IN RESPONSE TO ANNIMADICT AND CLARIZE' COMMENTS

Thank you animaddict and Clarize for posting your scholarly responses to my article!
I reviewed my article and with the help of my good friends I came up correcting myself and reasserting the past notions I have implied.
I will first discuss Clarize' comments.
First and foremost, I will admit that I used the broad definition of Reproductive Health Education (see House Bill No. 5043 Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008, Lagman et al., PHILIPPINES) as a characterization for "SEX EDUCATION" in my article. I cannot argue that they different, however, I considered the current society's perception of the latest development in the House Bill No. 5043 or Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008 where there are echoing debates on the proposal of including "sex education" on the High School curricula. Honestly, what I have written here is a reaction to these debates. I have also cited my personal experience in my high school days where I said 'we were taught only of human sexuality with a limited
notion on the biological nature of sex without addressing any aspect on
the morality of the act and sanctity of sex'. This is the current "sex education" in the Philippines which is optional on educational institutions to place in there respective curricula. I would again say that "sex education" in the Philippines is values-neutral insofar as my experience is concerned.
Secondly, I do not contradict myself. I want to reiterate that sex education must not be taught in High School because the way biology and health teachers teach this kind of education is highly values-neutral and the morality of the sexual acts is hidden. Thank you for citing the study of Dr. Corazon M. Raymundo et al. of the UP Diliman (entitled Unsafe Abortion in the Philippines: A Threat to Public Health ). The study revealed that a high degree (20%) of premarital sex occur on high school students in the Philippines. The study however did not reveal the probable reasons behind this alarming statistics. According to what I have said on the article, the reason for this growing number of premarital sex on high school students is the idiosyncrasy in teaching “sex education”. The unhealthy of way rendering sex education in a non-moral approach inculcates the notion that sex is a mere biological act and is therefore tolerable to perform. High school students are not being trained of the morality and sanctity of the sexual act making them susceptible to experiment and attempt to execute this “biological act”. Moreover, “sex education” must be incorporated with the maturity of the subject individuals. We cannot simply introduce sensitive ideas that are not valued to unprepared minds particularly the current “sex education” we have in this country. It makes sense now that my arguments do conform to my conclusions.
I deeply appreciated the intellectual comments you have submitted. I hope that this will be our venue for further discussion on related issues. Thank you very much!
For the comments of annimadict, I would like to commend her/him for such a good point of information.
I used the word “cautious” to delineate and characterize moral maturity and not of age whatsoever. Age is not a determinant of maturity. “Sex education” in the Philippines, as what I have said earlier, is “values-neutral” and must therefore be associated with matured individuals. I suppose that the above argumentation is already essential.
The media is not the issue here. I would support your assumptions that the media has something to do with the morality of the state. The real issue is how the Philippine government and high school teachers execute this “sex education” in high school. The neutrality of this education in terms of morality must be changed.
Lets discuss this issue further.
Thank you very much for comments!