[ScheduleII]

Some weeks ago I proposed model legislation, together with a poll, to oppose "anti-parent subversion" in schools: this was to include teachers or pastoral staff keeping secrets for pupils about sex, contraception, or abortion (but not school nurses, who are employed by the NHS under different rules and are members of a health profession allied to Medicine); the same people providing individual advice on the above to pupils under 16 without parental consent; handing out condoms on school premises or sponsored activities; biased leafleting on life issues; and finally, offering a "supported referral" to contraceptive or abortion services.

This was in response to a few things:
i)planned protests by five groups of concerned parents in the Tower Hamlets borough of London against the explicit and highly comprehensive Christopher Winter Project approach to SRE, which have since gone ahead;
ii) the SPUC Safe at School campaign, which was facing hate from socialist and union-aligned groups, feminists and the "reproductive health" industry spawning the opposing Brook Sex:Positive campaign (backed by Education for Choice, Sexpression UK and my local chapter of Sexpression)- and finally
iii) the regime at Handsworth Wood Girls', Birmingham where the Deputy Head [inclusion] and DSP allowed girls to explore their sexual and relationship issues with her SECRETLY, despite most pupils being from families that would expect abstinence until marriage and involvement in their decisions. HWGS published an official document "recognising this gap in provision" for "(secret) services to sexually active under 13s", showing they even wanted to bypass parents in year 7!

I used biased yes/no options, which was likely to blame for a poor showing. It could also have been that measures such as banning condom giveaways were thought too extreme by most of TSR, while in the US lately even high schools have been prevented from offering condoms to 18 year old leavers at Prom due to extensive pressure by lobby groups and parents.

But here we go today- in Salford, a girl of 15 told "teachers" (it does not say which position, but SMT involvement seems likely) she was pregnant; they offered advice in private on how to deal with the situation; and they helped her get rid of the unborn baby WITHOUT parents knowing. The girl did not tell either parent until after the operation was completed, denying them a grandchild.

Does this show it's finally time for schools to get back to basics and focus on educating children and young people so they will be ready for the workplace or A levels, and keep out of their personal lives? What do people think?

[Arbolus]

Maybe she had a good reason for not wanting her parents to know? At the end of the day she's old enough to make her own mind up. The parents could have offered advice if she'd wanted, but at no point should they have had any say in the decision. If the girl had gone to a counsellor she'd be protected by patient confidentiality, so why should her conversations with teachers, who were acting in the place of counsellors, be any different?

The fact is that for many young people their teachers are the adults they trust most and have most contact with, after their parents, and so it's teachers who are best placed to offer this sort of help.

[alexlduffy]

I don't think we can just tell teachers to stay out completely. For many young people, a teacher may be someone who they can go to about their problems. A lot of the time, a student can't tell their parent something so may go to a teacher or someone else who can help instead. I'm not saying a teacher should try and get involved in the lives of their students too much, but I think stopping them from helping students is a bad idea because a teacher is often a great person to go to for help and denying people that help may just make some situations worse for young people.

[lrs_17]

Yes, why are children entitled to their own lives without their parents knowing?

And in the case you mention, what would have changed had her parents known? The same outcome, but probably with a lot more stress for the poor girl in the meantime
Also "denying them a grandchild"?
Go **** yourself.

[SmallTownGirl]

(Original post by lrs_17)
Yes, why are children entitled to their own lives without their parents knowing?

And in the case you mention, what would have changed had her parents known? The same outcome, but probably with a lot more stress for the poor girl in the meantime
Also "denying them a grandchild"?
Go **** yourself.

That's what I thought. Does the OP expect the girl to go through a pregnancy just because the parents might want a grandkid? It's her body so it's her decision.

[doggyfizzel]

Although your post makes it seem we would have differing views "denying them a grandchild" wtf?

I do think women should have be able to have control over their own bodies, I'm a bit concerned a 15 year old can get a medical procedure without their parents knowledge. Not old enough or responsible enough to buy party poppers or cutlery but medical procedure fine? Seems strange to me. If you are old enough to be having sex and getting pregnant you should be old enough to face your parents.

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by lrs_17)
Yes, why are children entitled to their own lives without their parents knowing?

And in the case you mention, what would have changed had her parents known? The same outcome, but probably with a lot more stress for the poor girl in the meantime
Also "denying them a grandchild"?
Go **** yourself.

HOW VERY RESPECTFUL OF YOU. If you don't agree, at least avoid playground-insult tactics.

(Original post by SmallTownGirl)
That's what I thought. Does the OP expect the girl to go through a pregnancy just because the parents might want a grandkid? It's her body so it's her decision.

It's about the fact that the school was involved in supporting the abortion industry, and it didn't tell the parents any information about the abortion. The possibility of a grandchild is just a secondary issue.

[Blackburn_Allen]

Most of the anti-abortion/anti-contraceptive group are right wing religious fanatics. We shouldn't listen to such ass-backward people; people that wish to take us back 50 years instead of progressing as one.

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by Blackburn_Allen)
Most of the anti-abortion/anti-contraceptive group are right wing religious fanatics. We shouldn't listen to such ass-backward people; people that wish to take us back 50 years instead of progressing as one.

You can be pro-choice on abortion and contraception and still believe that parents should have a say for under 16s, or that schools should not be involved. Are they there to educate pupils or hand condoms to them for free and collaborate in their destruction of unwanted foetuses should they forget to use one?

Progressing eh? I myself am pro-life and believe that killing foetuses and embryos cannot be justified as "progressive"; the main social opinion-formers/ elites in the Progressive Era 1900-1920 believed in hardcore racism, eugenics and mass killing of the weak. Colonialism also used to be viewed as "progress" over "leaving the inferior races to their own devices". In the 1960s the majority of academics were in favour of the Soviets over the USA and believed Marxism would be enforced one way or another and create a beautiful new world free of the oppression capital brings: Marcuse, Foucault, Gramsci, Alinsky, dozens of respected tenured professors. They thought this was "progressive" along with the post-structuralist concept of no truth existing outside of personal subjective experience. But scientific realism and the market economy won the day. I think one day, abortion will be viewed in a similar light: a terrible idea that took hold under the cover of progress.

[Carecup]

"Women have no rights over what happens in their wombs!" -ScheduleII

[AntisthenesDogger]

Your choice of words; "Denying them a grandparent" says it all.

It's the individuals choice, not the families.

[fuzznbass]

I'm glad that teachers can do this. I believe in the right of the individual not the invasive views of pro-lifers.

[Blackburn_Allen]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
You can be pro-choice on abortion and contraception and still believe that parents should have a say for under 16s, or that schools should not be involved. Are they there to educate pupils or hand condoms to them for free and collaborate in their destruction of unwanted foetuses should they forget to use one?

Progressing eh? I myself am pro-life and believe that killing foetuses and embryos cannot be justified as "progressive"; the main social opinion-formers/ elites in the Progressive Era 1900-1920 believed in hardcore racism, eugenics and mass killing of the weak. Colonialism also used to be viewed as "progress" over "leaving the inferior races to their own devices". In the 1960s the majority of academics were in favour of the Soviets over the USA and believed Marxism would be enforced one way or another and create a beautiful new world free of the oppression capital brings: Marcuse, Foucault, Gramsci, Alinsky, dozens of respected tenured professors. They thought this was "progressive" along with the post-structuralist concept of no truth existing outside of personal subjective experience. But scientific realism and the market economy won the day. I think one day, abortion will be viewed in a similar light: a terrible idea that took hold under the cover of progress.

How are you even comparing abortion to the predictions of Marxism? The two are completely irrelevant. Abortion is the choice of the individual and so it should stay. If that said individual wants to seek medical advice then people that they have the most daily contact with, outside of their immediate family, are usually teachers, if the individual is of that age, and it is only right they are properly trained to deal with that situation.

You seem to be under this illusion that pregnancy can only occur through consented and unprotected sex. What about the slim chance contraception doesn't work? Or the very possibility of rape? Putting a blanket ban on abortion is a dangerous thing to do because it will, in turn, be forcing things upon another individual that they don't want and, furthermore, it will only be detrimental to the baby that is likely to be put into a care system, neglected or abused, whether that be through lack of care or lack of education.

You also seem to be completely anti-contraception. Why shouldn't schools hand out condoms? STIs and teenage pregnancy's are at an all time high, so protection should be given to combat this. And if you are to come back with "but free condoms only promotes sex" then you are being ridiculous. Handing out condoms will not force a person into having sex, nor will it influence them anymore than if they didn't have access to them. All it will do is help the child make a safe decision and, twinned with correct sexual education, an informed decision.

I think you are extremely delusional and clouded by your own self gratified predictions of the future. Maybe you should begin to look at the here and now rather than looking back in hindsight and predicting this is what will happen to abortion.

And how you compared abortion to hardcore racism and colonialism is sickening. As said before, one is forced upon a majority whereas one is an individual choice.

[lrs_17]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
HOW VERY RESPECTFUL OF YOU. If you don't agree, at least avoid playground-insult tactics.

I don't think I would have told someone to go **** themselves in the playground.

[JollyGreenAtheist]

The girl was in a difficult position.
A responsible adult was in place to help the girl make a decision and educate her about her options.
The product was an abortion.

I see no problem here. Parents don't have a divine right to reign over every aspect of the child's life, and the fact that the girl went to staff rather than her parents suggests that they might not have been very useful anyway. I'm glad the education system does provide some responsible adults who can help the students that they teach.

[ScheduleII]

One month ago, anti-parent policy defended in the SHAPES-Bill debate I started here.

Last weekend, even worse: 70 parents (~100% of respondents to the pro-life infiltrator) defended the HWGS subversionist on Mumsnet, which I would have thought was just the place to support parents having more say and schools getting their powers restricted, and got the pro-life OP banned. (Mumsnet seems to be more about radical and/or feminist politics and insulting moral people than parenting, sometimes: the fact it has a Feminism board says a lot.)

The anti-family parents would not even be respectful nor stay on-topic, somewhat similarly to my threads here. They brought up abortion and gay marriage when they were not at issue then bashed the person for their pro-family stances on those; claimed their position was "fascist"; opposed even parent opt-outs to SRE; told the person to move to certain states of the US; suggested that the pro-lifer only opposed confidential support because he "felt guilty" about confiding when he was an adolescent, or he had some sort of sexual relationship with an authority figure and was "stuck developmentally"; referred to Victoria Climbie and "safeguarding" or "child protection", as if a 14-year-old not being able to use her school as an end-run around conservative Mum has anything to do with a poor 7 year old battered and starved to death by her evil great-aunt and her psychotic, autistic toyboy.

Now, students defend feticide-enabling teachers again on TSR, with several making personal attacks due to my pro-life convictions.

No surprise that the pro-life, pro-family movement is flourishing in the US- especially for young people- while here it attracts hate from the anti-moral majority (qv. Jerry Falwell)

[SmallTownGirl]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
It's about the fact that the school was involved in supporting the abortion industry, and it didn't tell the parents any information about the abortion. The possibility of a grandchild is just a secondary issue.

'Abortion industry'? And why mention that it was 'denying them a grandchild' if it's not important?

This girl confided in her teachers for a reason and they have the obligation to do what's best for HER, not her parents. If the parents haven't been able to have a good relationship with their daughter then they shouldn't blame anyone else and it's good that there are people who this girl could turn to without fear of judgement.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Carecup)
"Women have no rights over what happens in their wombs!" -ScheduleII

"Women have no rights over what happens in their wombs!" -Our and pretty much all other countries legal system see restrictions on when abortion abortions can happen.

[mmmpie]

Denying them grandchildren?

Your priorities, not to mention your morals, are seriously ****ed up.

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Denying them grandchildren?

Your priorities, not to mention your morals, are seriously ****ed up.

How are my morals so ****ed up?

Pro-life, abstinence would have stopped this situation in the first place unless it was a rape (only 1-2% of abortions), parents at least being notified of a major event in their daughter's life even if they do not get to make a final decision, schools being there to educate and not to help pupils deceive their parents about something as big as a baby- how is this ****ed up, please explain. I can understand pro-choice views but abstinence, parental notification and schools doing their job is far from an immoral view.