Nope, not missing a thing.  Abstinance works every time it is tried.  no other method has that rate of success.

This study is severely flawed. 23% of the students were already sexually active so they’re almost guaranteed to have sex again in the next 2 years, of course the parents are going to put them in the sex ed class, the virgin ship has sailed they just want to keep them from a pregnancy or STD.

For the rest like Leauki said there 12 they’re mostly going into the abstinence class and since the primary outcome was assed by self-report what do you think these kids are going to say after they’ve been told not to have sex? they were probably afraid if they said yes they would have to take the class over again. Kids rarely admit failure.

The study also doesn’t asses pregnancy and STD rates, which have consistently shown to be higher in step with religious based abstinence only education.  

I’m all for abstinence only classes for 12 year olds as long as they’re secular like this study and don’t vilify or misinform about contraceptives like this one did not.

The study mentioned that in the abstinence only class contraceptives were not vilified or lied about so I have to assume if they were asked the students were told the truth, I wouldn’t want to see that question ignored.

I would like to see a gradual increase in emphasis with some leeway granted the teacher to adjust that emphasis if they believe an individual student is about to or has already had sex. I think most parents would accept this.

In my case, I didn't want anyone (mainly strangers) teaching my child about sex.  I've seen too many teachers who I would consider to be immoral teaching sex-ed.  I wrote back along that there was an incidence in our HS where it was on videotape one teacher was strongly encouraging the kids to take flavored condems and lick them at a health fair.   I've also known good Christian teachers in public schools who are aghast at what they are required to teach the kids which basically amounts to encouraging them not educating them (like the teacher at the health fair). 

I would disagree with this for many reasons.  First of all the word 'Christian" nowadays can mean almost anything.  Most "Christians" are hardly distinquishable from the world.  They loosely take on the name and that's becoming more and more prevalent as time goes on.  I've seen firsthand many young people coming out of strong evangelical Christian homes going to the altar as virgins including two of my sons.  I think this would be a very hard thing to try and put a number on. 

I know the teaching of abstinence works because I had two out of three sons wait until marriage which is the same percentage as this study came up with (interesting).  If they choose, like you said to go outside our family values, they pay the consequences. While you can make choices you can't choose the consequences.  They choose for you.   So be it.  But like you said I wasn't about to make it easy for them to do so. 

How so?  What is it that causes you to conclude that about Sarah Palin? I know Leauki's objections, but curious about yours.

Is Sarah sleeping around?  How is she a hypocrite for something her daughter does/did?

I really really hope people don't judge me by what my teenager does or doesn't do.  I can believe and preach abstinence until the cows come home.  It doesn't make me a hypocrite if my son has sex.

Sarah P. has said publically her daughter knew better, was taught better.  But her daughter chose a different path...how does that make the mother a hypocrite?

Interesting view point.  If I may provide an anecdote (KFC, delete if unappropriate).

I was raised and am a practicing Catholic.  Which means Abortion is an absolute taboo (and I sincerely believe it too).  We had some neighbors who were friendly and some might say "redneckish", although there was no prejudice (a common misconception about American Rednecks).  He was a firefighter and she a stay at home mom with 3 kids (they later adopted several foster kids, but that is not relevant).  At the time, our first was born and their oldest was about 14, so there was really no interaction between our children and theirs, just the parents and us.

When the oldest daughter turned 16, she got pregnant.  I felt sorry for the parents, and thought the girl should be flayed to within an inch of her life!  How could she!  What was she thinking!  But most of all, why were the parents not wailing on her!  They should punish her to within an inch of her life!  The audacity of those rednecks to help out that child and let her live with them even after the baby was born!  They oughta...........

They oughta what?  It took some time, but finally I realized what a stupid hypocrite I was! I was totally against abortion, and yet what was I thinking?  I was thinking the exact opposite of what I believed.  And yet these "rednecks" were not thinking anything, they were living my faith (and theirs - they were presbeteryian), and showing through actions what true faith was.  I was ashamed of myself.

They were not hypocrites for continuing to love their daughter and not making her have an abortion, though she was just 16.  But I sure was! 

As I said, it took a while for me to realize MY HYPOCRISY, not theirs. 

While not a redneck, Sarah Palin is just like my neighbors.  We cannot control our children's lives forever, but we can control ours. And we can show them the honesty of our convictions in how we handle their problems as well.  Sarah did.  Yes, her daughter did not listen to her mother that well.  Chidlren do not always (as I have found out many times),  But when they make mistakes, you can shun them for it, or show them you love them anyway, and be the person you want them to be when they mature.

And I am sure that works in your case. I have no doubt that your moral values are the highest they can be, in fact I know they are.

But if you failed to teach your children your values (or teach them different values than you claim to have taught them) and at the same time run for office on the ticket that teaching those very values like you do is the way to go, you'd be a hypocrite.

You either practice what you preach or you fail to practice it. If you practice it and it doesn't work, you failed. In that case, don't preach.

There are thousands of mothers who have managed to teach their children proper behaviour and who didn't fail and who can lecture us on how it's done. Sarah Palin is not among them.

(Note that I wouldn't have a problem with this if the two actually would have got married after all. It's not the sex before marriage that I have a problem with but the claim that the two would get married when they really didn't.)

But then that decision is not Sarah Palin's.  As you state, we can teach, and they can then chose to follow or ignore.  Some do, some don't.  Of my mother's 7, some of us did (2 sisters and a brother) and some did not (a sister and a brother).  But I am not klingon so I do not hold the parent responsible for the actions of the child (or vice versa) once they are making decisions on their own.

if Sarah Palin had failed to live what she taught, she would be a hypocrite.  But for all the dirt that liberals have dug up on her, the worst thing they have said is she did not abort Tripp, her DS son.  That may make her stupid in some books, but not a hypocrite in any of them.

She was and is not pretending.  But I dont think she claimed to be perfect either (which would be required to damn her with labels of hypocrisy).  Clearly she is a conservative mother.  And has failed once out of how many times?  My mother is not a failure because 2 of her 7 did not live by her teachings.  And just because a professor flunks some of his students does not make him a failure as a professor either.

Each man and his own poison.  Clearly what you see as outrageous or stupid or incompetance, I see as a principaled woman who lives as she preaches. That does not make her a saint or perfect, but it does make her ethical and honest.  A rarity in politics in America today.

Pretend?  from what I hear, it was planned.  Then they get a he said-she said crap.  But regardless, the guy got cold feet.  is that something that has never happened?  So Sarah is responsbile for cold feet now too?  That was lame Leauki.  Sarah Palin is not a controlling machiavellian Princess.  Like all of us, she plans, and some do not work out.  And THAT makes her a hypocrite?  You are really stretching now.  I know you dont like her, but it seems you dont like her because she is not omnipotent, not for any other reason (and then I am sure that would be the excuse for the dislike).

I wish I had your knowlege of what everyone knows.

I read the next sentence, and I apologize for not getting the intent clearly.  But I did not assign the "stupid" to your belief, but that of the pundits you were referring to.  I did not take it as your opinion of their actions.

I just saw the picture of Sarah on her last speech where she wrote "Energy" "Tax" "Lift american spirit" on her palm as a crib. Didn't she make fun of Obama for using the teleprompter.. it is sort of emberassing that she needs to write down such keyelements of the republicans' political program. One would think that she should be able to give a speech about her political position without a crutch like that.

But we can allow ourselves to induct a bit (Sherlock Holmes would call it "deduct", but it's not).

There are many politicians I like who I am convinced are liars and hypocrites anyway. Ariel Sharon comes to mind. I don't have to dislike someone to spot a lie.

If the daughter and her boyfriend had intended to marry, they would have done so before the birth. There was no reason not to do it. Everything would have been fine if they had got married before the birth.

But during the campaign when Palin said that they intended to marry in the near future, I knew they wouldn't marry.

"The first rule of politics: never believe anything until it's been officially denied." (Yes, Minister)

I cannot imagine a world in which the daughter and her boyfriend (and Sarah Palin) actually wanted to wait with the wedding until after the campaign. It's inconceivable. It's just not something that would happen in a family that works together:

"No, mom, I have decided to wait until after your presidential campaign as the conservative vice presidential candidate for the more moderate McCain. I wouldn't want you to get into the race without an single mother daughter."

It doesn't make sense. The only likely explanation is that they didn't intend to marry and announcing that they would in the near future was damage control.

It might cost you a Republican candidate who has a chance to win.

If Sarah runs and wins the primaries, Obama will win re-election, even if he did badly. As I said before in another tread: liberals are not afraid of Sarah, just convinced that they and moderates won't vote for her.

Obama has been better than I thought he would be.