The Times
Blogged by James Preece on 6th November 2009
"In favor" of removing parents rights to teach their own children about sex education in the way they deem best we have Mary Bousted, General Secretary of the Assosiation of Teachders and Lecturers.
For many teenagers the very idea of parental sexual activity is repugnant. With one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe, whatever we are doing at the moment we are not doing well.
"Against" we have James Preece, Catholic Blogger and father of two.
What the Catholic Church is against is getting children in a classroom and teaching them about sex in a values-free environment. It is a parental right and duty to impart information about sex.
The Times. Friday November 6th 2009. Page 26.
Reader Comments
Robin said...
Yes it is a parental duty but are the majority of parents fulfilling that duty?Judging by the incidence of pregnancy and abortion in teenagers and even pre-teenagers, they are not. Is the incidence any lower in children raised by Catholic parents, compared with the rest of the teenage population?
+-
-1
Mark Dobson said...
These are valid questions. However, if education (sexual or otherwise) is a parental right and duty, then they don't affect the conclusion that the government does not have the authority to overrule parents' wishes in the matter.
Parents who don't educate their children effectively consent to state sex education, but it remains their choice.
+-
+1
Mark Dobson said...
Psst....
I'm pretty sure you've just contradicted yourself. Presumably you mean "in favour of denying the right of parents"...
+-
James said...
I said we shouldn't say the government is removing the right of parents (because it's not possible).
Now I am saying that this lady is in favour of removing the right of parents.
It's not my fault she is in favour of something that's not possible.
+-
Mark Dobson said...
Heh. Well that does follow, but I think that leaves you as being "against" something impossible.
+-
James said...
You are impossible!
+-
epsilon said...
Yesterday I had to teach fertilisation and conception in all living organisms, including humans, on a cover lesson in science to a year 7 class (in a state school). The sheet for labelling parts was filled in towards the end of the lesson. The textbook was factual and the children responded to it sensibly. I didn't feel I was wrong by following instructions from the head of science who presented it to me at the beginning of the lesson.
What I did see as wrong was when I had to cover repeat GCSE English a few weeks ago to 6th formers (aged 16+) who were wearing pink underpants (just given to them in school time) and dangling luminous plastic green sperm keyrings, laughing their way through the lesson about chlamydia and its causes, but couldn't string a decent sentence together to describe how an advertisement in front of them was structured to manipulate the reader.
Hopefully, they took on board some of what I said about a system that exposes them to a lifestyle they should know nothing about but has failed to instill into them basic skills in their own language. I also told them quite categorically that abortion was wrong. One of them wanted to know if I was a christian. As they say, it's important to keep up the dialogue with young people - they do actually recognise the difference between genuineness and the crap that gets dished up all around them.
+-