Or are liberals going to start teaching an honest version of their view: "A combination of condom use and abortion when condoms fail, is 100% effective"?
The phrase "only abstinence is 100% effective" is a slogan for teens, not a claim that only abstinence only sex education is 100% effective (which is clearly false).
>There is room to mock it on a personal level, by pointing out that we are willing to engage in far more dangerous activities without 100% guarantees on safety. 'Seatbelts fail, only not driving is 100% effective'.
It depends on how much a person wants to avoid having an abortion or unplanned pregnancy, and how much value they get out of sex.
You're misunderstanding the point -- "only abstinence is 100% effective" is mocked precisely because it is a remarkably bad way to get kids not to have premarital sex.
It's a slogan associated with a moralistic, backwards, prude, stupid and failed sex-ed program. It deserves to be mocked.
>> It depends on how much a person wants to avoid having an abortion or unplanned pregnancy, and how much value they get out of sex.
Hmm, one of the more important drives, if not the primary hard-wired drive in a human animal, gee, I wonder how much value people get out of it?
You don't have to claim that a stupid course of action is perfect to deserve mockery. Following the stupid course of action will suffice.
> It depends on how much a person...
No, the success of abstincence-only education as public policy does not depend on a single person's wants, desires, and incentives. It depends on the wants, desires, and incentives of an existing imperfect population.
Claiming that "our policy would work if only people were moral and rational in X, Y, and Z ways" is irrelevant if people are known to not be moral and rational in X, Y, and Z ways, which is indeed the case with respect to sex-ed. At the end of the day it either works to reduce teen pregnancy or it doesn't, and in this sense abstinence-only education doesn't work.
Effectiveness of any form of birth control is usually quoted as two numbers: an perfect-use rate, and a typical-use rate.
The perfect rate assumes that you are able to follow the instructions exactly every time. For example, perfect use of a hormonal pill means that you take it every single day, at the same time, without ever forgetting; perfect use of condoms means that you use a condom every time you have sex, before beginning sex, that you put it on correctly and that you stop immediately if it breaks; et cetera. Even the much-lambasted "withdrawal" and rhythm methods have really quite good efficacy, assuming you implement them perfectly.[0]
Of course, people aren't robots, especially when it comes to sex, and that's why we have typical-use statistics that reflect the reality of the situation: People forget to take the pill, or take it at the wrong time. People skip using the condom, just this once-- and forget about "pulling out". And people who were abstaining, well, don't.
It may be the case, if we ignore certain unpleasant factors, that abstinence, done perfectly, has 100% efficacy for preventing pregnancy. But we need only to glance at the statistics to see that, in the real world, held to the standard we hold any other procedure to, it is the very worst form of birth control anyone has come up with yet. And that makes your "true statement" nothing more than a bald-faced lie.
[0] Look it up. About 5% failure rates, only twice as bad or so as condoms.