I am confident, for example, that I could spend hours providing Palin with statistics on how abstinence results in teen pregnancy.

I tell you what Harry, if you can show a single teen who got pregnant from abstinence, I'll send you 50 bucks. No cheating with the Bible.

Again, what's wrong with a rubber?

Who needs a video to see that. We see it every day with Dino!

Umm… Bristol Palin? You know full well that by "the practice of abstinence" I mean teaching it to children as a way to get them to be responsible about sex. So, no, Bristol wasn't abstinent when she had sex, but abstinence was the method used to teach her to be responsible. (Not so responsible in the outcome.)

Well then, you must admit you're being stupid. "Abstinence doesn't work because some kids don't follow it!" Well then, what in God's name is the use of teaching children? Some children will ignore the idea of looking both ways and get run over. Surely we must not teach them to look both ways when crossing the street. Why teach kids not to do anything.

Of course the simple answer is that, if children are taught something at a young enough age, it takes for most, but not all of them. The failings of abstinence only are no different than the failings of teaching children not to murder. Surely you are not stupid enough to claim that Jeffery Dahmer's parents telling him not to murder are why he killed and cannibalized all those people. Or that the South Side rapist violated all those women BECAUSE his parents told him he was wrong.

The argument that abstinence only education causes pregnancy can only be accepted by the most foolish, overtly dogmatic schmucks who already believe it. Forget the fact that Greg has hard data to prove it's more effective. Just based on logic, the idea that giving a teen a condom will prevent pregnancy more than telling them the consequences of sex is so absurd that your head must be so far up your ass that you can see your esophagus to believe it.

Heh, Kenny. Why don't you now show me a single government that did not benefit from successful Marxism. Let's not be dishonest with one another.

That is a flat out retarded comeback. "Show me a government that didn't succeed when it suceeded." Marxism, by it's nature, cannot succeed. That does not mean that it has not been tried.

Millions of examples of successful abstinence exist. Would you like to try again, Harry? Cause you know what? You sound like something you said earlier:

This is the futility of arguing with ANYBODY who believes rather than thinks (relating to what I said about Palin in Rob's post on Peggy Noonan).

Look in the mirror chuckles.

Oh. And don't put words in my mouth. I never said that abstinence education causes pregnancy, I said that it is clearly the worst teaching method for preventing pregnancy. I'm sure it's better to teach abstinence than to teach nothing at all. Of course arguing about this is pointless, I can throw tons of statistics at you and still wouldn't convince you. Kind of a catch-22 I have myself here.

I never said that abstinence education causes pregnancy, I said that it is clearly the worst teaching method for preventing pregnancy.

Um, no. I see you ignored it the first time so I'll try again. See above for the link.

The Government-backed scheme tried to persuade teenage girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex.

But research funded by the Department of Health shows that young women who attended the programme, at a cost of £2,500 each, were ‘significantly' more likely to become pregnant than those on other youth programmes who were not given contraception and sex advice.

Kenny, you missed my point. The point is that despite being a poor way to teach your kids responsibility about sex, someone like Palin (and it seems a lot of people on this board) will blindly hold to the belief that there is no other way because their values forbid them to even consider that there are better ways.

And it's a poor way to teach your children about sex because….Harry says so? I've been through both abstinence only (grade and high school) and "comprehensive sex ed" (college). Differences between the two:

Comprehensive: Sex may be less safe without a condom, but it feels better without a condom. (MAY be less safe? Great message for college kids btw).

Abstinence: Condoms do nothing to protect against AIDS and skin to skin transmitted diseases like Herpes, which don't need fluid transfer to pass the STD.

Comprehensive: Oral, anal and handjobs are good ways to not get pregnant, and are great as safer sex. (Yea, anal is safer than vaginal? Please)

Abstinence: You can get an STD from oral, anal, kissing (if the partner has an open wound in their mouth). Anal sex can pass STIs, even if both you and your partner are clean, as the bacteria can cause urinary tract infections. Even with a condom, anal sex is unsafe because it can cause tearing, even with lube, and can lead to prolapsed anus (pictures shown).

Etc. Abstinence only IS comprehensive. While "comprehensive" is nothing of the sort, just a way to glamorize sex and make it seem fun. Conservative commentors have pointed out the joys of teaching 8 year olds about fisting, and talking about ways to make your semen taste better.

BTW, my comeback was not a comeback, that's why it was retarded. "Show me a government that didn't succeed when it suceeded." Was merely to mock your previous statement which amounted to, "Show me abstinence that didn't succeed when it succeeded." Oddly you missed that.

There's no parallel. Something that has 100% track record of success when practiced is not equivalent to something with a ZERO percent success record. The following comments that teaching morals or values must be bad because they are not always followed further showed the retarded logic of your snarky comment.

So no, I got it. It was just insanely foolish and childish.

Oh. And don't put words in my mouth. I never said that abstinence education causes pregnancy, I said that it is clearly the worst teaching method for preventing pregnancy. I'm sure it's better to teach abstinence than to teach nothing at all. Of course arguing about this is pointless, I can throw tons of statistics at you and still wouldn't convince you. Kind of a catch-22 I have myself here.

You often argue that "you can barrage us with statistics", but never do so. And you did indeed argue that abstinence only causes pregnancy.

I am confident, for example, that I could spend hours providing Palin with statistics on how abstinence results in teen pregnancy.

Now that you're being called on it, you're claiming you never said it…even though it's on the same page.

Let's look at the mathmatica study which proclaimed abstinence only ineffective: http://ezinearticles.com/?Know-the-Truth—Abstin…

The Mathmatica studey examined four abstinence programs, that's right, four. Those four programs showed no positive outcomes for teen sexual behavior (of this there is no debate, the four programs were not effective in reducing teen sexual activity). take a close look at the number of program Mathmatica examined: four. That's it. Now the headlines and articles never mentioned that only four programs were looked at. Why? The headlines and articles that ran in the national newspapers and were story leads on ABC, CNN, NBC, and CBS were clear: "Abstinence Education Ineffective". Wouldn't a much more honest and accurate headline have been, "Mathmatica Study shows four abstinence education programs ineffective"? Why did the mainstream media withhold the information that Mathmatica only looked at four programs? Can you honestly evaluate a national movement with thousands of programs by looking at four of them?
All four of the programs Mathmatica evaluated used a non-representative study sample. The four programs served African American youth from poor single-parent households. Why didn't the mainstream media cover this?
The programs themselves were flawed. I know that's harsh, but they were. The very structure of the programs guaranteed they would not be successful. The four programs that Mathmatica looked at had intervention ages that were young. Some students were involved with the program as young as 4th and 5th grade. And then never again. That's right, none of the programs had any contact with the students during the 9th, 10th, or 11th grade when transition to sexual activity typically occurs. Of course the programs failed. How could they succeed? How can you expect to impact sexual behavior if you don't intervene during the years that sexual behavior starts? They were failed programs to begin with.
Why did Mathmatica pick such poorly structured programs to look at in the first place? Or perhaps more importantly, why didn't Mathmatica study vibrant ongoing abstinence programs that had contact with students throughout the teen years…could it be because those programs were successful in reducing teen pregnancy rates? Yet congress cut abstinence funding based largely on the Mathmatica study. This would be like judging the American Auto industry after test driving four Ford Pintos.

A study done to prove abstinence only doesn't work deliberately chose all failing programs to fudge the numbers? Say it ain't so!