The Feast of the Holy Innocents: how should we teach Abortion?

One of the biggest moral issues which Catholics in Education will have to face in the decades ahead is how to respond to Government diktats requiring the teaching of Zeitgeist Dogma on matters such as Abortion and 'Marriage Equality' and 'plural lifestyles'. I've been out of the teaching game for thirteen years now; like most retired paedagogues I will now bore you with "What I used to do", and invite your speculations on whether you think the Thought Police will, in future, permit the Hunwicke Game.

I used to give both sides of an argument. First, using every rhetorical trick known to me, specks of my saliva penetrating to the furthest corners of the lecture room, I would explain  and defend the Zeitgeist Dogma: for example, that a woman has an uncircumscribed "right to choose"; or that homosexual liaisons and marriage are equivalent. By the time I had finished, the students were convinced that this was something that Father H would go to the stake to defend. Then I would do the same job for the proposition that the unborn baby has the right to live ... and so on ... you get the point.

The advantage to this was twofold. Firstly, the students were going to hear the arguments in favour of the Zeitgeist Dogmas soon enough anyway (almost certainly, had already heard them); there was no possibility of concealing these things from the young people, even if I had wanted to, which I didn't. So it might as well be me who enunciated things. At least they couldn't go off with the belief that Fr H, poor ignorant old fellow , had never heard the 'facts' about it all. Secondly, there was still a prejudice at the end of the last century that the young should be encouraged to think for themselves; that counselling and ethical education should be "non-directive". By giving both sides, and encouraging the little blighters to think, how could I be wrong-footed? But I had had the opportunity to give a thoroughly robust, no-holds-barred, account of Catholic moral teaching. And, cunningly, I had controlled the teaching experience.

Non-directive instruction was favoured by the Enemy in the last century because it provided a superb methodology for subverting Christian morality. My suspicion: As soon as They are firmly enough in the saddle themselves, they will attempt to see to it that no alternative morality gets a look-in; and this policy will be justified by the argument that allowing uncensored discourse would be offensive or hurtful to those whose choices might be queried.

Will someone in my position be able to get away with my old games in ten years time, or by then will the Thought Police be enforcing a strict discipline of Completely and Invariably Directive Ethical Instruction?

Or has it happened already?