To say that, "Have you ever known a girl (and the guy too by the way) with traditional values that got pregnant" as a rule for not teaching traditional values is like saying "Have you ever seen a three legged calf?" Yes, but that does not mean all calves are three legged. The answer is: of course we have seen that! But to then say "abstinence" or traditional" values should be done away with or discouraged in our schools (I did not say do away with sex education, just the government paying for all your paraphernalia) because a "traditional" values girl got pregnant is a huge stretch of the imagination. The instances, or percentage, of those raised with traditional values (and what is to stop the parents from educating their children on birth control and sexual behavior?) is probably lower as compared to the total population of those that hold the same values, than those raised with little or no value input or without traditional values.

Here's one note on the "abstinence" hypothesis:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02...

And another:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1234011...

While one can find any "article" that supports his or her "theory", the bottom line is that the percentage may be less with those who are encouraged to wait (needless to say it would have a more positive impact on STD's and the like). It is hard to catch an STD if you don't "pass the plate around" so to speak.

Mankind is saddled with a natural "nature" that tends to allow all kinds of horrible attributes: murder, genocide, theft, lying, cruelty, abuse of power, and the like. If time and "progressive ideas" worked so well, we would all be growing more altruistic and kind. Alas, that is not the case. I have my opinions about how to "in general" turn that nature around and "disable its negative power" so to speak, but that is a different discussion.

I have read some of the "atheist" hypotheses about abstinence like the one that concludes: those with traditional values have a higher birth rate than those who don't! Well duh! Those with more "religious" or "traditional" value would be more likely to carry the child full term because they tend NOT to choose abortion. That conclusion is about as useful as a two legged stool!

To say it is the government's responsibility (and therefore all taxpayers regardless of their beliefs) to pay for your birth control because someone got pregnant is a stretch.

Should be then do away with the law "do not commit murder" (where have I heard that before?) and its accompanying punishments because someone gets murdered? You would say no way (unless you are Mao Zedong), Pol Pot, Che Guavara or Joseph Stalin - not to mention that Adolf guy). So, to say we should not encourage "waiting" is to say the same thing. By the way, having laws against murder doesn't alleviate the problem of murder, but it does tend to discourage it - would you not agree.

Point Two:

There have been many cases in the courts where, even on a scientific basis with facts about STD's, premature educational dropout rates, increase in the tendency towards poverty (there is a University of Wisconsin study on these items), and increased crime rates, “abstinence” or something similar to “abstinence education” has been stricken because it supposedly violates the "separation clause" (another discussion on this misled, non-factual and precedence-less Supreme Court conclusion later) and is deemed "religious" in nature. Schools around the country have been prohibited from supporting a "traditional" sexual practices rule on the same, "lame" (and unfounded prior to 1947) rule.