You are a hypocrite on this issue because when it suits you teen pregnancy is a private matter for the family to deal with and when it doesn't follow your own personal policy preferences it should be legislated (ie, a very public matter).  I find the whole issue of Palin's daughter to be hypocritcal from the Conservative Christians point of view -- is premartial sex a sin or is it okay as long as you keep the baby and can use the example to forward the pro-life movement?

Oh, KFC, are you feeling convicted? (words you said to me only last week) 

Please, get over yourself.  I hardly ever comment on this site so I am not hounding you or following you around on all your articles.  You have written hundreds of articles that I haven't bothered to comment on.  I vehemently disagree with just about everything you say --and I only comment on a handful of your stuff.  You'd be amazed at the amount of restraint I demonstrate.

I just explained this in my last reply, but I'll explain it again.  Palin is running for a public office which will help to shape public policy.  One of her policies is abstinence only education.  Her daughter demonstrates (acutely) the failure of her policy and thus, her failure as a policy maker. 

Do I think that normal teen pregnancies are family matter? Yes. Do I think that Palin put herself and her policy positions (and therefore her daughter) in the spot light?  Definitely.

I'm all for teaching abstinence -- but it should be taught along side of if you "get caught in the moment" (as you put it), use a condom.  It's really not all that difficult.  And yes, I do believe that if you are teaching abstinence only and your kid gets pregnant (or gets someone pregnant) because they didn't know how or didn't use birth control -- then yes, on this score you failed.

Where did she say it should be legislated?

I think you're quick to the draw Shades showing your colors here.  Yes where did I say it should be legislated?  I've always believed a teen pregnancy should be a family matter, not a public matter and I challenge you to show me where I've said otherwise. 

Huh?  You know you make absolutely NO sense?  spoken by a true liberal perhaps? 

Maybe you just don't understand.  Premarital sex is ALWAYS a sin from a Christian POV.  ALWAYS.  Can I make it any clearer?  So how does it make it hypocritical that they are keeping the baby?  If they keep the baby it  somehow means it's NOT a sin anymore? 

Don't you think you have it backwards?  Don't you think if they aborted this baby after preaching pro-life they would then be called hypocrites?  Why is it hypocritical to keep a baby even if you believe pre-marital sex is a sin?  Where's the hypocrisy here? 

I dont' think it has anything to do with what you decide to do once your pregnant.  The hypocrtical issue is that the pregnancy has been completely glossed over.  Did you see Jon Stewart's clips of Bill Reilly.  He called Jaimie Lynn Spear's parents pinheads because she got pregnant -- but then went on to say in Palin's case that it's not the parents' fault.  How is that no hypocrtical?  That's the point.

As for whether I am quick to the draw-- have you not made it clear that you'd like to see Roe v. Wade reversed.  So, we are playing a game of semantics -- I said "legislate", and you would say "overturn" -- it's the same deal.  A pregnancy is only private if the family is choosing to keep the baby.  If the pregnant teen wants an abortion  -- it's no longer a private issue, it's an issue for the courts to decide. 

I've always very proudly worn my colors, so if that was meant to be an insult it wasn't. 

Honestly, I feel the same way about you on a regular basis.

I dont' think it has anything to do with what you decide to do once your pregnant.  The hypocrtical issue is that the pregnancy has been completely glossed over.  Did you see Jon Stewart's clips of Bill Reilly.  He called Jaimie Lynn Spear's parents pinheads because she got pregnant -- but then went on to say in Palin's case that it's not the parents' fault.  How is that no hypocrtical?  That's the point.

As for whether I am quick to the draw-- have you not made it clear that you'd like to see Roe v. Wade reversed.  So, we are playing a game of semantics -- I said "legislate", and you would say "overturn" -- it's the same deal.  A pregnancy is only private if the family is choosing to keep the baby.  If the pregnant teen wants an abortion  -- it's no longer a private issue, it's an issue for the courts to decide. 

I've always very proudly worn my colors, so if that was meant to be an insult it wasn't. 

Honestly, I feel the same way about you on a regular basis.

sorry for the double post -- i can't edit it.

actually no.  What do I have to be convicted about here? 

I didn't say you did.  I said everytime you respond to something I say....wherever (means not necessarily here) or whatever I say you play Devil's Advocate.  Everytime I see your avatar I know it can't be good. 

well that's good to know.  Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why I find you so argumentative when it comes to my comments?  There's something under your claw that bugs you about me, and I'd like to know what's bugging you so we can clear it up. 

and not surprisingly I would respectfully disagree.  First off every kid who has one single brain cell in his head knows about and can get access to Birth Control whether or NOT his parents advocated abstinence or not.  They know exactly how to obtain booze also even when the parents don't drink.  So that shouldn't be an issue. 

I also disagree to some extent about the parent's failure.  In some ways I agree with you but for diff reasons.  You can preach BC and still have your kid get pregnant so do you hold the parent as a failure then as well? 

I would say where Sarah failed her child was not knowing where she was and watching her behavior more carefully.  I would say that Mom was probably too busy running a state and left her daughter to herself maybe a bit too much?  It's a rare occurrance that anyone gets pregnant on the first try. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again....I'd much rather teach abstinence and have my child find herself pregnant (there are worse things than pregnancy)  than to teach BC and watch them die from an untreated STD or AIDS by living a life of promiscuity.  At least bearing and taking care of a child puts a curtail on sexual activity. 

No, I didn't see this.   And I would agree with you on this but you didn't bring it up this way before.  And this isn't what I'm speaking of. 

well you didn't make yourself clear. We were talking teen pregnancy and Bristol's pregnancy being a private matter.   But yes I would like to see Roe V Wade reversed but that doesn't change my mind about it being a private matter among families with teen girls pregnant. 

Because I believe all babies deserve life that doesn't make me a hypocrite.  These are two separate issues and you're trying to tie them together.  It would be like saying you can murder a family member and I won't interfere because it's a family matter. 

me either and one of the things about the new format I don't like. 

That is also Bill O'Reilly, hardly KFC, or "All Conservatives" or even "All Conservative Christians" (if he is even christian).

So murder is now a family issue?  I guess it is true that liberals have no core ethics, just situational ones. 

I know!  If we cant stop it, we might as well legalize it!  Another great argument.  So who is next to be murdered cause we cant catch all of the murderers?

And yet, you think I speak for the entire liberal movement -- how exactly to you reconcile those two thoughts?

If you somehow got that I think that murder is a family issue from what I wrote, then I'm not going to waste my breath responding because you wouldn't be able to comprehend it anyway. 

I don't think I'm playing Devil's Advocate -- I have different opinions from you.  But this is a good example of what bugs me -- you can't, for a minute, assume that I disagree with you and that I am presenting my opinions to you.  No, instead you have to assume that I'm playing and purposely disagreeing with you just because it's fun.  I fundamentally disagree with probably 95% of what you say -- and yet you assume that this can't be true, I must just be playing.  Wouldn't that bug you?

And here we are just going to have to disagree. Teaching BC doesn't encourage kids to have sex any more than teaching abstinence does.  In fact, i would argue that a kid who is taught birth control is less likely to get an STDs because they have been taught about safe sex and have the tools to protect themselves.  It's the kids who get abstinence only education that i'd worry about catching STDs.

(There's so much more that I could/shoud respond to, but I'm home sick with a pounding headache that just won't die -- so I'm going to take a pass)

Yes and no.  What they did was done through the use of viruses and would NOT be permitted for use in any actual treatments.  What it did do was prove that at some point in the future it might be possible to revert adult stem cells into something similar to embryonic stem cells.  Hopefully with more research they will be able to work out the kinks so that they can use adult stem cells but as of today it isn't possible.

Huh?  How does teaching the kids about birth control make kids promiscuous?  I have never understood that line of thinking.  What is so wrong with comprehensive sex education that strongly encourages abstinence since it is the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy and STDs but still teaches kids how to use birth control properly so that if they do end up having sex they will be able to do so with some amount of intelligence on the issue and use a condom?  I have actually heard that some abstinence-only programs tell kids that condoms don't work which leads the kids that end up having sex anyway to do so without any protection because they have been informed that it doesn't work.  That doesn't seem very smart if you ask me.

No, I never said you do.  I specifically ask YOU questions.  Not what "Hillary" or "Obama" is saying.

You want KFC to think murder is a family issue, I can only assume that you must think it is.  And please dont fog up your monitor.

So why can you accuse KFC of making murder a family issue, and then deny you are making it a family issue?  You brought it up first.

When you teach comprehensive sex ed in school as they are today, you are in effect giving these kids a green light.  You can't say to a teen..."don't have sex, but if you do, take this (holding up a form of BC) with you."  You're contradicting yourself and the kids know it. 

They take that as permission.  Go back in time and remember what it was like when you were a kid.  Did you ever say to your parents..."but you said?"......when in fact you, as the child, were twisting their words around on them?  That's what kids do.  Give an inch they take a....what?

I had my son tell me that I gave him permission to run away.  Did I?  Well I guess I did in a roundabout way.  He threatened to run away and I said...."go ahead" thinking he was just pulling my leg.  He knew better. He knew what I meant.  But he used my words against me because he wanted to go to a place I had forbidden him to go.   

And this is so clear when you look at the evidence.  I raised three teens all at the same time.  I worked in a HS for years riding the bus with them frequently during X-Country season.  I was very involved with teens thru programs at church.  One thing that was very very very (can I say that enough?) evident to me was that teens who were taught that BC should be used in the event you may have sex outside of marriage were way more active at a much younger age than those parents who were teaching abstinence.  For the most part kids want their parents approval and acceptance.

Those parents who were teaching abstinence were very clear and expected that sex was to be delayed until either they were of age or married.  We told our kids, no piercings, no sex and no motorcyles.  That was expected. 

Now, obviously, this is not 100% as we've seen in Palin's daughter.  Sometimes these children don't follow the household rules and break them.  It happens.  When they do, they get burned and pay the consequences whether they abort or keep their baby or end up with an STD. 

Now, even though we teach our kids  abstinence, they'd have to have their head under a rock NOT to know about BC.  They all do.  My son chose not to obey our "house rules" and went right to the pharmacy.  He knew right where to find what he needed.  Still taught abstinence.  But he made a decision that went against what we taught him.  It was his choice, and eventually he did pay the price.  But I'll bet he'll teach his own son abstinence after learning what he's had to go thru.   

you think so?  I don't.  The kids more apt to get STD's are those like the girls on the pill who think they're safe.  They're the ones you have to worry about....or the boys who think the girl is ok because she's on the pill.  I knew one boy who was giving the girls VD all over the school.  The girls, with permission from their parents, were on BC.   One girl put up a sign on the girl's mirror warning other girls not to have sex with this one boy.  Now if the girl was taught abstinence and obeyed her parents (like many I do know) this wouldn't be an issue. 

I strongly disagree with this with some of the reasons listed above. 

Shades, it's not WHAT you say....it's HOW you say it.  There are others on JU that don't agree with me but I consider them friends.  I take a very strong stance on certain issues that I can't budge from because I use scripture as my foundation and that just never changes.   We have lively discussions, sometimes heated but it never turns nasty and hateful. 

I do believe you are purposefully disagreeing with me because of reasons you haven't disclosed.  Yes.  I don't care if you disagree with me, that's part of what goes on here.  I just want you to be honest with me. 

I'm ok with the 95% of the time we don't agree.....but even those I don't agree most of the time I try to let them know when I do agree with them and establish common ground even if it's a small thing.  Maybe if you once in a while let me know what the 5% was it wouldn't come across so Devil's Advocate all the time.