Actually, my purpose was not to show anything wrong with either Sarah or Bristol Palin, in regard to the abstinence issue, although I believe that there is with Sarah (although I cannot say the same for Bristol). That Palin has had both safe sex and abstinence education is beside the point. Study after study has shown that abstinence only does not work.
Here is an article about the study that was concluded in 2007.
Here is a study by the AMA, concluded in 2009.
Here is what abstinence education did for Texas.
Which are all great and good and legitimate.
However, you bucked all that and attempted to just make a specious and illogical attack at Palin by suggesting that there was some kind of correlation between the type of education regarding sex that Palin pushed for for her Daughter and the fact Bristol got pregnant.
And, remarks about abstinence or not, Sarah Palin is still an utter moron, and any comparison of her to Ronald Reagan is laughable,
Actually, there are a number of legitimate ways to compare her favorably to Ronald Reagan. Reagan also wasn't thought of during his time as the brighest of bulbs either. I'm not saying Sarah Palin = Ronald Reagan but its ridiculous to suggest its impossible to compare htem in some ways.
I also wonder greatly in regards to your definition of what a "total moron" is. To me this strikes me greatly like people pointing at certain movie stars and saying they're "ugly".
The bottom line on the abstinence issue is that, despite cast iron proof that it does not work, the "socical conservatives" (a term that is an oxymoron) still embrace it.
How in the world can you have a thread where you're continually fellating Reagan and then throw out a statement like this.
You realize that Reagan WAS that "oxymoron"?
Why? Because this is not about science, but about creating a wedge issue, and also looking for a reason for government to exert more control over the private lives of its citizens. Yes, in spite of them, I still support the Tea Party (although not the Tea Party Express), but I find it quite curious that some who claim that they want less government control over our lives would embrace the government forcing abstinence education on its citizens.
Agree completely with most of these points. However again, having rational and logical reasons to be opposed to something doesn't excuse throwing a poor argument out simply to attack, as it actually makes your position look weaker.
Although I still strongly feel that Palin is an idiot, I will grant that she did allow her daughter to also take safe sex classes. That does show some balance on this particual issue. So, to those who call them Social Conservatives, how about this? Allow both safe sex and abstinence only education classes in schools, and let the parents decide which one (or both), to send their kids to. That seems like a solution that gets the government off the backs of the parents, while allowing parents the individual freedom that is a cornerstone of Conservatism.
That's an interesting option, though probably a more costly one. Me personally? I'd rather see a class that encourages and promotes abstinence as the only 100% safe means while simultaneously also informing them of the risks of sex in an actual realistic instead of hyperbolic measure and other means, such as condoms, to reduce them if you choose to engage in the risks.
I don't see ANYTHING wrong with encouraging and promoting abstinence as a choice for young people, and pointing out it is the only 100% safe means of preventing pregnancy or STD's. I do have issues however when you push this by using hyperbolic or exaggerated risks, or when you don't teach alternatives incase a student DOESN'T engage in abstinence.
I don't see a reason it needs to be one or the other...either ALL abstinence all the time, or promoting that its perfectly fine and natural and okay for teens to be bumping uglies and just slap a condom on it and it'll be fine.