It looks like good news: Bristol Palin says that abstinence only for teenagers is not realistic. Anecdote meets the facts and they agree!
That’s another blow against the policy advocated by US political conservatives like her mother. Sarah Palin ‘oppos[d] programs that teach teenagers anything about contraception. “The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support,” she said in answering a questionnaire from the conservative Eagle Forum during her 2006 gubernatorial race. ‘
But what’s not to like is that Bristol Palin doesn’t seem to see having sex as a matter of choice. Opposing abstinence-only education doesn’t mean giving up on abstinence. In fact, there’ s been evidence available for decades now that ’explicit sex education’ programs, particularly combined with discussions of health and values and access to medical treatment, can raise the average age of sexual relationships, along with lowering pregnancy rates and disease rates.
Behind the scenes in this discussion, then, appears to be another conservative fallacy: inferring from someone’s opposing a restriction to their endorsing what’s being restricted (or endorsing the subject of the restricted discourse). Here are two instances: If you are pro-choice, then you are pro-abortion. (False!) And: if you oppose abstinence only education, then you endorse teen promiscuity. (False!)
In short, B Palin’s thought may be just an instance of this fallacy: abstinence only education fails people like me, so teens are promiscuous. And such a thought might be one of the sad results of her education.
OR she’s launching a gigantic excuse. “Hey, the sex wasn’t my choice and so the pregnancy was not my fault, given my mother’s views.” And how could she have any better understanding?