Your daughter is MINE because its my 'societal preference'!

Schools handing out morning after pill to under-age girls backed by Ofsted
By LAURA CLARK 12th April 2007

More schools will be encouraged to hand out the morning-after pill to underage girls after a strong endorsement of the service from Ofsted inspectors.

Around one in three children already has easy access to condoms and emergency contraception – without their parents’ knowledge or consent – thanks to sexual health clinics based at secondary schools.

Many more heads are expected to set up contraception services in their schools following Ofsted’s warm endorsement in a report published yesterday.

The education watchdog declared that school nurses ‘provide a valuable service’ distributing contraception and advising pupils on birth control.

Inspectors even complained that progress towards establishing the centres had so far been ‘modest’.

Last night family campaigners warned the initiative may simply encourage promiscuity.

They pointed out that more than 20 studies have failed to find a link between better access to the morning-after pill and a fewer teenage pregnancies.

By 2010, ministers want every secondary school to have access to a nurse providing emergency contraception and advice as part of a drive to reduce the number of teenagers becoming parents.

In its latest report on the state of sex education, Ofsted inspectors said handing out the morning-after pill was more effective at reducing teenage pregnancies than promoting abstinence.

‘There is no evidence….that “abstinence- only” education reduces teenage pregnancy or improves sexual health,’ their report said.

‘There is also no evidence to support claims that teaching about contraception leads to increased sexual activity.’

The report said: ‘School nurses can arrange visits from their colleagues in the community and work with them to promote health and improve young people’s access to health services.’

It added: ‘School nurses can also provide a valuable service, particularly in terms of providing emergency hormonal contraception and advising on other forms of contraception.

‘Progress towards establishing such centres has been modest, but many extended schools are now providing a good range of services.’

Norman Wells, of the pressure group Family and Youth Concern, was concerned about the resulting message to children. ‘In putting its faith in sex education and contraception to deal with high teenage pregnancy rates and the crisis in sexual health among young people, Ofsted is blindly following the dogma at the heart of the government’s teenage pregnancy strategy,’ he said.

‘Ofsted has swallowed the lie being peddled by the sex education and contraceptive industry that using contraception is the mark of sexual responsibility.

‘No less than 23 studies from ten countries have found that increased access to the morning-after pill has made no difference to unintended pregnancy and abortion rates, yet Ofsted continues to fly in the face of international evidence.’

Margaret Morrissey, of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, said school nurses gave children the chance to talk to someone impartial outside the classroom, where they may be embarrassed to ask questions.

But she added: ‘When it comes to things like morning-after pills and condoms there are many parents who will be concerned if they are not informed.

‘The majority will be quite devastated if they suddenly found that their kids were on birth control pills and they didn’t know anything about it.’

Official figures show pregnancies among under-18s rose in 2005 to 39,683 – up from 39,593 in 2004 and much higher than the 35,400 recorded a decade earlier in 1995.

Children’s minister Beverley Hughes welcomed the Ofsted finding that the quality of personal, social and health education, which includes sex education, had improved.

But help was also needed on the homefront. ‘We are taking steps to improve the support we give to parents to talk about sex and relationships,’ she said.

Daily Mail

So, Ofstead makes a ‘societal preference‘ to promote promiscuity and by extension, call your daughter a whore, but this is all OK [whine] because its good for society to stop teenage pregnancy [/whine].

Consent of the governed, a SANE voice, says:

With the establishment of school health clinics and national control of education creeping its way along in our country, we will not be too far behind with the implementation of these kinds of programs, funded by our tax dollars. School clinics in some places might already give out birth control and abortion referrals. Some states have policy on this and others do not. As it is now, kids cannot and may not buy a coke from a school vending machine in CT (Connecticut), but they can get an abortion without parental consent. Something is definitely wrong with that picture.. it not only throws parents out of the picture completely but also may further enable kids to engage in risky behaviors, because they know they can just as easily abort the “consequence”. Many people will say.. well kids will have sex anyway, so let’s give them tools to deal with “the consequences” without their parents even knowing. How can the schools enable sex between minors which is also a crime in many states?

[…]

Putting the moral and religious issue of abortion aside, I think the minimization and exclusion of parents regarding this issue is reprehensible. Undermining parental authority and consent is just really wrong, in my opinion. Yet, parents are supposed to be held responsible if their kids break the law or go truant from school?? How come parents are responsible in some instances and not allowed to be included in others?

I would think that school boards should be held liable for the results from negligent referrals regarding “sexual health” of a child. What happens if a child is harmed by either referred procedures or school administered medication like the Morning After pill? Schools and taxpayers will naturally be averse to this type of legal and economic liability.

[…]

For me as a parent, it is yet another reason to homeschool our kids, and be able to more directly and effectively deal with our kids without government enabling of bad behavior and without government inserting itself into the picture.

[…]

Consent of the governed

A refreshing blast of cool fresh air on a fetid sticky stinky summer day in the city.

Now, there are those blockheads who say:

This is a sensitive subject, far more than truancy or otherwise. The addition of sex into the equation adds a completely new element. I can think of plenty of examples in which it would be in the student’s best interest to keep sexual activity from their parents. One notable example would be a fundamentalist religious family in which any child from the resulting pregnancy would be shunned along with the child’s mother, forcing both into a hard position as social pariahs.

Personally I would rather give students the ability to decide what happens in their body without pressure from parents who’s motives may not always be the child’s well-being.

And this is the problem. This man, this idiot, a commenter on Consent of the governed blog to this post, is clearly not a parent of a female. He probably isn’t a parent of any kind. No parent would think it is appropriate that their child was given access to these abortion drugs, let alone the information that accompanies them.

Each family, each parent is responsible for imparting this sensitive information in the way that they see fit. School should not have regularly scheduled sex education for minors. When you are doing your biology GCSE however, reproduction should be taught, but that is different to sex education which is what is being pushed in schools.

But I digress.

This MORON has a vote. He can vote and express his opinion that, “Personally I would rather give students the ability to decide what happens in their body without pressure from parents” which means anything from forcing your daughter to be implanted with sterilizing drugs without your consent to, by the doctrine of ‘societal preference‘, YOUR DAUGHTER being given abortion drugs without any referral to you as the parent. He can justify your daughter being taught things that come directly from pornography, without your consent.

Now, having thought about that, and being repulsed as a parent, you might think, “to hell with that, I am going to home school my daughter. I don’t agree with any of this at all, and since I can’t be there to monitor the class and swoop her out when these vile lectures begin, I have to remove my daughter from that system entirely”.

But some other brain dead schmuck has expressed his ‘societal preference‘ which means your daughter cannot be home schooled, or, that home schoolers must follow a state issued curriculum, so YOU end up teaching your 11 year old pornographic sex tricks, that she will be examined on by the state.

That is what happens when unthinking people exercise their ‘societal preference‘, for ‘the good of society’. Organizations like Ofstead, which cannot introduce programs to solve literacy and numeracy problems approve giving out contraceptives to children, because they ‘think its right’. And next, they want to go straight into your house to provide ‘help on the homefront’, i.e. telling you how to teach your children about the most vile and repulsive behavior imaginable, right in your own home.

These are the same people, the ones who blithely express their ‘societal preference‘ who then say that it is wrong that children are becoming sexualized. Once again, they want it both ways; they want the schools to be teaching pornography and perversion, they want children to have free access to abortion and contraception, and EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION, but they also want children to be children.

Its just plain stupid.

This is the TRUE problem of ‘societal preference‘. It is the means by which everything is dismantled and the all powerful state gets into every nook and cranny of your life…even your pants…your children’s pants and their minds.

Only the most sick, twisted, perverted and deluded of people think that any of this is correct.

You cannot be FOR ‘societal preference‘ and AGAINST schoolchildren being manipulated and brainwashed. Its is an ‘either or’ situation. If you are FOR ‘societal preference‘ then you are FOR these repulsive and diabolical schemes. If you are AGAINST ‘societal preference‘ then you are against the state:

  • telling you what you can do in your own house
  • controlling you as a parent in ANY way
  • mandating that you can or cannot own a gun
  • stipulating what you can and cannot ingest
  • forcing your children to attend state schools
  • issuing compulsory Identity Cards
  • outlawing species of plant
  • engaging in mass surveillance as found in the UK/USA
  • using secret travel ban lists as found in the USA
  • setting up random checkpoints

And all the other things that we really really and rightfully hate.

What is it that you REALLY want? What are the consequences of your ‘societal preference‘? This is what you have to consider VERY CAREFULLY before you give any control over to the state.

Advertisements
About

We are the best.

Posted in Home Schooling, Insanity, No no no!, Someone Clever Said, The Facts
4 comments on “Your daughter is MINE because its my 'societal preference'!
  1. irdial says:

    I don’t see the basic abnormality or unacceptability of teenage sexual activity, including promiscuity.

    And of course, that is perfectly OK. What is wrong is when people are allowed to teach their ideas to schoolchildren against the wishes of parents, and in a system where if you remove your child from the offending classes, you are FINED for doing so.

    This is not about what people choose to believe, its about a parent’s right to control what their children are exposed to, and the states obsession with brainwashing and social engineering.

    I am (for the record) on the side of everyone believing what they like, doing what they like in private, etc etc. That should be absolutely clear by now. What is completely wrong is someone compelling people to believe something and then the state punishing them for not drinking the Koolaid.

  2. meaumeau says:

    I’m sure they think that promiscuous teenagers are anything but whores or whore-like. I am sure they think that teenage promiscuity is perfectly normal and acceptable.

    I don’t see the ‘problem’ either and I don’t understand the need for the ’emotive language’.

    Actually I can see the burden of teenage pregnancy, and know it is unaffordable. I can see the dangers of STD infection. I can also see why the state shouldn’t promote teenage promiscuity (nor take any responsibilities or teaching out of the hands of parents) but I don’t see the basic abnormality or unacceptability of teenage sexual activity, including promiscuity.

  3. irdial says:

    Yes, yes and, okay, yes.

    Me too.

    However isn’t the age at which sexual activity and learning is deemed appropriate a ’societal preference’ in itself?

    The law governing age of consent is indeed a ‘societal preference’.

    Stories of people (usually in devloping countries) below the UK’s age of consent entering arranged marriages and having children are occasionally reported. You may counter but this is within a marriage but it doesn’t escape the fact that the age at which a person is generally deemed suitable for sexual encounters is a product of ’societal preference’, certainly labelling a sexually active girl as a ‘whore’ only has resonance with regard to certain ’societal preferences’

    I’m sure they think that promiscuous teenagers are anything but whores or whore-like. I am sure they think that teenage promiscuity is perfectly normal and acceptable.

    The problem with that story is that the state wants to control what your children learn about sex, and they want to push their promiscuity promoting agenda onto children. If you do not want to accept their schools and their teaching, then you can home school, but the government wants to control that too, so that you do not have any choice you MUST accept their ideas of morality and what is normal, and if you try and choose not to, they will chase you right down to your front door and steal your children from you.

    I am against that. I am against the presumption that young people are going to be promiscuous and that provision should be made to cater for this eventuality which is not inevitable, and which is in fact encouraged by ‘modern’ sex education. The very fact that these services are being laid on and leaflets printed and all the students being told that, “if you get pregnant you can have an instant abortion and we wont tell your parents” makes it MORE likely that young people will see promiscuity as just another option, which of course, it is, but that is not the job of schools to promote.

    By saying that your sons and daughters are going to be promiscuous they are saying that they are immoral, unguided, unrestrained, loose and irresponsible. Most young people are not. School should be a neutral place, where you can send your child without fear of an agenda being programmed into them.

    You can certainly say ‘In my household […] shall not occur’ but by the time a person is of an age to get into these situations they should really have been taught a framework of thought to decide for themselves. Which of course is not the same as advocating the State should direct proceedings.

    Indeed. People develop at their own pace, and this goes back to the ‘one size fits all’ model of schooling, which is just barely workable when it comes to teaching reading, writing and maths, but when it comes to sensitive subjects like this, it just doesn’t work at all.

    Parents are voting with their feet both here and in the USA. Everyone is sick of being told what to think and how to live down to the teaspoon; this is why home schooling is taking off; you can actually protect your children from brainwashing by doing it, and in the process produce better people.

  4. meaumeau says:

    Yes, yes and, okay, yes.

    However isn’t the age at which sexual activity and learning is deemed appropriate a ‘societal preference’ in itself?

    Stories of people (usually in devloping countries) below the UK’s age of consent entering arranged marriages and having children are occasionally reported. You may counter but this is within a marriage but it doesn’t escape the fact that the age at which a person is generally deemed suitable for sexual encounters is a product of ‘societal preference’, certainly labelling a sexually active girl as a ‘whore’ only has resonance with regard to certain ‘societal preferences’

    You can certainly say ‘In my household […] shall not occur’ but by the time a person is of an age to get into these situations they should really have been taught a framework of thought to decide for themselves. Which of course is not the same as advocating the State should direct proceedings.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: