversity and sexuality education; sexual and reproductive health and rights on the Kiribati agenda; and New Zealand women’s experiences with the Jadelle long-acting contraceptive/abortifacient implant.
The conference is sponsored by ISTAR, a New Zealand registered charity which distributes the abortion pill mifepristone. It also imports manual vacuum aspiration equipment for suction abortions.
Other sponsors and exhibitors include Durex, Ansell LifeStyles, and the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ).
Many people disagree with Family Planning’s stance. A thread on New Zealand’s One News website is full of troubled comments.
One commenter, Louise Campbell writes “Unreal!!!! It’s the parents job to teach children what they need to know when the parent thinks the child needs to hear it. Parents should NOT be happy to leave it up to others to teach their children about sexuality! This makes me angry!”
A peaceful vigil, organized by Family Life International NZ, is being held outside the conference for the three days it is on. Many of those who pass by are shocked to learn the topics being discussed at the conference.
I was surprised to see the “See Change” campaign surface again. I thought it had died a natural and much needed death years ago, but no, it’s been resurrected.
This is a repeat of the 1999 attempt to remove the Holy See from the UN. The Holy See’s position on the UN was confirmed, and raised to the status of “observer” by the UN General Assembly in 2004. But “’Catholics’ For Choice” are at it again. They have a new campaign, but the same old goal, of stopping the Church speaking out on moral issues. And Planned Parenthood are supporting “Catholics” for choice, although, you have to visit the “See change” website to find that out. It’s nowhere on the Planned Parenthood’s extensive website. That’s very interesting, as Cecile Richards is very skilled in politics. She is the daughter of a former Texas governor, and was the deputy chief of staff to the pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives.
She is still very politically active, even appearing on TV advertisements to publicly denounce US politicians for not supporting abortion for rape victims. She’s not so loud about her own organisation’s poor record in performing abortions on women who have been raped, and then failing to report the rape to the police.
So why would she oppose the Holy See’s position on the UN? Especially at a time when we have a Pope who has a very nuanced position on abortion, contraception and same sex marriage?
Cecile Richards knows the same thing we know about Pope Francis. While his position on contraception, abortion and same sex marriage might be nuanced, it’s not soft. He strongly defends the churches beautiful and consistent teaching on these issues, but in a way that engages people, and fills them with enthusiasm for the Church. And to Cecile Richards, that makes the Pope a very dangerous foe. So the fact that the UN has already ruled on the Holy See’s position on the UN isn’t relevant to her. The fact that the UN have left the door open to upgrade their non-voting status is a concern for her. The argument was never really about whether the Holy See have the right to be on the UN. It’s simply about silencing any voice against abortion.
Once again, those who preach the message of ‘tolerance’ the loudest, are often the worst at taking their own advice.
Family Life International is praying outside the Family Planning Association’s Conference today because we care about New Zealand children and women.
Every child deserves to be given a chance at life. FPA is keen to see abortion scrubbed from the Crimes Act and to make medical abortions more widespread. Consequently more unborn babies will lose their lives.
Neither can abortion be considered as health-care for women – it is linked to both physical and psychological problems such as infections, infertility and depression. Abortion is not health-care. We pray that the lies and deceit surrounding abortion are lifted. Government needs to fund agencies promoting genuine healthcare.
Their educational resources and programmes also have poor health outcomes. Seldom, if ever, do they mention the positive gains of having one sexual partner for life. Rather sexual activity is promoted as something to launch into “when you feel ready” and when you are comfortable with someone. Behind the use of the expression “your sexual partners” is the apparent expectation that there will be more than one if not many. Yet having many sexual partners not only jeopardises one’s own health but also that of others – it potentially turns one into a public health hazard. It is no surprise, then, that the incidence and types of STDs/STIs continues to grow.
New Zealand has to ask itself what sort of health education we want for our young. Do we want to guard their natural modesty or break it down so they can move into a promiscuous lifestyle? Do we want them to know that true love involves responsibility or mislead them into thinking it’s just about emotions? Do we want them to respect themselves and others or do we want them to view others as objects to be used?
We pray today New Zealand will choose only what leads to health and happiness for our children’s future.