Sex Education to be Compulsory?

[TheAnimus]

A. Then let the parents support them both.
B. Then you should of thought of that before you became a burden on the state, i'd like more privacy but the best i can afford is a flat in Zone 4!

[TheAnimus]

Isn't that pretty much a revival of the Workhouse / Poorhouse concept ?

What the dickens are you talking about!

The workhouse was about punishment, not providing a cost effective environment specifically for the purpose of nutureing young children.

[mediaboy]

And what was the official reason behind the original workhouses? I thought it was something similar...

[eshrules]

He does have a point though... it's remarkable how many people look at teenagers and think 'they're teenagers, they don't matter one bit' and forget that some of us are actually intelligent. I'm 15, before you ask, and the 'age sympathy' card is something I don't use. I shouldn't need to

He made his point, I agreed and I explained my opinion, there's no need to labor the point?

Not entirely. It does have some merits, but I have to agree with the sentiment. Just saying 'removal of all benefit support for single mothers' isn't something that I'd say, but I would advocat the removal of the vast majority of it, and making it a non-government issue. See below.

see below also

I'm presuming OH=Other Half? Or is it something I'm unaware of?

that's right

Different situation.. they aren't SINGLE mothers... they have husbands
Otherwise they wouldn't be wives....

mere semantics, apologies for not being explicit with my point on that.

The important word in that sentence is 'chose'. It's a CHOICE! Yes, I know that there may be religous reasoning behind it, but why should the government - a secular government at that - support people who make choices based on nonsecular beliefs? It may sound harsh, but religion and government shouldn't be mixed.

I don't think the correct word is penalising. I think we're currently rewarding them FOR choosing the child and be a single mother. How can you penalise someone of a reward? Surely it's just giving them what they deserve?

and here I find myself ever so slightly annoyed.

First of all, I assume you refer to the keeping of the child, not the receiving of the rape.

Religion is not the only reason for wanting to retain a foetus, many women find it impossible to terminate a pregnancy, no matter the cause of it. I for one, couldn't deny a rape victim child benefit support, on the premise that they chose to keep the child, instead of terminating it.

Let's follow your logic through for a moment. Let's say all child benefit is withdrawn for single mothers, let's say under the age of 18. OK?

what happens to the child? with a lack of funds, support or otherwise, are we not then impeding that poor child's' growth? The impact of what you're suggesting is not directly limited to the mother herself.

Education, as a whole, is mucked up in this country. I'm in the middle of it, and I honestly think that if I didn't bother turning up for school, taught myself everything on the syllabus and only went back into a school to do the exams, I could probably haze through the next 3 or 4 years of examinations in about 2. However, that was a general statement, not specific.

point taken and whilst valid, we run the risk of digressing into a whole different subject.

Sex education in school gives me the impression that they are saying "Go away and do it, as long as you do it safe." At age 11/12, year 7 in this country. I'm fairly sure that saying to a bunch of teenagers that 'as long as they're staying safe it's fine' will only encourage them to go away and have pubescent sex at some ridiculously young age.

Of course, schools deny that this is the impression that they're giving, and maybe they're not trying to give out that impression. But the point remains that it's the sort of impression you GET. Prehaps this is due to adults believing that the kids already know it, and are doing it, and therefore it's a little stupid to tell us not to do it.

Agreeing with the person that said this earlier, I wouldn't trust the government to implement a new policy such as this, even if it was based on what was happening in European mainland.

IMHO, througout life and society, we have what I call 'segments', you'll have the good, the bad and the in-betweeners. With the correct education and support, we can reduce the bad to a minimal %.

[mediaboy]

that's right

That's a relief

and here I find myself ever so slightly annoyed.

First of all, I assume you refer to the keeping of the child, not the receiving of the rape.

Yes, I was. Rape isn't a choice, it's something that people do to other people.

Religion is not the only reason for wanting to retain a foetus,

It is, however, one of the more common reasons I have heard in various classes/schools for not being pro-abortionist. Hence my mentioning it.

many women find it impossible to terminate a pregnancy, no matter the cause of it.

Medical reasons would play a part... religous... moral... erm.. what other problems? This is a serious question, as I have just discovered a shocking hole in what I should know to be arguing this point

I for one, couldn't deny a rape victim child benefit support, on the premise that they chose to keep the child, instead of terminating it.

Having taken what you said before this into consideration, I agree. I was wrong in saying that we should withdraw all support for teenage mothers. See below for a little more elaboration.

Let's follow your logic through for a moment. Let's say all child benefit is withdrawn for single mothers, let's say under the age of 18. OK?

what happens to the child? with a lack of funds, support or otherwise, are we not then impeding that poor child's' growth? The impact of what you're suggesting is not directly limited to the mother herself.

Naturally, and because of this I would suggest changing the penalty for rape to something other than just a jail sentence. What's the cost of bringing up a child? Why can't the government use the money of the rapist to pay the raped for the upkeep of the child. Action and Consequence. Of course, we then hit the problems that may occur with keeping the child just to get the money, or getting the money and not using it to support the child.

But I digress onto possible human nature, and I need to try and stay ontopic.

IMHO, througout life and society, we have what I call 'segments', you'll have the good, the bad and the in-betweeners. With the correct education and support, we can reduce the bad to a minimal %.

The good and the bad and the in-betweeners? Interesting segmentation.

Who defines the good and the bad? Are we relying on the government to do so? Or the majority of the population?

Putting that question aside for the moment, you can only have change in how people act and behave if the people are either forced to act and behave or if they want to act or behave in a different way. Without imposing military rule on the country, and bringing to the fore a real surveillance society that manages to accurately monitor our lives - if one doesn't exist already, how are you going to force people to act differently?

And as good/bad are a matter of opinion, and it is hard for many people to consider themselves as evil/bad or so on, surely people aren't going to want to change how they act? I am, of course, referring to a percieved majority. I'm sure there's always a minority that are different and will percieve themselves as something other than good.

Reducing the bad to a minimal is a very good ideal. However, I fail to see how this would actually work. You mention that with the correct 'education and support' then the world can be a better place. Then I ask this simple question... how much are the good and the in-between going to spend on attempting to make the world a better place, and does the end justify the means?

[[GSV]Trig]

Apart from religious loons, who is saying its wrong, these days?

So the answer is to stop teaching relegion and to start teaching sex ed?

Probably not as bad an idea as it sounds...

[0iD]

The way I see it is yes, it's probably a good idea. The British at large are absolutely far too prudish. However I believe the whole tennage pregnancy problem is not to do with the lack of education per-se. I see it more as a media/peer/environ pressure thing. I had sod all sex education at school, same as most kids of my era, but there was no teenage pregnancy shock horror scandal. A lot of it to my mind is to do with media influences, rather than a lack of education. the more you see it on tv, the more it happens in real life.
I have 4 daughters ranging from 17 to 5, I have no problem with them getting sex education at any age, from the birds and bees for the youngest to relationship & STI info for the oldest ones, it's all about proportion & common sense. But also the media has to take some of the blame. Because what they see on TV can influence childrens norms in day to day life.

And lot's not forget parental responsibility too. We as parents have to hold ourselves equally acountable.

[samcross]

It won't work

You should see a doctor about that

[tigerboyce]

I was just reading through some of the comments on the BBC page, this one made me chuckle

I went to school in a large fully comp in Feltham, West London. These were the days when your parents had to sign a consent form for you to have sex education. I was about 14 (1975) and the school had hired a film about childbirth. Being that it had the film for only a short period, it was decided to show it to as many as possible in one sitting. So there we all were, about 150 of us in the school hall, watching a 16mm film with diabolical sound, of a woman giving birth. There was the usual noises and comments as the film progressed. After the baby appeared, the voice over mentioned the placenta would follow. At this point the projector jammed, which caused the film to melt from the centre of the picture outwards. The mother in the film was still on screen, so at first everyone thought the melting of the film was the placenta coming out, but it just got bigger and bigger and bigger, and the gasps of horror got louder and louder and louder, until the entire screen was filled with what we though was placenta, the illusion broken by a lone voice shouting 'the films on fire!'

Pandamonium ensued, and 150 young minds were scarred for life. Possibly my favourite school memory.
Karl, London

[2Cold Scorpio]

Its about freaking time. ^_^

[TheAnimus]

Guidance on evils of sex

Evils, you do know the film 'teeth' wasn't based on a true story right?

[staffsMike]

Evils, you do know the film 'teeth' wasn't based on a true story right?

Absolutely it is. The website in the movie looked perfectly legitimate.

The condition is mentioned in blade trinity also, a highly accurate depiction of the current vampire problems.