Sarah Palin’s pregnant teenaged daughter is Exhibit A regarding her idea of sex eduction. As is the shotgun wedding to the hockey thug.

Meanwhile. Obama sends the message to young African-American men that, yes, they too can succeed through hard work and good grades.

Saint Mary proved that even that method can fail. You shouldn’t be so trusting, young man. Maybe you have already fathered a child without having sex.

As to the pregnancy of Palin’s daughter, it simply is an indication that the daughter does not excercise a belief in abstinance. It does point to the folly of trying to control the private lives of others through legislation.

Hint: there is no such evidence. In fact when you look at real-world evidence, you’ll see the opposite. Abstinence-only sex education is a joke. It does not reduce unwanted pregnancies. It doesn’t keep kids from having sex. It keep kids in ignorance. Sarah Palin’s daughter is a typical outcome of “abstinence only sex education.” It is not based on real science.

Also see here.

Teens who received comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report becoming pregnant or impregnating someone than those who received no sex education.

“Abstinence-only” sex ed is risible: http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/05/01/jon-stewart-takes-a-close-look-at-abstinence-only-sex-education/

Having written the above, I am a big believer in preaching abstinence as a part of legitimate sex education. Many kids aren’t ready for sex. They should be taught techniques for resisting the pressure to give in when they are not fully prepared. What I oppose is “abstinence only.” I want kids to know about condoms, birth control pills, diaphragms and other techniques for preventing pregnancy.

Are you really interested in reducing unwanted pregnancies or are you merely pushing a formula that you are unwilling to examine skeptically?

As far as your characterization regarding abortion, I respect your right to characterize a pea-sized or grape-sized embryo as a life that should have the same protections as humans that are already born. I don’t share your views, however. In my opinion it is not my place to tell women what to do when they are pregnant with early-term pregnancies. Here’s my view regarding early term pregnancies: Is it alive? Yes. Is it human? Yes. Is it therefore a human life? Yes.

Is it a “baby?” No. Not yet. I would not restrict early term pregnancies for the many reasons I discussed elsewhere on this site. I share your views regarding the abortion of late-term healthy baby pregnancies. For example, to abort a 8 1/2 month pregnancy, where the baby is healthy and where the mother’s life or health is not endangered, is something that repulses me.

I’ve heard all the arguments. I’m sure you’d call me a moral monster. If so, I would ask you when was the last time you heard of a funeral for an early term pregnancy miscarriage? When was the last time that you heard of parents naming their early term pregnancy, so early that they didn’t know the gender?

The US is said to have one of the worst annual rates of teenage pregnancies in the developed world.

According to a report by Population Action International, published at the end of last year, there were 44 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 in the US for 2000-2005.

This compares with figures in the UK - itself said to be the country with the worst teenage pregnancy rate in Europe - of 27 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19.

Put differently, America is estimated to have some 750,000 teenage pregnancies a year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7593735.stm