Anti-abortion, abstinence charity to advice Government on sexual health

[removeduser_487563287433]

Which is a bit like inviting a wolf to give you advice on your sheep.

Life, a charity that is opposed to abortion in all circumstances and favours an abstinence (read: absent) approach to sexual education, has been appointed to advice the Government on sexual health.

By contrast, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service has not been invited to contribute despite holding the position on the previous body.

I am absolutely horrified at this anti-scientific attitude to such an important issue, and frankly shocked a typically unusually intelligent coalition should make this move.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...alth-coalition

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-201105253863/

[Dan the Man]

Oh yes, I can only imagine how absolutely horrifying this must be. I don't know how you can possibly go on.
Give me a break, Ferrets! It's one group given one position on a forum of several different organizations with varying viewpoints! The women of Britain won't have their "unalienable" right to order the termination of their fetuses taken from them any time soon. I highly doubt one group on one advisory board in a largely pro-abortion country will change much, if anything.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Give me a break, Ferrets! It's one group given one position on a forum of several different organizations with varying viewpoints!

It's meant to advise the Government on what we teach our children. I'd rather only accept viewpoints not based on bollocks.

[Kanaric]

It's meant to advise the Government on what we teach our children. I'd rather only accept viewpoints not based on bollocks.

IDK how abstinence education is even controversial at this point, the only people who believe in it right about now are religious nutters so it shouldn't be controversial it should be just considered simply not a valid practice. Might as well teach "intelligent design" to the students as well.

[removeduser_487563287433]

IDK how abstinence education is even controversial at this point, the only people who believe in it right about now are religious nutters so it shouldn't be controversial it should be just considered simply not a valid practice. Might as well teach "intelligent design" to the students as well.

Abstinence based "education" is controversial because it is doomed to failure from the outset. People have sex: we should hope to educate them to do it with condoms or other responsible actions.

[mongrel]

It's meant to advise the Government on what we teach our children. I'd rather only accept viewpoints not based on bollocks.

What is more surprising is that the British Pregnancy Advice Service, a leading and experienced body covering such matters, has not been invited to join the forum.

[Kanaric]

Its bad because abstinence education is proven to fail and what do you think these people will push?

I am somewhat anti-abortion but facts and figures are against abstinence education, as in if you support it you are wrong. People who push for this should not belong in advising the government.

[RO Citizen]

Now that's seriously up (no abstinence at all!). Either the Government official must make some money out of this, or they're simply stupid.

[removeduser_487563287433]

But the more so because their seat has been given to these people.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Perhaps an attempt to appease the back-bench tories at odds with the coalitions' policies?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Perhaps an attempt to appease the back-bench tories at odds with the coalitions' policies?

Possibly. Depends who made this appointment. If it was a select committee with some proper dinosaurs, then I wouldn't be shocked.

[Logios]

Close your eyes and think of England.

[Steforian]

Wow. No guns, no fuel (previous thread) and now no sex? THX 1138 anyone?

[(s)AINT]

[Gaidin]

I'm just curious, what are the viewpoints of other organizations in the forum?

[Claudius Gothicus]

I don't understand why the tories would do this... weren't they like ''modern conservatives with modern views''?

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

I don't understand why the tories would do this... weren't they like ''modern conservatives with modern views''?

The leadership tried to present that view, however little has changed in terms of the back benchers, many of whom strongly disagree with Cameron's leadership and his direction he's taking the Tories in.

[Claudius Gothicus]

The leadership tried to present that view, however little has changed in terms of the back benchers, many of whom strongly disagree with Cameron's leadership and his direction he's taking the Tories in.

Well... who can blame them? Isn't Conservatism is all about keeping it as it ''should''?

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Well... who can blame them? Isn't Conservatism is all about keeping it as it ''should''?

I don't blame them, If they want to pretend to be victorians there are plenty of historical renactment groups they can join.

[Guy]

I don't understand why the tories would do this... weren't they like ''modern conservatives with modern views''?

First, I would advise you learn the defining differences between the manifesto and a mandate.

Secondly, I would advise you research the differences between traditional conservatism, not that of Benjamin Disraeli, but that of Margaret Thatcher and compare the similarities. Not only do they come from the same political party and develop ideology, neoconservatism, but they also share fundamentals such as national patriotism and backing the big businesses.

It's like when you were at school, frail and unpopular, and tried to widen your social life in order to gain more idiotic friends. Unfortunately you later reverted to your old ways after your catch all output withered and everybody hated you once they discovered your innate stupidity.

Lastly, and most importantly, this is British politics.

Abstinence based "education" is controversial because it is doomed to failure from the outset. People have sex: we should hope to educate them to do it with condoms or other responsible actions.

Obviously, living in an area where there is a large percentage of pregnant mothers below the age of 18, these methods are both well-spent and admirably affective.

Dominating society, telling them when and when not to have a baby, indoctrinating it through schools, also seem plausible in terms of free thinking. It's similar to forcing a Nazi into a synagogue to listen to the possibility of converting to Judaism whilst holding no real intentions to convert whatsoever. After all, children learn from an early age, so let's make everyone the same and follow our ideology because we, the ruling people, are right!

These values, promoted by British society, are fully-working and will move us forward to ensure we're all past the age of receiving extra homing allowances due to being under a certain age before we enter the financial burden of having a child for ourselves. Remember: money makes the world go round, so buy a condom, damn it!

I have an idea: let's teach them the risks, but not add unwanted pressure and make the sessions in which we indirectly force them not to have any sexual practices. There's nothing more than good old infected genitals to wake the children up on a Monday morning, is there?