Parents lose right over sex education

[---]

Parents lose right over sex education
Sex education will be compulsory in all schools, it was announced today, as thousands of parents lose the right to opt their children out of the lessons.


By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Published: 2:17PM GMT 05 Nov 2009

Pupils in England will be given classes in sex and relationships from the age of five under Government plans to cut teenage pregnancies.

Children will learn about parts of the body, the facts of life and puberty in primary school. At secondary school, they will be taught about pregnancy, contraception, HIV and homosexual relationships, it was disclosed.

Related Articles

*
Sex education opt-out 'should be axed'
*
The most widespread child abuse in Britain is perpetrated by the Government
*
Sex education 'to be compulsory' in all state schools
*
Compulsory 'lifestyle' classes in primary schools to be announced
*
Sex lessons 'to be compulsory for primary pupils'
*
School 'should have sex clinics'

All mothers and fathers will be able to keep children out on moral and religious grounds but will lose the right of withdraw when they turn 15. The ruling will affect 600,000 pupils a year.

The controversial move is designed to ensure pupils get at least 12 months of sex education before finishing compulsory schooling.

But parents’ groups said the decision risked “infringing parents’ rights” and claimed the Government was attempting to legislate in family life.

Faith schools will also be forced to teach all aspects of the new-style curriculum, including same-sex relationships, contraception and abortion, although ministers insisted they could stage lessons within the “tenets of their faith”.

Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, said: “You can teach the promotion of marriage, you can teach that you shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, what you can't do is deny young people information about contraception outside of marriage.

“The same arises in homosexuality. Some faiths have a view about what in religious terms is right and wrong – what they can’t do though is not teach the importance of tolerance.”

Sex education will be introduced in 2011 as part of new compulsory lessons in personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE), the Government said.

Classes for five- to 16-year-olds will cover a range of lifestyle issues, including drugs, personal finance and first aid.

PSHE was introduced by Labour in 2000 but has not been part of the National Curriculum, allowing schools to drop it altogether. Ofsted said provision was “patchy” across England.

In the past, parents have been able to withdraw children from the sex education element of PSHE. Mr Balls said a “very small minority” of families exercised the power.

Government research published on Thursday suggested four in five parents wanted children to be given sex education, but almost a third insisted they should have the option to withdraw from lessons at any age.

But the Government said the right to opt out would be removed when children turned 15. It follows a review of the existing rules by Sir Alasdair MacDonald, head of Morpeth School in east London.

“This means that every young person will receive at least one year of [sex education] before their 16th birthday,” said Mr Balls.

Margaret Morrissey, from campaign group Parents Outloud, condemned ministers for “infringing parents' rights”.

Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: “The government is removing the right of parents to protect their children from the explicit promotion of abortion and sexual health interventions in the latter stages. This will be exploited to pressure more schools to deliver government-style sexual health interventions. In recent years, these have been characterised by obscene and lurid presentations.”

But Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT teachers’ union, said: “Allowing parents to withdraw their child from sex and relationship lessons up to the age of 15 does not sit well with a statutory entitlement.

“If it is important enough to be a statutory provision then it is important enough for every child to receive it. This is the only part of the National Curriculum from which parents have a right of withdrawal.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/65082...-education.html

[April]

speechless! :bored:

[Shinobi]

For this not to be questioned by all those silly voters who actually vote
shouldnt they be asking themselves how comes no vote from themselves
was actually held or involved for voters in this whole process. . . .
and still those silly voters wont and dont question anything ....
It clearly shows you the government think they are well above the general public
and do not care what a human being says or objects to.

[kevlar]

i think that is too young. but i also think that schools should not be teaching children about sex, that should be up to the parents.

[---]

Quote:i think that is too young. but i also think that schools should not be teaching children about sex, that should be up to the parents.

unfortunately sci fi puts these type of scenarios into a future perspective as meme in ppls' heads generally speaking ..imho

which is a shame because it is right now in the present moment not in the future.

it is very wrong and I foresee some bad problems with the education authorities here vis a vi my child..and thats not even going into the part where they try and instill guilt for the supposed systematic industrial slaughter of 6million european jews, into childrens' hearts - yes, that will be fun if the sun doesn't spaz us in the meantime.

I opt out of the free compulsory programming of my infant. Their mind/s will escape the state's mindfucking, I am confident on that.

[FastTadpole]

The part I really do not like about this is the teaching abortion aspect. It puts the idea in these kids' minds and pacifies it as a feminist choice and freedom in most institutional curricula. The males may as well not attend since it is not up to them - easier to convince one then to have to get a unanimous consensus from the parents to be. The impressionable minds of teenagers are taught this twisted form of self empowerment and leads them directly to the Rothschild / Gates / Buffet funded Planned Parenthood who are happy to send these knocked up teens to abortion 'clinics' or adoption agencies. They present this alternative and it festers as a seed while the media arm of the operation seeks to have them participate in the risk free casual sex culture.

So the agenda is to have young people produce capital for the foster system or kill them and rip the soul out of the parents with a the sacrifice of their own child. Sounds a lot like a cremation of care ceremony. I have known people to have this done to them at the behest of the advice given them at younger (and older) ages and a part of them has died and many I know (actually all) have serious drug and/or physiological issues stemming from it - a perfect mental state for induction programming.

On a side note. I was a teenage father and thankfully my 'partner in crime' (who was a foster child) chose to keep our child alive and we have raised him to be a great young mind that is a fellow ConCener as well. He is a healthy well adjusted independent thinker now at the age of 13. At 17, I was seriously considering adoption and 'getting on with my life' and encouraged to become a good worker consumer by multiple societal influences. Thankfully his mother was a former foster child had the perspective of what it was really like to be a part of that system first hand and she rebelled with the notion being put forth to kill or donate him incessantly being pushed on us.

My boy is snoozing directly behind me while I write this and I wouldn't have it any other way nor could I imagine life without him. When my son is ready he'll be writing about How Bill Gates and Warren Buffet Conspired to Murder Me.

[---]

I don't think women are always emotionally scarred from abortions but definitely I hear a lot of what you are saying here very clearly, for sure. "Bravo old chap" as the stinking basard english might say.

[FastTadpole]

Quote:I don't think women are always emotionally scarred from abortions.

There are always exceptions and this is merely speculation, me not being a woman with an aborted child, but part of them would would have to be programmed not to care as an abortion in your past is slowly but surely becoming the 'new normal'.

[kevlar]

i don't see why they need detailed sexual education at such a young age.

i didn't even see a porno until i was 11.

well it would be interesting to see how teaching children at a young age makes any difference.

shielding children from knowledge of sex by telling them stories about stalks does seem foolish in this day and age.

but the way the government will go about it, teaching them homosexuality and other types of eugenics propaganda and further distorting the male and female identities.

psychological warfare

[---]

Quote:

Quote:I don't think women are always emotionally scarred from abortions.

There are always exceptions and this is merely speculation, me not being a woman with an aborted child, but part of them would would have to be programmed not to care as an abortion in your past is slowly but surely becoming the 'new normal'.

I agree, I think it's largely normalised and accepted already, amongst a great segment of the female population in the western zone.

[---]

Quote:i don't see why they need detailed sexual education at such a young age.

i didn't even see a porno until i was 11.

well it would be interesting to see how teaching children at a young age makes any difference.

shielding children from knowledge of sex by telling them stories about stalks does seem foolish in this day and age.

but the way the government will go about it, teaching them homosexuality and other types of eugenics propaganda and further distorting the male and female identities.

psychological warfare

What I think they should all be tarred and feathered for is trying to justify the forced sexualisation of children - whether the insignificant parents object or not - on the premise that:

"children have sexuality" . Of course children have sexuality, fucking brainiacs -- it isn't a carte blanche licence for screwed up crypto paedos to encourage 5 year old to think about fucking.

I think this people need an intervention of physical violence visited apon them in this sensory field. It occurs that it is possibly the only means of directly communicating with their mangled psyches that they are psychotically over reaching their bounds nowadaze.

It seems a shame but they should leave the children alone.

it's hokus pokus

[FastTadpole]

Quote:Public sex education changes society
Psychiatrist warns 'kids are taught they can play with fire' and not cautioned about STDs, abortion
DEBORAH GYAPONG

OTTAWA - When Dr. Miriam Grossman became a physician, she thought her biggest battle would be against physical diseases and emotional disorders.

Instead, the American psychiatrist said her biggest battle has been against dangerous ideas, especially the harm in sex education promoted by groups like Planned Parenthood.

"Their priority is not sexual health, it is sexual freedom," said Grossman, the author of You're Teaching My Kid What? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education and How They Harm Your Child.

"Sex education is a social movement," she said at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC) conference here March 11. "Its goal is to change society." Those changes include freeing people from sexual taboos, especially Judeo-Christian morality.

"Kids are being taught they can play with fire," she said.

Waiting rooms like hers are filled with "people who have been burned inside and out."
IMPORTING MORALITY

Planned Parenthood and similar groups are "dangerously exporting" their ideas to the international community, she warned, noting that UNESCO's guidelines on sexual education see sexuality as extending from cradle to grave and that "each person has a right to express their sexuality in whatever way they choose."

"No judging is allowed," Grossman said.

Though these groups claim to offer comprehensive sex education they do not reveal the risks of early sexual activity and multiple partners through sexually transmitted disease (STD), abortion, emotional distress and infertility. The higher risks to girls, women and men who have sex with men are never laid out in the way the risks of smoking or alcohol are, she said.

Instead of basing sexual education on science, it is based on "a vision of how the world should be."

This vision sees no substantive differences between male and female, and no one lifestyle healthier than another. Any perceived differences need to be fought, according to this mindset, she said.

Diseases like chlamydia, HIV, or herpes are treated as "random, equal opportunity" diseases, with no explanation that those who remain virgins until marrying another virgin are involved in 100 per cent risk free sexual activity, she said.

Modern sexual education techniques are based on the fraudulent research of Alfred Kinsey, whom Grossman describe as a "deeply disturbed individual," who took an "anything goes" approach to the sexual appetite.

http://digg.com/health/Psychiatrist_Warn..._with_Fire
http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2010/0322/sex032210.shtml

Related Thread:
Sexuality as Perversion and/or Love :: Influences and Symptoms of Promiscuity
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?t...#pid184675

[ldrancer]

can you shove dildos up your kids asses? that's the decision right?

---

don't worry about sickenning perverted faggots though.
poises. me i p;oised for your expected stories of gay faggot land with choclate shit everywhere flying around floating around, everywhere floatiing by. soooooooooo.
what do i supposed to do here, copy paste.

[---]

(04-14-2010 09:54 AM)ldrancer Wrote:  soooooooooo.
what do i supposed to do here, copy paste.

you sit in a corner with your allocated grow your own brain kit and then wait until it is grown.

[Deathaniel]

(11-08-2009 01:49 AM)kevlar Wrote:  i think that is too young. but i also think that schools should not be teaching children about sex, that should be up to the parents.

cause so many are doing a good job of it now right?!?!?!

are you all serious... with the amount of your fellow american who is dumb as a pound of nails, and the shame you all still put on sex shit if a singer shows a tit it's the ned of your puritan worlds... and by keeping the kids in the dark, i say gr 6 and up is fine for teaching the body side and by highschool (locally aged 13-ish) the rest should be taught ....

not only does it keep them intelligent enough to know uncle ted shouldn't be tickling her that way , and what grand dad at the trailer has me do is wrong!!! ect... a smart child if a defended child, and it will keep at least some of them safer from being prey....i assume theres not too many priests or Illuminati here who take offense to me wanting children to be aware of how some touching and such is not appropriate!!!

then theres the other side yes we all want our kids to keep there legs shut, and snakes in there trousers, but by aged 15-16 there curious and if not at petting, then will be soon... (btw average age in us of virginity loss is under that!!! canada is just... got more distance i guess to travel to get some lol)

to know about what is safe and what is not, and how to enjoy other forms of affection... ect, is better then them being sheltered, so there taken advantage of or worse...

i also believe your kids should be exposed to the penal system, and single young mothers and the whole spin, let them see what consequences can happen, spend a weekend in jail, now not in direct contact but a crash experience, ect... I have discovered that the exposed kids are a million times smarter and able to adapt then the sheltered one..it's the sheltered one which has no power to free think and becomes what you all here loath a sheep to run they system as is...

reading and math r important, but so is many other things and as parents your failing your children, having cable..... what a great subsitute, let them pipe in there ideas but resist it being taught in schools.... laughable!!!

btw... i agree orientation should be discussed but not the contexts of the processes of and/ or the acceptability of it...