[ScheduleII]

Schools are, in the spirit of the 2005-6 Sue Axon decision, subverting parental morality all day long on the important life issues. Staff are keeping secrets for sexually active youth (under 16 for the purpose of this post), doling out free condoms, referring to outside clinics or school nurses who provide far riskier birth-control methods, sometimes even helping girls get rid of pregnancies and good old Mum and Dad don't get to hear a peep. I have heard professionals assert they know better than parents, that "parents are unreliable because their emotions cloud over reason", that religious or otherwise moral integrity-respecting caregivers are an "obstacle" to their progeny, to be "overcome" and lied to if necessary to protect their confidentiality. I even know well an RE teacher- because she serves at my church and in Christian community events- who supports this antifamily mayhem under the banner of the schools' "duty of care".

How would you feel if you taught your son "no sex before marriage" or told your daughter to value life from as young as they could understand? Then you sent them to school to learn their Maths and English- but they actually learn how to lie to you, deceive and act contrary to that moral code, from the very people who should be acting in loco parentis. You find out too late: he plucks up the guts to tell you, a concerned mother, 5 months after he informs a sympathetic form tutor of his loss of virginity. You notice a piece of paper in your daughter's room, having brought her up a good Catholic: it's an abortion appointment for last week. Your grandchild is dead and you cannot do a thing about it.

Many pride themselves on their "approachable" nature, or use similarly disarming words like "supportive" that don't ring parental alarm bells. Everyone from heads and SLT to entry-level staff can be involved; the degree of subversion depends on the establishment but elements are in place in most State secondaries from what pro-life campaigners nationally, and ordinary parents, are saying.

You may say, "Good idea. But who is going to find out if a boy has been speaking in confidence about his sex life?" or "How can you prove it was that learning mentor at Anytown High who gave him those condoms? The local FPC, youth group and NHS events in the street hand the same ones out." I believe that misses the point as I shall explain below.

Not all laws are either strictly enforced or fully enforceable. There can be a public policy justification for legislating even without being willing or able to severely punish those who choose to defy the legislation, in particular due to the potentially strong educative and normative function it holds in societies where the rule of law is taken for granted and generally respected.

The law on sex itself is a prime example of one intended to be more educative and normative than instrumental. Child and youth advocacy groups, feminists and others backed changes during the Sexual Offences Bill's time in Parliament which would increase the minimum age to be convicted of "sexual activity with a child under 16" to 16 or 18, preventing two consenting teenagers who are both underage from being classed as lawbreakers. There would remain separate provisions for under-13s. Criminalisation is unhelpful, they said, as there is a consensus (one I agree with) that prosecuting teenagers for similar-age relationships, where exploitation dos not occur, is entirely inappropriate. Also enforcement efforts will either be perfunctory or would have to reach a level of intrusion the government could never justify.

Yet the amendments never came. The Labour administration under Blair opposed them due to the concept of "sending a message". A criminal prohibition was a way of getting the message across to young people under 16 that society disapproves of early sex. So it passed into law, never with the intent of punishing younger people in love, but as an attempt to cement a cultural norm against sex under that age and wield as a weapon for others to use when encouraging them to delay their initiation into physical relationships. Parents (Mumsnet frequently), official websites and many sex education forums mention that the law prohibits all underage acts giving a reason to oppose them.

A ban on subversionist activity throughout State education would send an even stronger message to teachers and other staff: adults working in an already highly regulated profession, on an issue not directly controlled by volatile hormones, will in general have respect for the process. It would not stop the hardliners but I suspect many would leave their antifamily conduct behind even without any prosecutions.

So how about the following Bill, introduced by someone like Frank Field with a proven pro-family track record in the Commons?
A Bill to ban any employee at any maintained school (not including sixth forms/FE institutions as they cater almost exclusively to 16+) from:
I)promoting any sexual morality OR moral view on the sanctity of human life between conception and birth that contradicts the beliefs of the child's caregivers;
II)distribution of condoms and other contraception to any registered pupil on-site, at school sponsored events or counselling, inciting or referring a pupil to access such services;
III)providing personal advice [not to include any sex education given to a whole class or group] to any pupil without disclosing the substance of the conversation to parents as soon as is practicable and/or obtaining prior consent;
IV)making false statements in speech or writing to any parent or carer with the intention of concealing their child's decision in a matter of sexuality, contraceptives or abortion;
V)biased leafleting or other influencing of pupils' minds [eg any pro-abortion, pro premarital sex FPA/BPAS stuff should be counterbalanced by pro-abstinence, pro-life material: faith schools could be exempt and only carry one set of materials in accordance with their ethos.]

Exemption for where compliance would, at the employee's discretion, place the pupil at serious risk of physical harm. (eg where parents are known to visit a fundamentalist mosque and their daughter mentions threats over what would happen if she was found to be acting improperly; this would prevent attacks on the legislation that it leaves teens open to "honour killings" or similar)

Would this be a way of ending this war on women- mothers and adolescents especially- and bringing back a pro-parent mentality into the education system that gets your support?

[Darth Stewie]

Exemption for where compliance would, at the employee's discretion, place the pupil at serious risk of physical harm. (eg where parents are known to visit a fundamentalist mosque and their daughter mentions threats over what would happen if she was found to be acting improperly; this would prevent attacks on the legislation that it leaves teens open to "honour killings" or similar)

At the employees discretion? Teachers and nurses are not qualified in any way shape or form to diagnose the situation a child might face at home short of the obvious.

A Bill to ban any employee at any maintained school (not including sixth forms/FE institutions as they cater almost exclusively to 16+) from:
I)promoting any sexual morality OR moral view on the sanctity of human life between conception and birth that contradicts the beliefs of the child's caregivers;

As far as I'm aware schools currently do not promote sexual morality or any particular stance on abortion, they may address different viewpoints which allow teenagers to make an informed choice. Are you suggesting that teenagers should only be given information on sexual morality and the concept of abortion by their parents who are probably less informed than them?

II)distribution of condoms and other contraception to any registered pupil on-site, at school sponsored events or counselling, inciting or referring a pupil to access such services;

So you want to stop teenagers having the ability to practice safe sex in some kind of effort to promote it as immoral? Teenagers are going to bang, they were banging 60 years ago, 600 years ago and 6000 years ago because it is human nature. One lesson we have learned from the past (hence why all these programs were conceived) is that if teenagers don't have a method of having sex safely they are going to do it unsafely and as a result more pregnancy and an increase in the spread of STDs.

III)providing personal advice [not to include any sex education given to a whole class or group] to any pupil without disclosing the substance of the conversation to parents as soon as is practicable and/or obtaining prior consent;


Discourages pupils who are being abused coming forward, discourages pupils who are at danger from violence at home, discourages pupils who will be demonised by their parents/communities.

IV)making false statements in speech or writing to any parent or carer with the intention of concealing their child's decision in a matter of sexuality, contraceptives or abortion;

Same as above, seriously you seem to think teenagers being discouraged from screwing is more important than kids who potentially could get in serious trouble being protected? Are you a catholic?

V)biased leafleting or other influencing of pupils' minds [eg any pro-abortion, pro premarital sex FPA/BPAS stuff should be counterbalanced by pro-abstinence, pro-life material: faith schools could be exempt and only carry one set of materials in accordance with their ethos.]

Again schools do not hand out "pro" abortion or pre-martial information, they hand out facts and allow kids to make informed decisions. You think charities like FPA hand out bias information? you do realize that bias doesn't mean something that disagrees with whatever religious book you follow?

Anyway the answer is no, this legislation is nothing more than some silly attempt to push whatever religious views you hold on kids and in the process potentially putting some in harms way. If parents need to use schools to spy on their kids then they are simply crap parents, no amount of moronic legislation is going to fix that.

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)

At the employees discretion? Teachers and nurses are not qualified in any way shape or form to diagnose the situation a child might face at home short of the obvious.

Why do they have child protection training and responsibilities then? This is for the majority who are not at risk from abuse or violence and are just involved with sex. The exception is similar to parental-notification abortion laws in much of Europe and the US, which allow the nurse/PP staffer to decide whether to inform parents as usually mandated or invoke the exception if they believe the minor will be harmed as a result of getting pregnant or if the pregnancy is by incest in the first place. They don't have to see the doctor until the actual abortion, and the doctors' training in safeguarding is not much greater in most countries, in fact it may be less than a teacher/school nurse permanently employed with children for an abortionist mainly working with adults.


As far as I'm aware schools currently do not promote sexual morality or any particular stance on abortion, they may address different viewpoints which allow teenagers to make an informed choice. Are you suggesting that teenagers should only be given information on sexual morality and the concept of abortion by their parents who are probably less informed than them?

Parents, their communities, religious institutions if they attend them- the school should keep out of life issues. They are too sensitive and too easily ruined by one anti-life teacher making their bias very clear in sex ed class. It happened in my school. Also why would our parents be less informed than us when most of them have been on this earth 25-35 years longer than us, and sex/contraception has been a mainstream issue for all of that time? It has not changed much since the 1960s apart from the technical detail of the contraceptives.

So you want to stop teenagers having the ability to practice safe sex in some kind of effort to promote it as immoral? Teenagers are going to bang, they were banging 60 years ago, 600 years ago and 6000 years ago because it is human nature. One lesson we have learned from the past (hence why all these programs were conceived) is that if teenagers don't have a method of having sex safely they are going to do it unsafely and as a result more pregnancy and an increase in the spread of STDs.

Stop them? They can get rubbers at plenty of other places, for free or for money. Anything requiring medical input (IUD, pill etc.) -go to a medical professional. See your GP or family planning clinic. Even some walk-in centres now provide these services... No school needs to get involved. I am very suspicious from my profamily perspective of why most of these sex ed campaigns were conceived (nice unintended pun btw.)


Discourages pupils who are being abused coming forward, discourages pupils who are at danger from violence at home, discourages pupils who will be demonised by their parents/communities.

Same as above, seriously you seem to think teenagers being discouraged from screwing is more important than kids who potentially could get in serious trouble being protected? Are you a catholic?

Anti-Catholic bigotry red alert! Actually I am not a Catholic. Not even on the mark. But I do appreciate much of their teaching on moral matters.

It does not discourage abuse victims coming forward. Are you serious? I am talking about (de facto) consensual sex here. Abuse comes under the safeguarding policy and I certainly never mentioned getting rid of those. Pupil being abused= s/he can go to anyone s/he feels confident disclosing to, who informs designated child protection officer, who in turn involves SSD and the police. Not being pro-abuse, I don't want that system changed.

BUT- Pupil is taught to preserve purity until marriage by Hindu family. Goes to Birmingham school which prides itself on inclusivity and diversity. Mum thinks she'll be safe. She is having sex with her boyfriend when she isn't even old enough to marry yet. She has emotional difficulties as a result of that. If she tells someone, then let them actually phone the parents so they can know what THEIR daughter (not the schools' daughter!) has been up to.

Parent suspects daughter has been pregnant and aborted first-trimester. She calls up the head of year, knowing that she has a close relationship with her child and is much more liberal/approving. Mother: "Do you know what's up with Julie? I'm concerned. She hasn't been right the last month or so and since last Friday she's been sad around the house. I saw a red star in her diary marked SEE DR and know nothing about why."
Anti-parent, pro-confidentiality head of year (who has been told the details): "I don't know anything about that, sorry,"

That is the sort of lying immorality which is allowed under the present system and should be stopped. It used to be an honourable profession and these teachers smear it with their anti-moral nonsense.

Discouraging pupils who will be demonised? Don't do something that your parents, family and community disapprove of then. If you rebel and do it anyway, then you have issues which you feel need discussing, you have to take the consequences. An important part of social morality is respectability, right? I don't believe in some radical collectivism where everyone expects to know everything about each other's lives. I do think that if a group has moral standards and someone is breaking them it's usually poor form to keep it a secret as well. The issue is over parents feeling safe that their children are at school not being helped to hide things or even corrupted with anti-moral advice.

I have already covered violence. Most parents with stricter sexual morals are the exact opposite of violent: they are strong families and very loving and caring and believe in that due to the same sort of virtuous disposition. The odd situation is what you have that exemption for.

Are you actually going to defend these subversive anti-parent unprofessionals? What is going through your head that people at any level of a school that the parens are supposed to have trust in are entitled to collude with secrets and even lie down the phone? (all the way up to the headteacher & deputy of one place I went to being personally "approachable" and acting as a confidante for sexually active pupils when they should be busy with their management work.)


Again schools do not hand out "pro" abortion or pre-martial information, they hand out facts and allow kids to make informed decisions. You think charities like FPA hand out bias information? you do realize that bias doesn't mean something that disagrees with whatever religious book you follow?

Anyway the answer is no, this legislation is nothing more than some silly attempt to push whatever religious views you hold on kids and in the process potentially putting some in harms way. If parents need to use schools to spy on their kids then they are simply crap parents, no amount of moronic legislation is going to fix that.

Well the FPA are part of a group called Voice for Choice and mention their "pro-choice definition" on their official website, teach that sex is good outside of marriage and teach pro-gay, pro-various other things some families have deep moral objections to. Liberal bias runs like a leitmotif through every part of their work, their leaflets use all sorts of explicit diagrams. If you think they are sympathetic to moral views outside of 1968 Paris style ultra-liberalism, then you're wrong. Look at Nathalie Lieven going to court for them in '05 to argue that "parental rights are outdated" and they don't know best for their own kids any more! Google it, I don't lie. Unlike all these unprofessionals.

[Darth Stewie]

Why do they have child protection training and responsibilities then? This is for the majority who are not at risk from abuse or violence and are just involved with sex. The exception is similar to parental-notification abortion laws in much of Europe and the US, which allow the nurse/PP staffer to decide whether to inform parents as usually mandated or invoke the exception if they believe the minor will be harmed as a result of getting pregnant or if the pregnancy is by incest in the first place. They don't have to see the doctor until the actual abortion, and the doctors' training in safeguarding is not much greater in most countries, in fact it may be less than a teacher/school nurse permanently employed with children for an abortionist mainly working with adults.

They have basic child protection training and responsibilities, they are not in charge of determining if a child is in danger, they can pass on cases where they believe the child is in some sort of danger other than that they have no more ability to diagnose possible cases of abuse than you or me. That is why it is so important the children are able to talk in complete privacy, would you expect an abused child to come forward if there was a chance that the abuser could be told what the child said?

Parents, their communities, religious institutions if they attend them- the school should keep out of life issues. They are too sensitive and too easily ruined by one anti-life teacher making their bias very clear in sex ed class. It happened in my school. Also why would our parents be less informed than us when most of them have been on this earth 25-35 years longer than us, and sex/contraception has been a mainstream issue for all of that time? It has not changed much since the 1960s apart from the technical detail of the contraceptives.

Parents are idiots, their communities are probably full of bigger idiots and every religious institution is borderline retarded. Teachers are qualified to teach, they know their stuff hence why they are teachers. They deal in facts, if those facts go against what someones parents/community/priest with a hard on tells them then the child has got to wonder who is more likely to be correct, the teacher with a wealth of knowledge or their sexually aggressive priest who believes in 2000 year old magic babies.

Stop them? They can get rubbers at plenty of other places, for free or for money. Anything requiring medical input (IUD, pill etc.) -go to a medical professional. See your GP or family planning clinic. Even some walk-in centres now provide these services... No school needs to get involved. I am very suspicious from my profamily perspective of why most of these sex ed campaigns were conceived (nice unintended pun btw.)

Schools are the best place to provide contraceptives because nearly every child in the country attends one so has protection readily available, it's simple logistics.

Anti-Catholic bigotry red alert! Actually I am not a Catholic. Not even on the mark. But I do appreciate much of their teaching on moral matters.

It does not discourage abuse victims coming forward. Are you serious? I am talking about (de facto) consensual sex here. Abuse comes under the safeguarding policy and I certainly never mentioned getting rid of those. Pupil being abused= s/he can go to anyone s/he feels confident disclosing to, who informs designated child protection officer, who in turn involves SSD and the police. Not being pro-abuse, I don't want that system changed.

Yes it does, if a child does not feel safe because they believe that a teacher or nurse does not believe them they will be scared of coming forward, do you understand what could happen with this system? a child who is being raped by a parent could go into a teachers office for advice, probably wont tell them the whole story and as a result the teacher or nurse can't pick up on the more subtle warning signs because they have never been trained how to and as a result the sexually abused child goes back to the parents who are abusing him/her and now the parents know the child tried to tell someone. This system would make abusing children easier, it is that simple and the main reason why any legislation introduced even remotely similar to this would never make it through the planning phases.

BUT- Pupil is taught to preserve purity until marriage by Hindu family. Goes to Birmingham school which prides itself on inclusivity and diversity. Mum thinks she'll be safe. She is having sex with her boyfriend when she isn't even old enough to marry yet. She has emotional difficulties as a result of that. If she tells someone, then let them actually phone the parents so they can know what THEIR daughter (not the schools' daughter!) has been up to.

and on the flip side Hindu fundamentalist parents teach their daughter all the classic things plus no sex before marriage or you get a pitch fork up the anus. Daughter meets a nice Muslim boy, they fall in love, have sex, they are nice and happy. She tells someone and that person rings her parents, all of a sudden she is on the 6 o'clock news and not because of her awesome grades.

Parent suspects daughter has been pregnant and aborted first-trimester. She calls up the head of year, knowing that she has a close relationship with her child and is much more liberal/approving. Mother: "Do you know what's up with Julie? I'm concerned. She hasn't been right the last month or so and since last Friday she's been sad around the house. I saw a red star in her diary marked SEE DR and know nothing about why."
Anti-parent, pro-confidentiality head of year (who has been told the details): "I don't know anything about that, sorry,"

That is the sort of lying immorality which is allowed under the present system and should be stopped. It used to be an honourable profession and these teachers smear it with their anti-moral nonsense.

These rules are not here to protect kids who are in no danger, they are here to protect the ones that are and that will always take prioity. if the daughter does not feel like she can tell her mother about the abortion that is down to her crappy parenting, it is not the states job to parent for you. Your morals so far seem to place the welfare of children below a parents desire to spy on their kids, frankly I'm sure most teachers would take you calling them immoral as a compliment.

Discouraging pupils who will be demonised? Don't do something that your parents, family and community disapprove of then. If you rebel and do it anyway, then you have issues which you feel need discussing, you have to take the consequences. An important part of social morality is respectability, right? I don't believe in some radical collectivism where everyone expects to know everything about each other's lives. I do think that if a group has moral standards and someone is breaking them it's usually poor form to keep it a secret as well. The issue is over parents feeling safe that their children are at school not being helped to hide things or even corrupted with anti-moral advice.

So a kid growing up in a community that despise black people, should that kid go out on a good old ****** bashing session, you know because otherwise their community and family would disapprove and that is clearly the worst thing of all.

I have already covered violence. Most parents with stricter sexual morals are the exact opposite of violent: they are strong families and very loving and caring and believe in that due to the same sort of virtuous disposition. The odd situation is what you have that exemption for.

the minority of kids that suffer violence are the ones these protocols are in place to protect. that most may be non violent is irrelevant.

Are you actually going to defend these subversive anti-parent unprofessionals? What is going through your head that people at any level of a school that the parens are supposed to have trust in are entitled to collude with secrets and even lie down the phone? (all the way up to the headteacher & deputy of one place I went to being personally "approachable" and acting as a confidante for sexually active pupils when they should be busy with their management work.)

your damn right i am going to defend them, schools have a responsibility to protect the children in their care and that includes protecting them from potentially dangerous parents. i don't care that some middle class white wine zombie mother doesn't know her kid is on the pill, i care that there will be kids who suffer seriously if something like this was ever introduced. schools are not there to help crappy parents they are there to educate and protect children.

Well the FPA are part of a group called Voice for Choice and mention their "pro-choice definition" on their official website, teach that sex is good outside of marriage and teach pro-gay, pro-various other things some families have deep moral objections to. Liberal bias runs like a leitmotif through every part of their work, their leaflets use all sorts of explicit diagrams. If you think they are sympathetic to moral views outside of 1968 Paris style ultra-liberalism, then you're wrong. Look at Nathalie Lieven going to court for them in '05 to argue that "parental rights are outdated" and they don't know best for their own kids any more! Google it, I don't lie. Unlike all these unprofessionals.

blah blah blah liberals destroying society blah blah, here's a question. If your moral views are so right and clearly the best way then why do you feel the need to silence people with a different viewpoint? you are free to set up your own charity like the FPA which promotes your view points on sexual ethics, so why do you want charities who you know use those little annoying things like facts and studies silenced? Seems to me like you know perfectly well how weak these arguments are and know the only way anyone will ever take you seriously is if they are never taught anything different.

[chrisawhitmore]

Wow, you should really look into the idea of inherent bias in questionnaires. The options on here are so hideously biased that most likely people will vote against the one you clearly support just because they feel they are obviously being led. (a sort of reverse demand characteristic).

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
Well the FPA are part of a group called Voice for Choice and mention their "pro-choice definition" on their official website, teach that sex is good outside of marriage and teach pro-gay, pro-various other things some families have deep moral objections to. Liberal bias runs like a leitmotif through every part of their work, their leaflets use all sorts of explicit diagrams. If you think they are sympathetic to moral views outside of 1968 Paris style ultra-liberalism, then you're wrong. Look at Nathalie Lieven going to court for them in '05 to argue that "parental rights are outdated" and they don't know best for their own kids any more! Google it, I don't lie. Unlike all these unprofessionals.

Quick question, would you support a parent forcing their child to get an abortion, even if the child wanted to keep the baby?

[mmmpie]

I don't think it's the duty of teachers to help parents coerce their children into making life choices one way or another, and I don't think that a teacher's duty of care overrides a child's rights to privacy and self determination unless that child is actually in some kind of danger.

Love the leading questions btw.

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by mmmpie)
I don't think it's the duty of teachers to help parents coerce their children into making life choices one way or another, and I don't think that a teacher's duty of care overrides a child's rights to privacy and self determination unless that child is actually in some kind of danger.

Love the leading questions btw.

I am not saying it does. I am saying that their duty to the parent should require disclosure. The duty of care thing was due to the Christian RE teacher I know who defended a Birmingham deputy head, one of the worst exponents of the anti-family policy I oppose, on the grounds that she had a duty of care. See first post.

I would edit the poll choices if I could. I just thought they were the truth while writing this but a simple yes/no would be better so people could follow my logic and not my leading question.

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
They have basic child protection training and responsibilities, they are not in charge of determining if a child is in danger, they can pass on cases where they believe the child is in some sort of danger other than that they have no more ability to diagnose possible cases of abuse than you or me. That is why it is so important the children are able to talk in complete privacy, would you expect an abused child to come forward if there was a chance that the abuser could be told what the child said?

The abusive person would already have put a wall of secrecy up between his victim and anyone else. That's how they get away with it. It may actually cause the abuse to stop because Incest Dad realises that their daughter may be getting strong enough to resist it. As for the idea they might kill them or do them grievous physical harm how many times a year does that happen? Fathers or stepfathers killing their teenage children? Only ONCE in living memory- Sean Brown who got 13 year old Carry-Ann, his Aspergers' disabled daughter, pregnant then enticed her to leave her care home while on bail for the abuse and killed her in a deliberate car crash. He is in Wakefield Prison. Thousands of decent parents are in their living rooms worrying about their daughters who would never kill them.

The mother could be called on pregnancy and abortion matters, just to make sure that the father doesn't find out first if he is responsible for the baby.


Parents are idiots, their communities are probably full of bigger idiots and every religious institution is borderline retarded. Teachers are qualified to teach, they know their stuff hence why they are teachers. They deal in facts, if those facts go against what someones parents/community/priest with a hard on tells them then the child has got to wonder who is more likely to be correct, the teacher with a wealth of knowledge or their sexually aggressive priest who believes in 2000 year old magic babies.

This is bigoted, nasty filth. The two mentions of priests are so nasty that there is no need to even address them apart from saying: show some basic respect, bullying is a loser's tool. As a Christian I believe in Jesus being born through a miracle NOT magic. Magic is illicit use of supernatural power. You don't believe in the supernatural? Don't diss other people who do.

Teachers are qualified for their subject (very few may have PSHE specialism) but parents are infinitely more qualified to know when their child is mature enough to be taught about intimate matters and how to approach it, etc. - they can be responsive to individual needs in a way some teacher at the front of a class of 20-30 just can't, even if they had a PhD in sexology. Much SRE is delivered by people who have no specialist knowledge of sex beyond what is given to them by the providers of the materials, who move on next lesson to maths or geography or whatever they do actually specialise in. Still, I support classroom sex education for the benefit of those who have negligent parents who fail to address this properly. Also this is about morality not facts. I am not opposed to facts being taught on anything, puberty, sex, pregnancy, contraception etc. I am NOT arguing for equally biased "abstinence only" education the other way. That wouldn't work in most schools as few of them would want to abstain till marriage. I say DO teach them facts, but anti-life bias can creep in, as it did in my school.

"Parents are idiots"? I thought you would be a parent-basher, and thus a bigger idiot than most parents ever will be, when you first posted your extreme comments against this. "Communities are idiots"? You do know that everyone lives in a community of some sort, except hermits, and over 80% of adults are parents- less than the 95-100% of the past, but still I do not see it ever becoming a minority sport to have children when it is one of the fundamental things human beings want. So according to you nearly everyone is idiotic except for teachers, and guess what- most of them are parents too. Are you saying that parents should not be allowed to "teach" their children to cross the road either, because they are not qualified teachers? Or on moral matters, they should not "teach" them that sharing is good, as they do not have the wealth of knowledge required to do so appropriately?

You are a very extreme example of the "only professionals can be trusted" mentality. Yes, I would only trust someone with a degree in medicine and appropriate post-qualification experience to do brain surgery on my mother. No, parents do not need to be replaced in some of their most important capacities by teachers, State-employed or otherwise. I believe the two can work in harmony which is a much more commonly held view than any radical anti-parent position.


Schools are the best place to provide contraceptives because nearly every child in the country attends one so has protection readily available, it's simple logistics.

This makes sheer nonsense of the idea that it's bad parents who will not know their child is on the pill. If they can get it through the school nurse in the ordinary school day, and it's confidential, it is IMPOSSIBLE for mum and dad to find out short of burgling the school at night and breaking locked cabinets to get to files. It is not hard to hide a little strip of pills and good parents wouldn't generally nose right through their teenage daughter's bedroom. Same applies to condoms.

Yes it does, if a child does not feel safe because they believe that a teacher or nurse does not believe them they will be scared of coming forward, do you understand what could happen with this system? a child who is being raped by a parent could go into a teachers office for advice, probably wont tell them the whole story and as a result the teacher or nurse can't pick up on the more subtle warning signs because they have never been trained how to and as a result the sexually abused child goes back to the parents who are abusing him/her and now the parents know the child tried to tell someone. This system would make abusing children easier, it is that simple and the main reason why any legislation introduced even remotely similar to this would never make it through the planning phases.

and on the flip side Hindu fundamentalist parents teach their daughter all the classic things plus no sex before marriage or you get a pitch fork up the anus. Daughter meets a nice Muslim boy, they fall in love, have sex, they are nice and happy. She tells someone and that person rings her parents, all of a sudden she is on the 6 o'clock news and not because of her awesome grades.

These rules are not here to protect kids who are in no danger, they are here to protect the ones that are and that will always take prioity. if the daughter does not feel like she can tell her mother about the abortion that is down to her crappy parenting, it is not the states job to parent for you. Your morals so far seem to place the welfare of children below a parents desire to spy on their kids, frankly I'm sure most teachers would take you calling them immoral as a compliment.

Oh, nice to think that being pro-life is "crappy parenting". If you have told your children you believe in the value of human life from conception, as I will tell mine, and they choose to have an abortion behind your back they won't be queuing up to tell you. That's the teenager's fault for sexual impurity, dishonesty, and killing their unborn baby not the parent's for actually bringing them up with standards. It's the same reason they would not be in a big rush to tell you they had been drinking at a party when you don't approve of alcohol or that most of their "revision" on their computer consists of masturbating to online porn.

Not the State's job to parent for you? And listening to a pupil discuss their sex life and providing personal advice without telling the family is not the state parenting for you then? The WHOLE REASON I support this is because the state should not replace a child's parent, unless there are tragic circumstances.

I have already told you quite well that it would not apply to circumstances with a risk of violence. A Muslim/Hindu fundamentalist's daughter going out with someone in a different religion would be one of those. In that case I would say the teacher/nurse/mentor should NOT tell parents to prevent the risk but should tell the pupil that their parents and their religious tradition oppose their behaviour and to think carefully about what decisions they make. They should never help them get an abortion. If they want to find out about clinics they can do it themselves. Pastoral care=/= getting rid of your pupils' unwanted babies.


So a kid growing up in a community that despise black people, should that kid go out on a good old ****** bashing session, you know because otherwise their community and family would disapprove and that is clearly the worst thing of all.

the minority of kids that suffer violence are the ones these protocols are in place to protect. that most may be non violent is irrelevant.

your damn right i am going to defend them, schools have a responsibility to protect the children in their care and that includes protecting them from potentially dangerous parents. i don't care that some middle class white wine zombie mother doesn't know her kid is on the pill, i care that there will be kids who suffer seriously if something like this was ever introduced. schools are not there to help crappy parents they are there to educate and protect children.

More parent-bashing. Did you just bash parents three times in one paragraph? Are you a matriphobic pater-hater or what? White wine zombie and good morals don't usually go. If you believe in chastity 99% of the time you would drink in moderation (or not at all if Muslim)- this sort of mother is probably happy to have someone else taking care of her pregnant daughter's problems so she can carry on sipping Chardonnay, arranging parties and going to her yoga classes.

blah blah blah liberals destroying society blah blah, here's a question. If your moral views are so right and clearly the best way then why do you feel the need to silence people with a different viewpoint? you are free to set up your own charity like the FPA which promotes your view points on sexual ethics, so why do you want charities who you know use those little annoying things like facts and studies silenced? Seems to me like you know perfectly well how weak these arguments are and know the only way anyone will ever take you seriously is if they are never taught anything different.

There already is one- SPUC, which I am part of, which is itself a member of the Pro-Life Alliance, not Voice for Choice. Facts and studies may help to determine morality by weighing up likely consequences of actions but no FPA fact or study will override a code of morals based on marriage, family and self-control. Simple as that. I did not bash liberals, I just said the FPA are serious liberals to challenge your baseless view that they are unbiased.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
I am not saying it does. I am saying that their duty to the parent should require disclosure. The duty of care thing was due to the Christian RE teacher I know who defended a Birmingham deputy head, one of the worst exponents of the anti-family policy I oppose, on the grounds that she had a duty of care. See first post.

I would edit the poll choices if I could. I just thought they were the truth while writing this but a simple yes/no would be better so people could follow my logic and not my leading question.

Yes, and I'm saying that their duty to the child should prohibit disclosure in the normal course of things. Duty to the child must come first.

A 15 year old who is quite responsibly having sex and keeping at secret from their traditionalist parents will benefit in what way their teachers stirring up trouble for them?

What about a 13 year old who thinks she might be a lesbian and is asking questions? Her parents could be anything from a gay couple to witchburning fundamentalists, teachers aren't necessarily going to know. How does she benefit?

[Mr Dangermouse]

Yes.


From my own experience it's far easier to talk to teachers about personal stuff than family members.

[Darth Stewie]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
The abusive person would already have put a wall of secrecy up between his victim and anyone else. That's how they get away with it. It may actually cause the abuse to stop because Incest Dad realises that their daughter may be getting strong enough to resist it. As for the idea they might kill them or do them grievous physical harm how many times a year does that happen? Fathers or stepfathers killing their teenage children? Only ONCE in living memory- Sean Brown who got 13 year old Carry-Ann, his Aspergers' disabled daughter, pregnant then enticed her to leave her care home while on bail for the abuse and killed her in a deliberate car crash. He is in Wakefield Prison. Thousands of decent parents are in their living rooms worrying about their daughters who would never kill them.

How many kids are in danger? According the the nspcc approximately 50,500 children in the UK are known to be at risk of abuse right now. Also according the the nspcc 11.3% of 18-24 year olds have experienced contact sexual abuse during childhood. Trying to make out it is not a big problem is moronic. You have no idea how abuse cases go, neither do i. You know who does? The people who advise the government and as a result introduced the systems you seem so adamantly opposed to. you think only one kid has been killed by their parents in living memory? Are you high? there are hundreds of stories on this forum alone about honor killings which would be something that was made easier under your system.

The mother could be called on pregnancy and abortion matters, just to make sure that the father doesn't find out first if he is responsible for the baby.

Again your using some made up "perfect" example to try and justify your points, the current legislation and groups that you are so adamantly against are there to protect the kids that need it not the ones that don't.

This is bigoted, nasty filth. The two mentions of priests are so nasty that there is no need to even address them apart from saying: show some basic respect, bullying is a loser's tool. As a Christian I believe in Jesus being born through a miracle NOT magic. Magic is illicit use of supernatural power. You don't believe in the supernatural? Don't diss other people who do.

The mention of priests is completely needed, frankly as a perfect example of why religious institutions should have absolutely no authority over children. Miracle = an event that defies the laws of nature Magic = event that defies the laws of nature. They are exactly the same, and i'll "diss" (super cool lingo btw) people who believe in gods, wizards and magic all i like if they try and introduce legislation that threatens the safety of children because they think their magic god will punish them if they don't. don't like it? call a lawyer.

Teachers are qualified for their subject (very few may have PSHE specialism) but parents are infinitely more qualified to know when their child is mature enough to be taught about intimate matters and how to approach it, etc. - they can be responsive to individual needs in a way some teacher at the front of a class of 20-30 just can't, even if they had a PhD in sexology. Much SRE is delivered by people who have no specialist knowledge of sex beyond what is given to them by the providers of the materials, who move on next lesson to maths or geography or whatever they do actually specialise in. Still, I support classroom sex education for the benefit of those who have negligent parents who fail to address this properly. Also this is about morality not facts. I am not opposed to facts being taught on anything, puberty, sex, pregnancy, contraception etc. I am NOT arguing for equally biased "abstinence only" education the other way. That wouldn't work in most schools as few of them would want to abstain till marriage. I say DO teach them facts, but anti-life bias can creep in, as it did in my school.

No they aren't, do you know what qualified means? Having the appropriate qualifications for an office, position, or task. Parents do not have the qualifications to teach sex ed, even if they did teachers have to follow a unbiased curriculum that deals in facts and studies and if they don't they can be held accountable for what they said. Parents can teach their kids whatever they like about sex, when a teacher tells that kid facts and those facts go against what the parent has said it sucks to be them.

"Parents are idiots"? I thought you would be a parent-basher, and thus a bigger idiot than most parents ever will be, when you first posted your extreme comments against this. "Communities are idiots"? You do know that everyone lives in a community of some sort, except hermits, and over 80% of adults are parents- less than the 95-100% of the past, but still I do not see it ever becoming a minority sport to have children when it is one of the fundamental things human beings want. So according to you nearly everyone is idiotic except for teachers, and guess what- most of them are parents too. Are you saying that parents should not be allowed to "teach" their children to cross the road either, because they are not qualified teachers? Or on moral matters, they should not "teach" them that sharing is good, as they do not have the wealth of knowledge required to do so appropriately?

Parent-basher that's a new one, the "communities" you were referring to I'm guessing are the ones made up of a religious congregation who live in the same area. They are idiots who will turn on, ostracize and even attack members they feel are "immoral" and the more control being taken away from them the better. Why are you rabbling on about parents becoming a minority? Parents are allowed to teach their children about sex, i never said they weren't. They are not however the only source of information the child will receive because they are not deemed as qualified to give unbiased facts and advice. Sex ed teachers, nurses and certain charity employees are.

You are a very extreme example of the "only professionals can be trusted" mentality. Yes, I would only trust someone with a degree in medicine and appropriate post-qualification experience to do brain surgery on my mother. No, parents do not need to be replaced in some of their most important capacities by teachers, State-employed or otherwise. I believe the two can work in harmony which is a much more commonly held view than any radical anti-parent position.

Parents are no longer the only source of information that kids have access to on sex, that isn't going to change. don't like it? Ask your god to do something about it.

This makes sheer nonsense of the idea that it's bad parents who will not know their child is on the pill. If they can get it through the school nurse in the ordinary school day, and it's confidential, it is IMPOSSIBLE for mum and dad to find out short of burgling the school at night and breaking locked cabinets to get to files. It is not hard to hide a little strip of pills and good parents wouldn't generally nose right through their teenage daughter's bedroom. Same applies to condoms.

If a teenager wants to tell her parents she is on the pill that is her choice, teenagers have a right to medical privacy just like an adult.

Oh, nice to think that being pro-life is "crappy parenting". If you have told your children you believe in the value of human life from conception, as I will tell mine, and they choose to have an abortion behind your back they won't be queuing up to tell you. That's the teenager's fault for sexual impurity, dishonesty, and killing their unborn baby not the parent's for actually bringing them up with standards. It's the same reason they would not be in a big rush to tell you they had been drinking at a party when you don't approve of alcohol or that most of their "revision" on their computer consists of masturbating to online porn.

awww do all the dead fetuses make baby jesus cry? didums. Grow the **** up, you don't get to dictate your beliefs to society. you wana teach your kids to be pro life? go for it. However kids have a mind of their own and what they choose to believe is up to them.

Not the State's job to parent for you? And listening to a pupil discuss their sex life and providing personal advice without telling the family is not the state parenting for you then? The WHOLE REASON I support this is because the state should not replace a child's parent, unless there are tragic circumstances.

No it's not state parenting, it's called getting an education. Wanting the state to enforce your religious beliefs by law because you can't convince children to follow them is wanting the state to be a parent.

I have already told you quite well that it would not apply to circumstances with a risk of violence. A Muslim/Hindu fundamentalist's daughter going out with someone in a different religion would be one of those. In that case I would say the teacher/nurse/mentor should NOT tell parents to prevent the risk but should tell the pupil that their parents and their religious tradition oppose their behaviour and to think carefully about what decisions they make. They should never help them get an abortion. If they want to find out about clinics they can do it themselves. Pastoral care=/= getting rid of your pupils' unwanted babies.

the point is your legislation would effect every child. so now your changing it to medical advice and information is confidential? almost like how it is already?

More parent-bashing. Did you just bash parents three times in one paragraph? Are you a matriphobic pater-hater or what? White wine zombie and good morals don't usually go. If you believe in chastity 99% of the time you would drink in moderation (or not at all if Muslim)- this sort of mother is probably happy to have someone else taking care of her pregnant daughter's problems so she can carry on sipping Chardonnay, arranging parties and going to her yoga classes.

can do it four times if you like? thanks for pointing out why allowing parents to be the sole moral guidance for kids is a bad idea though, i agree completely.

There already is one- SPUC, which I am part of, which is itself a member of the Pro-Life Alliance, not Voice for Choice. Facts and studies may help to determine morality by weighing up likely consequences of actions but no FPA fact or study will override a code of morals based on marriage, family and self-control. Simple as that. I did not bash liberals, I just said the FPA are serious liberals to challenge your baseless view that they are unbiased.

Really? then tell me again why groups like the FPA are the ones advising kids, giving out facts and even helping kids who are in serious danger while the SPUC is some outside group that isn't trusted to advise a chicken on how to lay an egg?.

Answer the question. If your moral views are so superior why do you feel the need to silence opposing views by law? The SPUC is free to approach education authorities and is also free to write a letter of complaint when that authority throws their bigoted asses out.

[ScheduleII]

[QUOTE=Darth Stewie;37465504]
How many kids are in danger? According the the nspcc approximately 50,500 children in the UK are known to be at risk of abuse right now. Also according the the nspcc 11.3% of 18-24 year olds have experienced contact sexual abuse during childhood. Trying to make out it is not a big problem is moronic. You have no idea how abuse cases go, neither do i. You know who does? The people who advise the government and as a result introduced the systems you seem so adamantly opposed to. you think only one kid has been killed by their parents in living memory? Are you high? there are hundreds of stories on this forum alone about honor killings which would be something that was made easier under your system.

I am PRO-PROTECTION OF CHILDREN, Did you know SPUC who oppose explicit sex education call their campaign "SAFE at School?" Accusing me of drug-taking is next. The NSPCC never advised the government to have this system. Also the idea of teachers offering confidential advice on sex is supported usually because they believe that parents have no right to know their childrens' business or that they are capable of offering better advice (parent doesn't know best), NOT as a safeguard. The people who are actually engaging in subversionism don't bring safeguarding into it because they know they wouldn't win that battle, so why do you?

Deaths- I am being very specific. I am talking about girls being killed by their parents *because they were committing incestuous abuse on them and were likely to be/had be found out* and nothing else. No other child abuse is relevant to this thread. Did Baby P, Victoria Climbie, Toni-Ann Byfield, Maria Colwell, etc. die because their parents were sexually abusing them and a professional helped them to find out that the child was nearing disclosure? NO, NO, NO! Nearly every case of killing by a parent or carer has been a prepubescent child, teens are extraordinarily rare and when it has been known to happen the motive has been found, it has NOT been incest, except for that case in this country. That is why.

Again your using some made up "perfect" example to try and justify your points, the current legislation and groups that you are so adamantly against are there to protect the kids that need it not the ones that don't.

Made up perfect example, having a laugh? ALL I said was "tell mum not dad". No made-up perfect examples there. Is it so difficult to reach the female parent in situations where the male is suspected of abusing the girl/boy? Schools should have equal contact for both.

The mention of priests is completely needed, frankly as a perfect example of why religious institutions should have absolutely no authority over children. Miracle = an event that defies the laws of nature Magic = event that defies the laws of nature. They are exactly the same, and i'll "diss" (super cool lingo btw) people who believe in gods, wizards and magic all i like if they try and introduce legislation that threatens the safety of children because they think their magic god will punish them if they don't. don't like it? call a lawyer.

Obviously your definition of magic differs from mine as a religious person. I don't believe "God will punish me" if I didn't support this.

No they aren't, do you know what qualified means? Having the appropriate qualifications for an office, position, or task. Parents do not have the qualifications to teach sex ed, even if they did teachers have to follow a unbiased curriculum that deals in facts and studies and if they don't they can be held accountable for what they said. Parents can teach their kids whatever they like about sex, when a teacher tells that kid facts and those facts go against what the parent has said it sucks to be them.

This is NOT about facts, I believe in access to facts. I believe schools SHOULD teach the facts, but not any opinions which contravene what the children were brought up to believe. My issue is with opinions and values and morals. I have no issue with factual information, unlike some more extreme pro-lifers who oppose all teaching of sex education or wish to restrict information on options outside abstinence. This is about not SUBVERTING parental morality by teaching against it, not SUBVERTING parents by keeping secrets & lying to them, not SUBVERTING parents through doling out free johnnies and the like.

Parent-basher that's a new one, the "communities" you were referring to I'm guessing are the ones made up of a religious congregation who live in the same area. They are idiots who will turn on, ostracize and even attack members they feel are "immoral" and the more control being taken away from them the better. Why are you rabbling on about parents becoming a minority? Parents are allowed to teach their children about sex, i never said they weren't. They are not however the only source of information the child will receive because they are not deemed as qualified to give unbiased facts and advice. Sex ed teachers, nurses and certain charity employees are.

Parents are no longer the only source of information that kids have access to on sex, that isn't going to change. don't like it? Ask your god to do something about it.If a teenager wants to tell her parents she is on the pill that is her choice, teenagers have a right to medical privacy just like an adult. awww do all the dead fetuses make baby jesus cry? didums. Grow the **** up, you don't get to dictate your beliefs to society. you wana teach your kids to be pro life? go for it. However kids have a mind of their own and what they choose to believe is up to them. No it's not state parenting, it's called getting an education. Wanting the state to enforce your religious beliefs by law because you can't convince children to follow them is wanting the state to be a parent.

Corrected:
1)I am not enforcing any belief by law. I believe in giving out facts without bias and certainly no religious content in a secular school sex education (not the right place for it).
2)Making Jesus cry is not the reason for this. The issue is the PARENT. I never said "tell the parent because God minds abortion". No, I said the PARENT might.
3)Getting whole class education =/= emotional or practical support in secret on a personal sex issue. Personal issues= state parenting if they interfere.
4)I do not say kids have to believe their parents. I just say schools should not be allowed to tell them to believe otherwise.
5)Medical privacy is not an argument for secrecy here as it does not apply to your learning mentor, your "pupil support manager", your "pastoral care" people, your Maths teacher or your headteacher. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.
6)Parents the only source? Whoops- I expressed clear support for classroom sex education, due to the fact not all parents do their job on this, so I do not think that at all.

the point is your legislation would effect every child. so now your changing it to medical advice and information is confidential? almost like how it is already?

No, not changing it at all. I am talking about the exception in the first post, the one you slammed for relying on greater knowledge of at-risk children than teachers and nurses actually have, which I disputed.


can do it four times if you like? thanks for pointing out why allowing parents to be the sole moral guidance for kids is a bad idea though, i agree completely.
Really? then tell me again why groups like the FPA are the ones advising kids, giving out facts and even helping kids who are in serious danger while the SPUC is some outside group that isn't trusted to advise a chicken on how to lay an egg?.Answer the question. If your moral views are so superior why do you feel the need to silence opposing views by law? The SPUC is free to approach education authorities and is also free to write a letter of complaint when that authority throws their bigoted asses out.

Not silencing any view, just requiring balance either by not stating a moral view or by mentioning more than one. Preferably the former, especially in straight SRE lessons as opposed to RE/philosophy & ethics lessons that deal with the same questions from a moral/religious angle. SPUC are trusted by many schools and SPUC speakers, along with Life and Lovewise speakers are allowed into plenty of them, often-- guess why--- "to provide balance". Balance who, you might ask? Oh yes, those pro-abortion people at the FPA and Brook. Do the joining up of dots: FPA, founded Brook Advisory Clinics, fought for sexual revolution long and hard against the likes of the Responsible Society [later FYC, the pro-family group], backed every bill tilted that way, Brook founds Education for Choice, FPA links to BPAS, all of those part of pro-abort coalition Voice for Choice, but the real big one is who the FPA's parent (ironic, I know) organisation are.

IPPF. Yeah, that's right, PLANNED PARENTHOOD!
They are pure and simple, the British arm of PP. The group calling "war on women" in the States who get exposed time and again for their misconduct. That is why I used "war on women" in my original post.

Don't defend Planned Parenthood, defund Planned Parenthood. Yeah, they can do it in the States, stop giving government/NHS cash to them and BPAS and see if they can survive as charities, funded by donations, not taxpayer money.

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Quick question, would you support a parent forcing their child to get an abortion, even if the child wanted to keep the baby?

No. That's considered child abuse in the US states where notification and/or consent is required. Parents are sometimes allowed to veto an abortion but should not be able to force one.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
No. That's considered child abuse in the US states where notification and/or consent is required. Parents are sometimes allowed to veto an abortion but should not be able to force one.

So you don't think that the parent knows what is best for their child then?

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
So you don't think that the parent knows what is best for their child then?

I think the parent usually does, but the usual standard is that parents cannot force an abortion and that's fair due to the conscience of the pro-life young person who would want to keep a teen pregnancy, whereas a person who wanted to abort would rarely have a conscientious objection to giving birth ("anti-natalism" is hardly common or grounded in tradition.)Young people and children should have some rights to exercise their own conscience.

This is about notification in schools. This proposed bill would not change the laws around abortion OR affect abortion providers, it would prevent schools from giving out info about providers, telling the girl it was OK when the parents disagreed, or keeping secrets about abortion from parents except when they believed the girl would be at risk of significant harm from the parents knowing.

Schools are different as parents send their children to them to perform a specific function of education in loco parentis.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
I think the parent usually does, but the usual standard is that parents cannot force an abortion and that's fair due to the conscience of the pro-life young person who would want to keep a teen pregnancy, whereas a person who wanted to abort would rarely have a conscientious objection to giving birth ("anti-natalism" is hardly common or grounded in tradition.)Young people and children should have some rights to exercise their own conscience.

This is about notification in schools. This proposed bill would not change the laws around abortion OR affect abortion providers, it would prevent schools from giving out info about providers, telling the girl it was OK when the parents disagreed, or keeping secrets about abortion from parents except when they believed the girl would be at risk of significant harm from the parents knowing.

Schools are different as parents send their children to them to perform a specific function of education in loco parentis.

Well, the belief that you should not bring a child into an overpopulated world unless you are in a position to care for said child, while not grounded in as many years of tradition as refusing to provide children with all the information, is still a legitimate viewpoint for parents to hold, leading me to conclude that what your agenda is more about promoting your views on abortion than promoting the parents rights to decide for their child.

At the end of the day, if the only way you can get your child to make the decision you want is by lying to them or not telling them the facts, then you should accept their decision. A moral choice made out of ignorance is never a good one.

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Well, the belief that you should not bring a child into an overpopulated world unless you are in a position to care for said child, while not grounded in as many years of tradition as refusing to provide children with all the information, is still a legitimate viewpoint for parents to hold, leading me to conclude that what your agenda is more about promoting your views on abortion than promoting the parents rights to decide for their child.

At the end of the day, if the only way you can get your child to make the decision you want is by lying to them or not telling them the facts, then you should accept their decision. A moral choice made out of ignorance is never a good one.

Abortion is a small part of the model bill. I already said there is a big difference between notification and consent. Notifying parents doesn't mean that they would have the final decision, only that they would have the right to know. The veto parents have over abortion in some countries/US states isn't in it: that was purely detail given in response to your question about whether a parent should be allowed to force one.

The "consent" element was for III)providing personal advice [not including any sex education given to a whole class or group] to a pupil without disclosing the substance of the conversation to parents as soon as is practicable OR OBTAINING PRIOR CONSENT.

This is all anti-subversion of parents, so what that means is that if these teachers and pastoral care staff etc. want to be "approachable" they should have to send a letter home which the parents can sign saying I consent for my son/daughter XXXXXX to receive confidential emotional and practical support with respect to sex and relationships in addition to whole class activities.

If the parents don't mind then it can go ahead. This is designed to stop situations where they are offering an end run around conservative families and thus undermining what has been taught at home most severely. You DO NOT raise your child with moral integrity for them to sneak off to a sophisticated experienced "professional" who will let them speak in extenso about their salacious behaviour and give them some condoms. Be honest, if that sort of person was around it would be much more appealing for sexually active pupils to approach them in secret than face the disapproval of their families.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
Abortion is a small part of the model bill. I already said there is a big difference between notification and consent. Notifying parents doesn't mean that they would have the final decision, only that they would have the right to know. The veto parents have over abortion in some countries/US states isn't in it: that was purely detail given in response to your question about whether a parent should be allowed to force one.

The "consent" element was for III)providing personal advice [not including any sex education given to a whole class or group] to a pupil without disclosing the substance of the conversation to parents as soon as is practicable OR OBTAINING PRIOR CONSENT.

This is all anti-subversion of parents, so what that means is that if these teachers and pastoral care staff etc. want to be "approachable" they should have to send a letter home which the parents can sign saying I consent for my son/daughter XXXXXX to receive confidential emotional and practical support with respect to sex and relationships in addition to whole class activities.

If the parents don't mind then it can go ahead. This is designed to stop situations where they are offering an end run around conservative families and thus undermining what has been taught at home most severely. You DO NOT raise your child with moral integrity for them to sneak off to a sophisticated experienced "professional" who will let them speak in extenso about their salacious behaviour and give them some condoms. Be honest, if that sort of person was around it would be much more appealing for sexually active pupils to approach them in secret than face the disapproval of their families.

If you raise your child by a moral code that they decide is not the one they choose to live by, and are then so judgmental and unsupportive of how your child that they would rather talk about their personal life to a stranger, and it falls to that stranger to ensure that they are practicing safe sex, then really, you have failed as a parent, both in supporting your child and in teaching them.

The schools would prefer that parents do the advising, but if there is a situation where the child is too scared of the disapproval of their parents to approach them, then they would be just as scared to have those parents receive the letter you suggest. As such they would most likely go ahead without the advice and probably without the condoms, which is a far worse situation for all concerned.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
Abortion is a small part of the model bill. I already said there is a big difference between notification and consent. Notifying parents doesn't mean that they would have the final decision, only that they would have the right to know. The veto parents have over abortion in some countries/US states isn't in it: that was purely detail given in response to your question about whether a parent should be allowed to force one.

The "consent" element was for III)providing personal advice [not including any sex education given to a whole class or group] to a pupil without disclosing the substance of the conversation to parents as soon as is practicable OR OBTAINING PRIOR CONSENT.

This is all anti-subversion of parents, so what that means is that if these teachers and pastoral care staff etc. want to be "approachable" they should have to send a letter home which the parents can sign saying I consent for my son/daughter XXXXXX to receive confidential emotional and practical support with respect to sex and relationships in addition to whole class activities.

If the parents don't mind then it can go ahead. This is designed to stop situations where they are offering an end run around conservative families and thus undermining what has been taught at home most severely. You DO NOT raise your child with moral integrity for them to sneak off to a sophisticated experienced "professional" who will let them speak in extenso about their salacious behaviour and give them some condoms. Be honest, if that sort of person was around it would be much more appealing for sexually active pupils to approach them in secret than face the disapproval of their families.

Do you not think that removing any hope of confidentiality would simply stop children from confiding in authority figures? Personally, I'd rather a kid went to a teacher for advice in order to keep things from their parents, than sought no advice whatsoever in order to keep things from their parents.