In which Joe attempts to return to his roots of satirical fake news
In what is being called a detrimental blow to the concept of abstinence-only education, Bristol Palin, daughter of Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has become pregnant without having engaged in sexual intercourse, according to sources.
"This just goes to show how completely unreliable abstinence-only education is," said Amanda Huggins, spokesperson for NOW. "It's irresponsible for us to be teaching such an ineffective method of birth control to our children."
Even though it is only the second time in recorded history that a woman has gotten pregnant without intercourse or IVF, it is still being used as an example of the failings of abstinence as a method of birth control. "That's why we need to teach our children about condoms," continued Huggins, "the fool-proof method of birth control that never fails."
* * *
The reaction to Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy is interesting to note. "The president running this country -- I want that person to have one point at least to have had a five minute conversation with their teenage kids about birth control. That's all," quips David Letterman. "Who needs sex education when you've got abstinence, right?" says the author of a popular webcomic that I (used to) read.
(Aside: do we know for a fact that Sarah or Todd Palin did not talk with their children about birth control? Do we know for a fact that Bristol did not use a condom?)
Dennis Prager pointed out the chutzpa of a man who's only child is five years old lecturing the parents of several teenagers about responsible parenting of teenagers.
I always chortle when someone rails against abstinence as an effective method of birth control. "Really," I think, "how many people do you know who got pregnant without having sex?" Discounting IVF, I can only think of one.
For some reason, if a child who is taught that abstinence is the only fool-proof method of avoiding pregnancy chooses to ignore her education and becomes pregnant, that is a failing of the education itself. But if a child who is taught the proper use of condoms uses one and becomes pregnant anyways, that is not a problem with the educational method.
Of course, the argument against abstinence goes something like, "well, you can't expect kids not to have sex. There are just too many societal pressures and peer pressures. It's unrealistic to expect them to remain chaste. We might as well just make sex as safe as we can for them."
Aside from the fact that this would seem to indicate a serious problem with society itself that ought to be dealt with, talk about setting your expectations low. Maybe if you lower your expectations enough, you can guarentee that kids will live down to them. You certainly won't be giving them incentive to try and achieve anything better.
It's interesting to note that this defeatist attitude is already creeping into other areas of teenage behavior. A couple years ago, I heard Laura Ingraham interview a woman who would throw "beer parties" for her teenage son and his friends. The attidue: "they're going to drink anyways, I might as well make it safe for them, so they don't have to drive home after they've gotten drunk." I wonder how long before anti-drug campaigns such as Above the Influence are given up on, and instead the focus changes to making recreational drug use as safe as possible, with schools teaching kids to always use clean needles.
The defeatist attitude is most apparent in the reactions to the Bristol Palin pregnancy. I have heard no criticisms of the Palins on the fact that their 17-year-old-daughter had sex, but instead everything is focused on the fact that she didn't have sex properly. This is perhaps the culmination of that attitude that "she's going to do it anyways."
And even more telling is the silence from those who you would expect to be on their case about the irresponsibility of a 17-year-old having sex (the right). Instead, we're still too awed about how much Sarah Palin talks the pro-life talk and walks the pro-life walk. She gave birth to a Down-syndrome baby and her daughter is fessing up to her mistakes and going to try to make a life for the person she created. What a perfect embodiment of the pro-life attitude that "all human life is precious."
Even though it is only the second time in recorded history that a woman has gotten pregnant without intercourse or IVF, it is still being used as an example of the failings of abstinence as a method of birth control. "That's why we need to teach our children about condoms," continued Huggins, "the fool-proof method of birth control that never fails."
* * *
The reaction to Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy is interesting to note. "The president running this country -- I want that person to have one point at least to have had a five minute conversation with their teenage kids about birth control. That's all," quips David Letterman. "Who needs sex education when you've got abstinence, right?" says the author of a popular webcomic that I (used to) read.
(Aside: do we know for a fact that Sarah or Todd Palin did not talk with their children about birth control? Do we know for a fact that Bristol did not use a condom?)
Dennis Prager pointed out the chutzpa of a man who's only child is five years old lecturing the parents of several teenagers about responsible parenting of teenagers.
I always chortle when someone rails against abstinence as an effective method of birth control. "Really," I think, "how many people do you know who got pregnant without having sex?" Discounting IVF, I can only think of one.
For some reason, if a child who is taught that abstinence is the only fool-proof method of avoiding pregnancy chooses to ignore her education and becomes pregnant, that is a failing of the education itself. But if a child who is taught the proper use of condoms uses one and becomes pregnant anyways, that is not a problem with the educational method.
Of course, the argument against abstinence goes something like, "well, you can't expect kids not to have sex. There are just too many societal pressures and peer pressures. It's unrealistic to expect them to remain chaste. We might as well just make sex as safe as we can for them."
Aside from the fact that this would seem to indicate a serious problem with society itself that ought to be dealt with, talk about setting your expectations low. Maybe if you lower your expectations enough, you can guarentee that kids will live down to them. You certainly won't be giving them incentive to try and achieve anything better.
It's interesting to note that this defeatist attitude is already creeping into other areas of teenage behavior. A couple years ago, I heard Laura Ingraham interview a woman who would throw "beer parties" for her teenage son and his friends. The attidue: "they're going to drink anyways, I might as well make it safe for them, so they don't have to drive home after they've gotten drunk." I wonder how long before anti-drug campaigns such as Above the Influence are given up on, and instead the focus changes to making recreational drug use as safe as possible, with schools teaching kids to always use clean needles.
The defeatist attitude is most apparent in the reactions to the Bristol Palin pregnancy. I have heard no criticisms of the Palins on the fact that their 17-year-old-daughter had sex, but instead everything is focused on the fact that she didn't have sex properly. This is perhaps the culmination of that attitude that "she's going to do it anyways."
And even more telling is the silence from those who you would expect to be on their case about the irresponsibility of a 17-year-old having sex (the right). Instead, we're still too awed about how much Sarah Palin talks the pro-life talk and walks the pro-life walk. She gave birth to a Down-syndrome baby and her daughter is fessing up to her mistakes and going to try to make a life for the person she created. What a perfect embodiment of the pro-life attitude that "all human life is precious."
