Video: Bristol Palin says abstinence “not realistic”
posted at 9:30 am on February 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
I’m of two minds on this clip. Bristol Palin isn’t running for office, but she had to know that doing big-media interviews would mean that she had to have an answer for some political issues surrounding her teen pregnancy. After all, for what other reason would Greta Van Susteren invite her onto her show?
GRETA: I don’t want to pry too personally, but obviously contraception is an issue here. Is that something that you were lazy about or not interested in, or do you have a philosophical or religious opposition to it, or –
BRISTOL: No, I don’t want to get into detail about that. But I think abstinence is like … I don’t know how to put it, like … the main … Everyone should be abstinent, but it’s not realistic at all.
GRETA: Why?
BRISTOL: Because — I don’t want to get into detail about it.
GRETA: [crosstalk] Just big picture, not about you –
BRISTOL: Because it’s more and more accepted.
Of course, acceptance is why many people want abstinence taught. The entire idea is to push back against the acceptance of sexual activity among those who are ill-equipped to handle the emotional, health, and financial consequences of sexual activity. That doesn’t mean that we don’t teach about contraception as well — it always amazes me when people consider the two mutually exclusive — but that explaining that only abstinence gives one complete protection against pregnancy and STDs in ways that condoms do not, as well as the risks of exploitation.
I had to laugh at Greta’s question about religious objections towards contraception keeping Bristol from using them to prevent pregnancy. I haven’t yet known of a religion that objects to contraceptives but not to extramarital sex. Catholics most famously object to contraception, and years ago my pastor discussed this with my young adult group. He pointed out that having made the decision to sin with extramarital sex, using a condom would really be the least of our worries.
In case you need a lift after this clip, though, check out this video from Jim at Gateway Pundit. Guess what Bristol thinks of bloggers obsessed with the pregnancies of herself and her mother? Gold:
Update: I second what Ace says — Bristol has a lot of courage in discussing this topic on national television. Also, please recall what I wrote when this story broke at the Republican convention. She and her family did the right thing when it counted, and we should remember that when watching this.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »
+1. In a lot of these cases, the fault rests with the parents. Did they instill the values of Jesus Christ in their daughter or not? They may have and Bristol just didn’t listen, but I don’t believe that.
The Dean on February 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Benny… go back to your little cubicle.
upinak on February 17, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Every once in a while someone manages to post a single comment that to me is just a revelation to their read/worth.
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 5:48 PM
What’s Normal for me and most traditional Americans
and most traditional Americans are 449,895 who voted for Buchanan in 2000 ? hardly a majority
runner on February 17, 2009 at 5:48 PM
HOT AIR GOLD.
Solid Gold.
Applaud her honesty and laugh at some of the self-righteous craziness we are seeing here.
Ares on February 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM
And for all you crazies who didn’t get laid until they were 50 and married – I will pray for you.
Ares on February 17, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Right, cause kids never rebel. That’s almost unheard of for kids in fact.
I think people have blown her words out of proportion. I don’t think she meant it’s not possible but rather that I’m guessing she had high expectations for herself and simply didn’t see it coming, and that’s why she felt it was unrealistic.
I was always a church kid in school and hung out with all the others. I can’t tell you how many well meaning teens had sex even though they had every intention of waiting and felt horribly guilty about it after wards.
It is unrealistic to expect it can’t happen to you, which is why kids who want to stay abstinent, need to make sure they don’t give themselves so much alone time. They need to guard themselves when they kiss and watch what they think while alone.
Esthier on February 17, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Well, of course. Just like “true conservatives”, “true Christians” are rare. Then the rapture comes and…
Yeah. Another one of those.
MadisonConservative on February 17, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Money talks in politics. He didn’t have the support of big businesses or any of the lobbies, plus third parties are unjustly shut out of debate. There are more conservatives than the vote totals for someone like Ron Paul or Buchanan indicate. Many bitter folks, clinging to the Good Book.
The Dean on February 17, 2009 at 5:53 PM
There is not a single scripture that says that sex is meant only for procreation. There are numerous scriptures that stipulate that sex is proper and legal only under certain circumstances. There is an entire book of the Bible that functions both as allegory and practical instruction on the glories of sexuality (the Song of Solomon).
By induction, I am led to believe that sexuality’s primary purpose is for procreation and that, for mankind, it has a secondary intended purpose to reflect the love God has for man (Israel, the Church, etc.).
In short, you are simply misinformed if you think that God designed sexuality between a husband and wife for procreation only. That is the purview of the animal kingdom.
But then, I suppose Man is only an animal. So…
spmat on February 17, 2009 at 5:53 PM
The Dean on February 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM
technopeasant on February 17, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Ron Paul spit in the face of the entire military. He is a nut. Buck is a media butt-kisser and not far behind in the loon department. He is quite possibly worse than his actually hosts on MSNBC.
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM
How the hell did this turn into a Buchanan thread? I’m rapidly losing interest.
wccawa on February 17, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Self-righteousness is the most egregious when it is used as an accusation.
spmat on February 17, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Yeah, I tried those same arguments.
Esthier on February 17, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Ron Paul spit in the face of the entire military. He is a nut. Buck is a media butt-kisser and not far behind in the loon department. He is quite possibly worse than his actually hosts on MSNBC.
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Is that referring to when Paul hinted that *gasp* our destructive foreign policy has wrought consequences!
The Dean on February 17, 2009 at 5:59 PM
That’s what she said to you? Happens to the best of us, bud.
MadisonConservative on February 17, 2009 at 6:00 PM
blame America crowd, got it
runner on February 17, 2009 at 6:01 PM
I have been neither judgemental nor do I think anything of you.
We approached this as a theological discussion as to what God wants of all of us as expressed in the Bible.
It wasn’t personal.
I have no idea what your personal or marital status is nor am I very interested in knowing.
How you view sex and why you have it with whomever you have it with is your business and between you and your God as you understand Him (or Her?).
I never said that the Bible forbids outside of procreation.
As to whether the Bible encourages sex for pleasure, that is a Dionysian concept that has been grafted onto the Bible in the centuries since it was written–I know of no Biblical story that tells of someone having sex solely for pleasure and having anything good happen to them afterwards.
Just sayin’.
Jenfidel on February 17, 2009 at 6:01 PM
You can instill the values of Jesus Christ all you want. Free will dominates. Bristol made the decision to have sex, not her parents.
Even Jesus’ own apostles had their problems. One betrayed him, one denied him. They worked with Jesus and couldn’t live up to the teachings but spent the rest of their lives preaching & seeking redemption. I will not flog Bristol for her decision but I am happy with the outcome. A healthy child and what looks to be loving parents.
I would hate to have my parents held accountable for all the idiot crap I did in my youth.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks.
portlandon on February 17, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Pssst. I think the new chicks are starting to dig me.
Notice now they totally, completely ignore me?
Um HUM.
wccawa on February 17, 2009 at 6:02 PM
If the American military wasn’t over there killing people for decades, what reason would Muslims have to hate us?
The Dean on February 17, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Ding! Ding! Thread winner!
Where were you when Schlussel was fouling up the joint?
wccawa on February 17, 2009 at 6:04 PM
And I’m supposed to accept your interpretation of Scripture?
spmat on February 17, 2009 at 6:05 PM
wccawa, I think you are a pip!;-)
Jenfidel on February 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Those who make a point of encouraging the throwing of rocks shouldn’t build glass houses.
spmat on February 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Neither offers a guarantee. It is a matter of probabilities that are unlikely exactly equal.
A society that castigates teen sexuality might offer a good probability but we don’t have one here in the United States. A parent can try to change society or realize that their kids are growing up in one that often glorifies teen sexuality. One hopes their kids don’t have sex too early, but given the statistics making them aware of contraception can lower the odds of an unmarried pregnancy. Especially, since kids today may not marry until they are in their 30′s.
dedalus on February 17, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Solomon is filled with romance and direction from God to be romantic with the one you love.
The song of songs, which is Solomon’s.
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.
I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh’s chariots.
Thy cheeks are comely with rows of jewels, thy neck with chains of gold.
We will make thee borders of gold with studs of silver.
While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.
A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.
My beloved is unto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of Engedi.
Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves’ eyes.
Behold, thou art fair, my beloved, yea, pleasant: also our bed is green.
Love is poety to God and lovemaking was meant to have pleasure.
If it were souly for making babies he’d say. Okay put it in. Are you done? Okay now get off her. Go milketh some goats.
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 6:07 PM
PM
See, MC? I’m HOT!
wccawa on February 17, 2009 at 6:08 PM
LOL! Classic panty-removing lie. “Yeah baby, you’re the only one for me.” Marx would be proud of you, D2MH.
Go ahead and let liberal idiots raise your girls for you, and make sure you mock the old-fashioned morals of your forefathers. Also, please enjoy babysitting those orphan bastard grandchildren while your awesome little tramp runs wild all day and night.
TMK on February 17, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Paulnut. I knew it.
Try this on for size, Scooter: Maybe they don’t need a reason to hate us. Maybe they just hate us.
Tennman on February 17, 2009 at 6:09 PM
I wasn’t giving my interpretation of Scripture!
It was a reaction to this:
This was Esthier’s interpretation of the Song of Solomon and this is the 2nd time I’ve explained it!
Read and interpret the Bible for yourself, as Martin Luther wanted us to and as Johannes Guttenberg made possible!
Jenfidel on February 17, 2009 at 6:09 PM
LOL!!
Tennman on February 17, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Aren’t you supposed to be blogging at infowars? Piss off.
MadisonConservative on February 17, 2009 at 6:13 PM
You accused me of the “if it feels good, do it” mindset.
You claimed sex for any other purpose is sinful. Is forbid just too strong a word?
Esther had sex with the king (at least to his pleasure if not hers as well) and was able to save all of the Jews who were otherwise going to be exterminated.
Jacob was in love with Rachel. Though she could only have two children, the Bible certainly gives the impression that the man who worked over a decade just to marry her likely enjoyed having sex with her anyway.
Honestly though, the Bible rarely addresses sex at all, outside of Song of Solomon which you keep putting down even though it is biblical.
Esthier on February 17, 2009 at 6:13 PM
OMG not one of your type! Tell me you are being sarcastic.
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 6:16 PM
The only problem is that this isn’t true. The places where “safe sex” education is the norm correspond directly with rises in teen sexuality.
Why?
Because teaching “safe sex” encourages unsafe sex by giving the utterly, completely and inescapably false impression that sex is ever, can ever be safe.
Please tell me that you realize that by telling a 15-year-old that it’s OK to have sex you are encouraging them to do so. If you don’t realize that, then there’s no common ground on which we can have a discussion.
spmat on February 17, 2009 at 6:16 PM
No, that was my reaction to you saying it was likely just an analogy of God’s love for Israel.
I had already said that it was too graphic for that to be a proper explanation, but apparently it took be using the word “boobs” to get that point across later.
Esthier on February 17, 2009 at 6:16 PM
No one can answer it. But we’ve veered off topic here anyways.
The Dean on February 17, 2009 at 6:17 PM
As far as Islamo-Nazis go, they will like you very much ’cause you both are singing from the same hymnbook
runner on February 17, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Kind of self-fulfilling. It’s not realistic if you decide it’s not, and somehow it’s realistic for people who do stay abstinent.
Did she go to public schools? Only they teach this kind of logic there.
foucaultsvac on February 17, 2009 at 6:19 PM
You made the staement that veered me off. Did you mean that?
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Do you think we’re being attacked because we (the US Military) has been over there killing them? To be clear, you think it’s our fault?
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Someone attacked Ron Paul out of the blue, and I just wanted to set the record straight. I’d rather go with why Palin and her family isn’t really conservative, to be truthful.
The Dean on February 17, 2009 at 6:22 PM
I think it’s a major contributing cause to the hostility they have towards us over there. If not that, then what?
The Dean on February 17, 2009 at 6:23 PM
You tell him its not OK, but also explain how even once can lead to pregnancy and how incredibly difficult it is to raise a child.
To go back to the liquor analogy. I’d tell a 17-year old he shouldn’t drink, but if he ever made a mistake and drank that he’d better call my cell phone rather than get behind the wheel of a car.
At some point a 15 or 17 year old gets into their twenties and they’ll drink and have sex. You still hope they take precautions against DUI or an unexpected pregnancy.
dedalus on February 17, 2009 at 6:26 PM
You brought him up out of the blue dick-wad on a thread about Bristol Palin as if it were relevent and as if he or Buchanan were the saviors of the party. That makes you think it’s alright to take a slap at the military? I expect that stuff from the left, not from folks that claim to be conservatives.
Ron Paul said this about me while I was there.
“The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is the US military.”
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Okay lay it out for me genius, how did we do it and where did it start?
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 6:29 PM
No The Dean is the stereotypical judgemental Bible thumper the Left thinks all Conservatives are
katiejane on February 17, 2009 at 6:31 PM
You’ve got to take a hard line with children for them to understand. “If you don’t abstain from liquor, or you don’t abstain from sexual intercourse, we’ll make your life living Hell.” Fear works (not 100% but more often than laissez-faire parenting) and should be used much more often in America or other problem areas. I was scared of my parents through age 21, and am better because of it.
The Dean on February 17, 2009 at 6:31 PM
And Islam has been killing people for centuries for being infidels.
Facts dont exist in a vacuum. Try reading some more history before you post.
William Amos on February 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Come on this has got to be easy. You make a statement like that you obviously must be able to cut and paste your little conspiracy sites pretty quick.
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Fine. You’re in the business of interpreting others’ interpretation of scripture, tell me this: how many prophecies in the Tanakh have only one interpretation? How many of those prophecies correspond only to a future (unresolvable) interpretation?
I would submit to you that every single one of the prophesies in the Tanakh have (at least) a dual meaning. The Midrashic scholars have a saying that “prophecy is pattern.” In essence, JHVH (G_d) communicates in patterns, usually corresponding to an immediate (in time) interpretation and an overall (abstract or future time) interpretation of the content of scripture. So, to read the Song of Solomon, one can either reach the conclusion that it is proper for a man to see his wife as a consummate expression of his desires or for G_d to see Israel as His precious wife, worthy of desire and adoration.
Point being that the Bible can be read, cover to cover, as a rational explanation of what is right and true. The extent to which modern mores conflict with the Bible is not a rational basis on which to invalidate what the Bible says plainly.
spmat on February 17, 2009 at 6:34 PM
If it was just the US military then why are people killed all over the world ? Why does Chechnya attack Russia ? Wars in Somalia ? The attack in Mumbai ?
Its a simplistic and utterly false trap to fall into making a judgement about why people take the actions that they do.
Al Qaeda may use past events to justify their actions but if you give justification to their actions you legitimize their actions.
Having blinders on is a very dangerous thing.
William Amos on February 17, 2009 at 6:35 PM
He is more then that. A Horse with an ass comes to mind as well. Besides a RuNutPaulian… need I say more?
upinak on February 17, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Attention all fathers and mothers: Unless your daughter is fat and disgusting, there is a 95% chance she will have sex before she graduates high school. Don’t freak out about it. Don’t try to lock her in her room. Don’t try to convince yourself you are the lucky 5%. Just do a good job of telling her to make the guy use a condom.
Speedwagon82 on February 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Most of our intervention collectively has led to this attitude. We’ve taken a side with the radical imperialist Israel “country” for years against most of the Middle East’s wishes. It’s about oil, Jews, and trade interests, primarily.
The Dean on February 17, 2009 at 6:39 PM
Generalizations. I could say we’re still pissed about the Ottoman Empire. Specifics!
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 6:41 PM
I’m a fellow Christian but I’ll tell you what. You’re an ass. You’re why our sister faith the Jews are leery of Christians. They are our sister faith and the base of ours and we should be sworn to protect them and you sound like an Anti-Semite. Why? Did Ron Paul teach you that?
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 6:43 PM
I haven’t seen the big, tough muscular Pro-War side lay out their reasoning here. Plus like I said before “anti-Semitic” in most cases is a smear cast against everyone who doesn’t agree 100% with Jewish foreign policy.
The Dean on February 17, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Its not that people can’t answer the question The Dean, its that there is no data. There is simply nobody to ask what it is like to live peacefully with middle eastern terrorists.
portlandon on February 17, 2009 at 6:50 PM
The only islamic countries we have supported historically are tyrannies like the “country” Israel, we have supported dictators in places like Egypt, Jordan and for a time Iran. It’s a complex problem, much like American foreign adventures themselves. And I don’t think the damage can really be undone.
I’d agree that Islam has been hateful for centuries, but they are only starting come over here because we have been over there.
The Dean on February 17, 2009 at 6:54 PM
Damn. Your name shold be “The Slow” not “The Dean”.
First, don’t ask me to prove a negative. You said it was the US Military that started it.
Second you called Israel a “radical imperialist Israel “country” for years”. Isn’t that what you truters say to someone who doesn’t agree with your politics.
Proof? Links?
I’ll give you a couple more minutes.
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 6:54 PM
Jewish foreign policy is simply that they want to live in peace without fear of being bombed or kidnapped. If the Muslims stopped killing Israelis the killing would stop.
thomasaur on February 17, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Damn I said no generalities. You said it’s our fault. I’ll play your game and show you a specific fact. Americans protected Muslims in the 1999 NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia between March 24 and June 10, 1999, during which time we attacked Yugoslav military and civilian targets. That bought us no good graces in their eyes?
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 6:59 PM
Damn you’re slow Dean. How about the Gulf War?
The Persian Gulf War or Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991) was a United Nations-authorized military conflict between Iraq and a coalition force from 34 nations commissioned with expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait after Iraq’s occupation and annexation of Kuwait in August of 1990. Though there were nearly three dozen member states of the coalition, the overwhelming majority of the military forces participating were from the United States and the United Kingdom.
You don’t think this UN approved conflict bought us any good graces in their eyes?
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 7:03 PM
This thread has degenerated into absolute insanity. It now bears little resemblance to what was actually said by the actual young mother.
Bristol told Greta repeatedly that teens should “wait ten years” until they were married, had an education, a home of their own, and a career. She could not have been clearer on this point. She said it more than once. Obviously she does not believe in single motherhood even though she finds herself in that position.
When Gov. Palin joined the interview, she made it clear that situations like this called for families to come together and not expect that government would take care of the young mother. She also couldn’t have been clearer on this point. She said quite explicitly that this is the responsibility of families and not the government.
Gov. Palin also suggested that Bristol’s story is a good indication of how it can happen to anyone’s kid. In other words, like most parents, she thought this would never happen to her daughter because her daughter was a good student and a good athlete and wasn’t a partier. But it happened. That’s why we have so many abortions. Most young women would have aborted. Bristol didn’t. She didn’t kill the problem, she came up with a “game plan” (her words) and dealt grew up fast.
Yes, both Bristol and Gov. Palin said that abstinence is the ideal, and Gov. Palin (and her daughter too apparently) has never been against contraceptives being taught alongside abstinence; but if a kid gets pregnant, you have to deal with the situation, and the Palins made it clear that they are dealing with it as a family — all pitching in together and not expecting any hand-outs from the public. That strikes me as a conservative response to a bad situation.
People are reading all sorts of things into this family’s situation. Each family is unique. Each situation is unique. My attitude is that teenage mothers should consider adoption first and foremost because teenage mothers don’t typically marry the baby’s father, and as Ann Coulter so thoroughly documented, kids raised by single mothers are at greater risk for falling into every social ill imaginable. But how difficult and awkward would it be for the daughter of the vice presidential candidate (or even the daughter of the governor of Alaska) to put her baby up for adoption? How long do you think the baby’s identity would have remained a secret?
The Palins are dealing with an unfortunate situation as best as they can.
ramrocks on February 17, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Girls with two parent are less likely to have teen sex. When kids know that their parents are watching makes a big difference.
Still, statistics from the CDC show that 85% of kids today will have sex by the time they are 21. In most cases they’ll do so without being prepared to raise a child. You need to transition them at some point from where you can enforce abstinence to a point where you rely on their judgment.
dedalus on February 17, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Excellent point. How is telling him to put on a condom going to change (or even mitigate) this reality?
You boink someone you’d like to have babies with. If you boink someone you don’t want to have babies with, you will likely make babies with them, irrespective of how much “protection” you use.
That’s not rocket surgery.
You are accepting (and teaching) the fact that drinking and driving is a bad thing. That is true whether you’re 15 or 40.
How are you going to explain to him that, after he’s already destroyed his developing brain’s potential with drink, that your premise that “boys will be boys” wasn’t at fault for him choosing to drink in the first place?
It’s not his fault, after all, since “drinking yourself into a stupor is natural!”
You gain nothing by insulating his already crippled moral sense by telling him that “calling your cell phone” is the solution to drinking at 15 years old.
The extent to which they take precautions against those things is predicated on their extant moral sense, not on any particular prescriptive solution given them by you or anyone else. In a very real sense, you are telling them that the consequences of their actions are disconnected from those actions (i.e. “if you call me, then there will be no consequences for drinking at 15.”)
There will be consequences for drinking at 15.
There will be consequences for boinking a 15-year-old girl when you’re 15 (for the girl certainly, but hey, at least she’s not preggers!).
In short, society gains nothing from hiding the consequences of destructive behavior behind a veil of false security. Better that society make the positive effort to inculcate its youth with a prescriptive moral sense and leave the consequences of failure to a just and merciful system of repair.
spmat on February 17, 2009 at 7:05 PM
It’s starting to smell a bit anti-semitic in here.
Plus, this is a Bristol thread. You’re not being polite. Newbie?
wccawa on February 17, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Dean, just do me a favor then. Please don’t tell everyone here you’re a Christian while you’re Jew ranting. It’s embarrassing.
Going home!
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 7:06 PM
It may indeed be stupid and illogical, but it’s still common. So I dont see why Mr. Morrissey was surprised or amused by the fact that Ms. Palin was asked about. It was a perfectly good question.
orange on February 17, 2009 at 7:07 PM
We aren’t running a Foreign Exchange program. There are no quotas.
portlandon on February 17, 2009 at 7:09 PM
You do realize that you are by definition interpreting scripture by invalidating her interpretation?
This is not rocket surgery.
Martin Luther did not want “us” to interpret scripture. Martin Luther interpreted scripture. Whether we agreed with him or not was the basis for his love for beer.
spmat on February 17, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Ron Paul signed up at hotair?
joey24007 on February 17, 2009 at 7:13 PM
I for one welcome our new Paulian Overlords.
/chortle
Anna on February 17, 2009 at 7:19 PM
If I were a 17 year old dating Bristol Palin, I’d probably find abstinence unrealistic too.
bilups on February 17, 2009 at 7:20 PM
I guess he got bored at Stormfront.
It's Vintage, Duh on February 17, 2009 at 7:26 PM
You hope that the prohibition and punishment for drinking doesn’t increase the chance that DUI will occur.
I have friends today who, as teens a couple of decades ago, made the mistake of drinking too much on an occasion or two. They killed brain cells and had bad hangovers. Today they have successful careers. I knew others who drank too much and got behind the wheel. Today they are dead.
My observation is that strict rules against teens drinking have a high failure rate. I think the rules are needed but it is wrong to not plan for contingencies that may have greater consequences.
dedalus on February 17, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Ding! Ding!
wccawa on February 17, 2009 at 7:38 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! This is AWESOME!
I love that Bristol Palin, an 18 year poster child for irresponsibility is schooling every abstinence-only preaching idiot in the country.
This is what happens when you underfund sex-ed conservatives: YOUR KIDS HAVE BABIES. Is you learning yet? Of course not. Conservatives don’t learn because that would be….(gasp)PROGRESSIVE.
booyah on February 17, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Plus she’s hot. I’d totally hit that…WITH A CONDOM.
booyah on February 17, 2009 at 7:39 PM
I agree with you Ed, I think the prevailing attitude (which is I believe what she was addressing) is the reason we need abstinence sex ed. Comprehensive sex ed basically says – “hey you are all a bunch of minks and are going to have sex anyway – so here is a condom. But (wink, wink) abstinence is ideal.” Give me a break.
Teach kids they will fail in regards to self-control they will.
Because people will rarely choose abstinence in the heat of the moment, abstinence requires a plan to avoid those very moments.
What I liked in this interview is that she took responsibility. She didn’t glorify teenage parenthood, and we see how a family should respond when these things happen.
Anybody who comes down on Governor Palin on this need to remember that kids are free moral agents. You can teach and train, but that doesn’t always mean they’ll make the right choice. Bristol made a mistake and they seem to be doing a good job moving on.
Also, I think that as she gets older she’ll be more articulate in her position. Anyone else have experience doing a national TV interview as an 18-year-old on a sensitive subject like this?
Shane Vander Hart on February 17, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Boy, you wouldn’t even come close enough to throw a condom at it.
Tennman on February 17, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Plus, even you even attempted you’d be unlikely to survive the experience. She’s got a grandfather, father, and older brother who could kill you so casually their heart rate probably wouldn’t even go up. Get out of the gutter, dirtbag.
Jim62sch on February 17, 2009 at 7:57 PM
“is you learning yet?”
oh boy
joey24007 on February 17, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Hey, idiot, Bristol Palin attended public schools in which contraceptive use was taught in sex ed classes. She was NOT taught abstinence only For whatever reason, she didn’t use a contraceptive or didn’t use it effectively.
Sarah Palin has never advocated abstinence-only sex ed.
Your argument is basically null and void. In fact, one could argue that this is a case in which abstinence only ed might have been better. If the school had really pushed it, perhaps that would have gone a long way to changing the dominant cultural norm among these kids. Sure, Hollywood preaches promiscuity, but a person’s immediate local community exerts the most direct pressure on that person’s behavior. If your peers all decide to abstain, that makes it easier to do so yourself.
I remember my father telling me that back in his day (which was waaay) this sort of thing just wasn’t done. I balked at this, but he explained that back then girls wouldn’t let the guys get aways with this. It just wasn’t done. Cultural and community norms forbade it. You see, peer pressure works both ways.
BTW, I don’t have a problem with teaching kids about contraceptives as long as abstinence is pushed first and foremost. Why? Because Bristol’s case is a perfect example that teaching kid’s about contraceptives alone doesn’t work.
ramrocks on February 17, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I’ll be 28 and unmarried in May and I’m still a virgin, so I definitely think it is possible too.
I’d chalk it up to my outstanding self control, but I just downed two cookies, so that’s not a likely explanation either.
Of course, it could just be because I’m ugly as sin. ;)
JadeNYU on February 17, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I posted this earlier but Bristol’s goal here I think was to have a dialogue about teen pregnancy and she seems so unprepared to talk about it I wonder if she thought this through. I think she didn’t come out as a strong advocate for anything because I didn’t get a clear message other than don’t do it for 10 years. Like 10 years into a marriage if she marries this gus and for economics and ethics doesn’t want birth control or a larger family? When you are 28 no matter what your marital status is OK? She really didn’t make sense to me and it was a wasted opportunity to say whatever she was trying to say.
Conan on February 17, 2009 at 7:59 PM
oh boy
joey24007 on February 17, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Precisely. Poptech will show up next.
kingsjester on February 17, 2009 at 8:07 PM
I actually did throw a condom at her. It hit her in the head. She obviously didn’t get the message.
booyah on February 17, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Bullseye, excellent point.
Another excellent point. As I mentioned over at The Other McCain, the only reason I didn’t end up in a similar situation as a teenager was due to the overwhelming lameness of my attempts to rid myself of abstinence – in spite of all the teaching and training to the contrary.
thirteen28 on February 17, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Come on guys. You can recognize a good Bush quote when you see one right? Please?
“Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”- January 11, 2000- George W Bush
booyah on February 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Perhaps it was too small to notice?
Tennman on February 17, 2009 at 8:13 PM
you just signed up yesterday and you will be gone tonight or tomorrow
too bad for you
joey24007 on February 17, 2009 at 8:14 PM
You are soooo right. Because, of course, cities dominated by Progressives (Detroit, New York, San Francisco, etc) and state dominated by Progressives (New Jersey, California, etc) don’t have any problems at all with teen sex and teen pregnancy.
I’d be happy to introduce you to my college roommate from a progressive family in Brooklyn, graduated from top-rated Stuyvesant high school, knew all about STDs and how babies were made…..still managed to have not one but TWO pregnancy scares freshman year and contracted a nice case of HPV.
You laughing about Bristol Palin and claiming that abstinence education doesn’t work makes just as much sense as me pointing at Erica and claiming that Progressives are idiots that just won’t learn that ‘safer-sex’ education just doesn’t work.
JadeNYU on February 17, 2009 at 8:14 PM
57 states.
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 8:17 PM
So let me get this straight: Bristol Palin attended a school where contraceptive use was taught and she didn’t act on the information? Is she retarded? Did she skip school that day? Or was she merely raised in a household that didn’t VALUE sex-education? Or how ’bout this: maybe her community didn’t VALUE sex-education and UNDERFUNDED the teaching of it as I implied originally and which happens across the country?
It’s all about the VALUES, right Christians?
I think you should listen to Bristol herself when she tells you this won’t work. I would think she’d know.
booyah on February 17, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Really? The administrators of this site don’t like to have any fun is that what you’re telling me?
booyah on February 17, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »