Hugh Hewitt falsely claimed Obama had gotten "into a debate about abortion rights for minors" when he made "punished with a baby" comment
SUMMARY: Nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama had "gotten a question or into a debate about abortion rights for minors" when he said of his two daughters: "[I]f they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16." In fact, Obama was responding to a question about "the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls."
During the March 31 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, host and conservative blogger Hugh Hewitt falsely claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama had "gotten a question or into a debate about abortion rights for minors" when Obama said at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania, "If they [Obama's two daughters] make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16." In fact, Obama made the comment in response to what CNN reported was "a question about how his administration, if he's elected, would deal with the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls," as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented. Indeed, as video of the March 29 campaign event, broadcast by CNN, shows, Obama was discussing sex education, not abortion, when he made the comment that Hewitt aired.
Hewitt also misrepresented Obama's statement in a March 31 blog post, falsely asserting that Obama's "full quote" consisted of Obama saying: "Look, I got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
On the March 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity made the similar false claim that Obama "made a statement over the weekend talking about the issue of abortion. If people make a mistake, quote, 'I don't want them punished with a baby,' unquote." Additionally, on the March 31 edition of MSNBC Live, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell falsely suggested that Obama was discussing abortion when he made the "punished with a baby" comment.
From the March 29 edition of CNN's Ballot Bowl 2008:
MARY SNOW (CNN correspondent): Welcome back to CNN's edition of Ballot Bowl. This is a chance for you to hear directly from the candidates. I'm Mary Snow in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where Senator Barack Obama is holding a town hall meeting right now, taking questions from the audience. Let's go straight to Senator Barack Obama; he just was asked a question about how his administration, if he's elected, would deal with the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls. Here's Senator Barack Obama.
OBAMA: -- or we give them really expensive surgery and we don't spend money on the front end keeping people healthy in the first place. So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.
You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.
But we should also provide better treatment. And we should focus on those sectors where it's prevalent and we've got to get over the stigma because understand that the fastest growth in HIV/AIDS is in heterosexuals, not gays. And so, we've got to get out of that stigma that we still have around it. It's connected also to drug use. So, one of the things we have to do is to start thinking about better substance abuse treatment programs around drugs and not just treat it as a criminal justice issue. Treat it as a public health issue as well.
So -- but this all is connected to the idea of prevention and so my health care plan says, you know what? I don't want kids in the emergency room for treatable illnesses like asthma. I want them to get a primary care doctor and have regular check-ups and, you know, if we decreased obesity rates back to the rates that existed back in 1980, we would save the Medicare system a trillion dollars -- one trillion dollars because that's what's accounting for huge spikes in heart disease and diabetes and all kinds of preventable illnesses.
So we've got to put emphasis on that. Let me say one last thing, though. I'm going to use the presidential bully pulpit to start talking about people taking responsibility. We were talking about education earlier. It doesn't matter how good the job the schools are doing, if parents, you don't turn off your TV sets and put away your video games and make your kids do your homework and meet with the teachers, it won't make any difference. And the same is true on health care. I mean, some of us just have bad luck, and -- or genetically, are predisposed to certain diseases.
But, you know, if we're not all making some effort to get exercise and, you know, eat properly and not smoke and, you know, and I know -- I've had my own little battles. You know, I used to sneak a few cigarettes once in a while. My wife cut me off at the pass. She announced on 60 Minutes, she said, you know, "Yeah, he used to smoke once in a while, and he promised me. So if you catch him, anybody out there" -- but that was good. I think we all have to take some responsibility for these issues as well. That's going to be important. All right, I've got time for one more question.
From the March 31 edition of Salem Radio Network's The Hugh Hewitt Show:
HEWITT: But now, let's get to the question of what Barack Obama said today. He was talking about his two daughters, he'd gotten a question or a debate about abortion rights for minors, and he got -- he said, "Look, I've got two daughters, 9 years old and a 6-year-old, I'm going to teach them first about values and morals," and then he said this.
OBAMA [audio clip]: If they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.
HEWITT: So Senator Santorum, you served with Senator Obama. What do you make of that response?
FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R-PA): It's chilling to suggest that children, even at that age -- I mean, not at that age, obviously not 6 years old -- but even when he's talking about age 16, that that's a punishment. I mean, that's just a -- it's a remarkable twist that I think shows some insight. I mean, one of the things I've been saying about Barack Obama, this is a guy who's not gotten the attention of the media. It's all been sort of flowery speeches. And everything -- all these kinds of comments that may have been made in Iowa and places like that have gone sort of unreported. Now he's going to get the microscope, and these little snippets, just like this one, are going to teach you a lot about this man that the mainstream media is not going to want to let you know.
Next up in the Right-Wing Noise Machine, Hugh Hewitt!
Everybody lock step!
Left!...Left!... Left! Right! Left!
Some will even tell you every statement has as many interpretations as there are listeners.
Don't believe them.
When Obama says he doesn't want his girls punished by having a baby, one can infer, although he didn't mention it specifically, he doesn't want to punish them, therefore he's going to be sure they use contraceptives or he doesn't want them punished by having to have the baby after they got pregnant. Either way, he's reiterating his position on birth control, sex education, and abortion. After all, (and correct me if I am wrong,) there is only one way to stop a girl from delivering a baby after she becomes pregnant (aside from miscarriage) that I know.
Obama goes on in the next sentence that he doesn't want to punish them with an std at age 16. Obama relies on a mistaken belief that certain contraceptives can prevent stds.
What I find interesting is that clearly Obama spoke two distinct sentences. It looks like Johnny and Moon are concentrating on the second sentence while ignoring the first.
From the CDC:
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including discharge and genital ulcer diseases. While the effect of condoms in preventing human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease.
As for your other fallacy, I think that one's words are best analyzed in full context, not one sentence ata time in order to support some preconceived conclusion. I read Obama's statement as an argument for prevention of disease and pregnancy, not a call for drive up abortion huts on every street corner.
Col.
Whos' confused? You must not have read my many posts in the other Obama-punish threads. I've had spirited and lengthy discussion with many regarding the pros-cons of comprehensive sex ed vs abstinence sex ed.
I've noticed you are falling into the trap of starting to write these snarky little opinions without backing them up. If can keep doing it if you like, but I only suggest you try to be a little more accurate.
Thank you for your suggestions and warnings. Very helpful, as always. ;0)
Moon,
I never argued that the condom didn't help reduce the risk of stds or HIV. I even posted one study I found that sexual intercourse with an HIV infected person, when using a condom, reduced the risk of catching it 85%. While that is good, I don't think I care for those odds. I feel for those who mistakenly bought the line that they could engage in safe sex.
If one thinks condom use is a panacea that eliminates the risk of stds, HIV, and/or pregnancy, they simply do not the facts. In my mind there is a big difference between reducing the risk and eliminating the risk. We all know abstinence eliminates the risk. Using condoms does not.
We all know abstinence eliminates the risk. Using condoms does not.
And we all know that absinence-only sex ex programs are a dismal failure.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTON47250120080324
wz,
I wouldn't go overboard based on this one study. I could not find the statistical methods used in it to discover how random was the sample of respondents which I found disconcerting. (One has to have a subscription to the journal,) see the actual article.
I noticed that there was statistical weighting which always raises a red flag as to how the results are skewed. I did not see in the link did what the statistical likelyhood percentage wise +/- was with their results.
Also the news reports I read said that the findings were based on returned surveys. I am cautious as they did not say how many they sent out and how they selected who got the surveys. Also one has to be aware that people returning a mailed survey, (I think it was mailed as they said the surveys were returned,) are an active subset of the whole group, which also influences the results. Especially when asking teens to answer questions with regards to sex. I saw no evidence of any controls for the nature of the survey. Also, from your link, we do not know the questions that were asked. I'd like to see the questions themselves.
Another part that jumped out at me is that the responses totaled 1,719. By the percentages given, where they said 1 on 4 admitted to abstinence only sex ed, that means that 430 respondents said they had the abstinence only training program. Heck, that is not even the size of many high school graduating classes!
To present the argument that abstinence only education is a failure on this very limited sample size shows me that the survey takers seem to be pushing their agenda. Especially when I see the quotes associated with article. After all this is one study ans supposedly the first of its kind. Surely there needs to be more studies to either support the results or to question them. The quotes by people with advanced degrees should be more circumspect, but they are not. They act like this survey is the definitive answer. Not very scientific if you ask me.
Without knowing anything more, and because of my knowledge of survey research, I am very skeptical at this point of the results.
Besides, AA, the whole concept od statistical sampling involves selecting the proper representative sample in order to get a representative view of the whole by only sampling a small part. These principles have been developed over the past 200 years. Why is it that when someone disagrees with a survey's results, they always question the survey methods?
Perhaps it's your position that is in error.....
wz,
I've pointed out many times here the bias I found in surveys and polls conducted by news organizations and others to push an agenda. I am always very skeptical about surveys when they are used as in this case. Too many times we see where those surveys were flat out wrong. I think being skeptical is a good thing. I encourage everyone to do the same. If one is going to use a survey to support one's point, one has to defend the survey methods used. In this case, that is a big unknown. I do believe (and correct me if I am wrong,) Kinsey falsified much of his research regarding sex. Abortion proponents admitted later to lying with their statistics on back alley abortions, wildly exaggerating the number women who died because of them in order to push their agenda before Congress. I see it continuing here.
your amount of skepticism regarding to a surveys methods seems to have an inverse correlation to your approval of the results.
You've noticed that, too???? :-)
Fair enough. However I think in this case, the absence of any documentation regarding the survey, speaks to my skepticism. If you can answer any of my questions, I'd appreciate it.
I invite you to do the same when I present my links.
Moon,
Did you notice part of your quote: While the effect of condoms in preventing human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is unknown,...
I find it sadly amusing that you helped make my point.
I find it more amusing that you think you made a point and that I helped. Nobody is arguing that contraceptives or other preventantive measures are 100% effective. There is a segment of ideologues who are making the argument that they are completely useless and you seem to be one of them. Especially when you make statements like this: "Obama relies on a mistaken belief that certain contraceptives can prevent stds."
Yes, abstinence is 100% effective. It's also unrealistic.
No, it doesn't imply anything about abortion at all. Baby could actually mean a baby, which means the pregnancy is carried to term. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that he wouldn't oppose abortion on a personal level.
I can't believe I just saw someone dismiss the entire concept of "context". Two different sentences? The whole thing was about education and contraception. How shameless can you be to pretend that what he's talking about doesn't affect the meaning of his words?
Brab,
It is all in one's interpretation. I know Obama is a gifted enough politician to avoid using the word abortion, but his meaning in his sentence is prettty clear, especially when you know his positions. To say he is also not referring to abortion when he says he doesn't want to punish his girls by having a baby is to ignore the elephant in the room. Yes, he is talking sex education, but he is also inferring abortion.
Your assumption is that if someone is pro-choice that they would encourage or want an abortion for someone they know. That's highly fallacious. Even if he's using the word "baby" to refer to a fetus, which is not clear, it says nothing about what he would tell his girl to do in that situation. My stepson's girlfriend got pregnant and I didn't tell her to get an abortion, and she lives under my roof. Her mother told her to get an abortion or she would disown her, and I was outraged. And I'm pro-choice.
People are not as black-and-white as you think, so you can't make such assumptions with any credibility.
Brab,
I sincerely empathize with your situation. You have a good heart and your step-son's daughter is very lucky. As an aside, I wonder why you are upset at the girl's mother based on your pro-choice position? If you'd rather not discuss, I understand.
I know the reality of teenage sex and pregnancy is not simple issue.
You are free to interpret Obama's comments as you wish. I thought Obama was speaking hypothetically, only bringing in his daughters to illustrate his personal view. How he would consul them he left unsaid. So we don't know one way or another. However we do know Obama spoke on the issue of teen sex and teen pregnancy. He was ambiguous with regards to abortion, not mentioning it specifically but leaving it to us to discern what he meant by not punishing his girls by having a baby. If you want to interpret it your way, by all means do so. I interpret it to include abortion as an option should they become pregnant.
Obama has 100% rating by NARAL and voted against the partial birth abortion bill. It is no secret what his position he holds. To try to imply that his little talk about teen sex leaves his position on abortion unknown does not make any sense to me.
"As an aside, I wonder why you are upset at the girl's mother based on your pro-choice position? If you'd rather not discuss, I understand."
Because it is atrocious to dictate such a thing. If she thinks her daughter can't handle having a baby, she can say that, she can discuss it with her. Telling her to do it or there will be consequences is utterly unacceptable.
"How he would consul them he left unsaid. So we don't know one way or another. However we do know Obama spoke on the issue of teen sex and teen pregnancy. He was ambiguous with regards to abortion, not mentioning it specifically but leaving it to us to discern what he meant by not punishing his girls by having a baby. If you want to interpret it your way, by all means do so. I interpret it to include abortion as an option should they become pregnant."
But that's a completely separate matter. He specifically talked about a mistake in the context of unprotected sex. Having a baby is too severe a punishment for that mistake. The point was that she shouldn't get pregnant in the first place. His wording actually suggests that the pregnancy would come to term in this hypothetical.
"Obama has 100% rating by NARAL and voted against the partial birth abortion bill. It is no secret what his position he holds. To try to imply that his little talk about teen sex leaves his position on abortion unknown does not make any sense to me."
That wasn't the argument. We know he's pro-choice, but that doesn't mean he would advocate or even support that decision in his own family.
The important thing here, AA, is that nowhere did Obama even MENTION abortion, yet right-wing looney after right-wing looney is saying he did - and I heard both Rush Limbaugh AND Mark Levin do it yesterday.
There IS a third option implied here but not spoken by anyone, AA. The first is a young girl carrying a baby to term, and raising it as a single parent. The second is abortion. The third is carrying the baby to term and giving it up for adoption. I find it interesting that not ONE of the right-wing loonies out there is implying that Obama was talking about adoption - they've all gone to the abortion arsenal, because they know that it's a topic that will enflame the narrow-minded dolts who listen to their shows.
wz,
I think you bring up a good point but it works against Obama. As I said earlier, Obama is smart enough not to mention abortion because of all the negative connotations associated with it. You never see any pro-choice politician talking about it except to talk around it. In the context of his speech on teen sex where he said, ' But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.' He is ambiguous. What is the mistake? Is it having teen sex or is it getting pregnant? By his votes and speeches, we know he is pro-choice, which is also pro-abortion. Frankly, I don't see why all the pro-choicers are trying to deny the obvious inference.
pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion. If you don't understand the difference your critical thinking skills are seriously lacking.
What you are saying by being pro-choice is you are in favor of other people being pro-abortion while trying to keep your philosophical nose clean.
It seems logical to me that if you think other people have the right to abortion, you are pro-abortion. You are really saying it is okay as long as someone else does it. Trying to distance yourself by letting other's make the choice seems to me to be a bit of cognitive dissonance.
"What you are saying by being pro-choice is you are in favor of other people being pro-abortion while trying to keep your philosophical nose clean."
Other people wouldn't be "pro-abortion" either because their decision affects only them. It's not advocating anyone else does it.
"It seems logical to me that if you think other people have the right to abortion, you are pro-abortion. You are really saying it is okay as long as someone else does it."
Your false framing seems eternal in nature. Nobody wants anyone to be in this position in the first place, so it's not "okay". I think marijuana should be legal, but I don't advocate use. That would be "pro-legalization" not "pro-drug". See the difference? I don't think anyone should do it, but locking people up for it doesn't help anything. You can want something to be legal because there's a better way to deal with a problem, as opposed to thinking that it's morally right. So "pro-abortion" doesn't really make much sense if you can squeeze a shade of gray into your black-and-white perspective.
"Trying to distance yourself by letting other's make the choice seems to me to be a bit of cognitive dissonance."
What the hell are you talking about? "Letting others make the choice" as opposed to what, choosing for them? That distance is automatically there, isn't it?
Brab,
In this case it is like saying I oppose killing innocent people but I support the right of others to choose to kill innocent people as long as they conceived them.
The fact that you think people have the right to kill their children separates this issue from the others.
How does it separate it? Because you want to frame it as "killing your children" then nobody can point out that they don't really want that to happen either? Because of your definition you can just use whatever BS term you want to whether it makes a damn bit of sense or not?
I don't think so.
Don't worry about these guys .... the Republican Party will put them on their propaganda payroll with seven-figure salaries.
Aren't you all getting tired of this??
The distortions, lies. sensationalizing.
And, the media is as bad as people making
ridiculous statements. They, the media, never
fail to quote them as fact.
Where has integrity gone??
Come back Tom Brokow.
Media Matters is trying to bury another BO gaff by trying to slap the media that brought it to light. A careful reading of BO's statement leads me to believe that while he did not specifically endorse abortion he has opened himself up to the question - which needs to be followed up on. The real gaff here is that he shows his cluelesness to the purpose of sexual intercourse. While sex is indeed fun and pleasurable it's primary purpose is procreation. To imply that someone who engages in sex is "punished" when they get pregnant is total idiocy.
This is true liberalism on parade. Do something that feels good without regard to the consequences.
Did you ever stop to think that on some issues he agrees with me as opposed to the other way around?
There's been no evidence presented here that even remotely suggests that.
I agree - there has been no evidence presented here that remotely suggests that COL ever stops to think.
Nah, Dems, I can keep walking while I think. You wouldn't believe how much of a time saver that is, and then you throw in the simultaneous gum-chewing...never mind, you wouldn't understand.
Anyway, you have to understand that when it's pointed out that you're repeating the exact same logical fallacies as came out of Rush's mouth that morning, it's not necessarily saying you listen to Rush, just that you get your information and spin from the same huge network of conservative misinformation that Rush is a part of. It's shorthand.
Further, the conservatives that want to discuss abortion will take Obama's comments the way they want to, to go off on their rants.
I would never defend abortion as a birth control opion. It's a dismal choice. Even so, making it illegal makes that choice even more dismal.
Those who argue about whether the fetus is a life are missing the point. Cons are really pushing to make abortion illegal. which is back to the future, except now it would be even worse. More back alley abortions, criminalizing doctors and women in desperate circumstances.
Col - but please show me where my take on the Obama comment is misinformation. While I agree his comment may not be in relation to abortion - he did say something really stupid.
just that you get your information and spin from the same huge network of conservative misinformation
Col - only someone who follows the leads of others would be so bold to assume others do likewise. There are plenty of us out here who can think on their own. You shuld try it sometime.
"only someone who follows the leads of others would be so bold to assume others do likewise."
Did you really just say "it takes one to know one"? Why not just go all-out and say "I'm rubber and you're glue", honestly?
Did you really just say "it takes one to know one"?
No - that's not what I said. A caterpillar who crawls up to another caterpillar seeing something just like himself knows he is looking at another caterpillar. A catapillar who sees a butterfly doesn't yet realize that he too can become more than he is with maturity and effort.
Brab, it was a very dressed up version of the rubber/glue response, and another in a long line of conservatives who insist they don't listen to the most popular conservative talk show host, yet somehow arrive at all of the same twisted logical destinations as El RushbO.
While it's not unusual for different people to arrive at the truth independently, I always find it a little suspicious that so many people arrive at the exact same completely false conclusions as the right wing media, and none of them ever listen.
OK - go back and read my story about the caterpillar and the butterfly. COL thinks he sees me as a drone (caterpillar) becaues he himself is one - but I am not. However because all he knows is drones he can not recognize it.
The caterpillar morphs into a butterfly as it matures but it takes some effort on behalf of the caterpillar to survive. Get it?
So if he must be something because he said you were that thing, then your point is that you're rubber and he's glue. He said it about you, therefore it's actually true for him instead.
Thanks for the clarification.
Thank you for this opportunity to advocate for transformation. <a href="http://www.cafepress.com/sunworks.30083321"wearing</a> your inner butterfly might not be enough!
Please show me where I attacked anyone for being a "Typical" liberal.
Well gosh you never used the exact words "typical liberal." But you said this: "This is true liberalism on parade. Do something that feels good without regard to the consequences."
A completely false representation of liberalism and insulting tripe. You sure seem to have no problem implying meaning in the words of others but always seem to run to the safety of "I never used those exact words" whenever it suits you. I guess you are a true conservative, full of hot air with no meaning whatsoever and ready to impose standards on others that you feel no need to live by yourself.
"Liberalism" is an ideaology - and a failed one at that.. Callign some one a "Typical Liberal" would be to steroetype or lable someone, Though BO is espopusing liberalism on this subject, labeling him a "typical liberal" for this one gaff would be wrong. Just as is labeling someone a "typical white person".
You, earlier: "A careful reading of BO's statement leads me to believe that while he did not specifically endorse abortion he has opened himself up to the question - which needs to be followed up on."
So it is only Obama's words that are subject to interpretation? And for the record, I never did accuse you of using the phrase "typical liberal" in this thread. In fact, I clearly pointed out that you didn't. For someone so sure of his words you are pretty quick to hide behind semantic games when challenged on them.
Now you are trying to crawfish out of this one Moon - you responded to my asking Mary to point out where I labeled someone a typical liberal. That was indeed the subject thread we were continuing.
See my Translation for COL for my point on BO's words.
No, I'm not. I stand by my assertion that the words you chose to use were an attack on liberalism and a misrepresentation of it meant to create the idea in the mind of the reader of a "typical liberal" championing a lifestyle of excess with no consequences and then attach that to Obama's statement about the consequences of improper education about sex, contraception and disease prevention. But I did point out that you did not use those words at all.
Your "translation" is bunk. If you really meant that Obama should be the one to clarify his words because they left so much doubt in your literally constrained mind why do you not find a problem in putting your own spin on them or defending those who do?
Obama used a bad word choice
That's been happening a bit to often for such an accomplished politician, wouldn't you say? Those "word choices" are an opening to his beliefs and his soul.
A careful reading of BO's statement leads me to believe that while he did not specifically endorse abortion he has opened himself up to the question - which needs to be followed up on. (DumSoul)
You mean that one, Mariposa? that one didn't mention Obama or abortion? I'm sorry, I don't know how I read that into it. :0/
Translation for COL - His statement has opened a question as to what he really meant. Obama needs to be the one to clarify what he said, not me or some pundant on TV.
Since he wasn't talking about abortion, how can this be a gaff?
I have heard this thing kicked around right wing radio for the last couple of days, it's amazing how much they leave out of the whole thing, like what he was talking about (sex ed), and that he wasn't talking about abortion.
Why do you guys want to shrink government so small that they just fit into our bedrooms and our doctor's offices. I have asked this question before, and will ask it again. How do you jibe most republicans seriously hypocritical stance on socialized health care, and their reluctance to embrace it, with telling women what they can, and can't do with their own bodies? I'd say the latter is much more dangerous.
Since he wasn't talking about abortion, how can this be a gaff?
By claiming someone is "penalized" by getting pregnant for having sex reveals his lack of undersrtanding of the purpose of sex. It's kind of like saying - someone who uses Heroin for recreational purposes shouldn't be penalized by becomming addicted to it. It's an excessively stupid statement!.
The purpose of sex is procreation. If you are going to engage in it recreationally you had better be willingly ready to accept the consequences. To claim a pregnancy is a "penalty" is convoluted.
I can now see why Hillary is still in this race. She's laying in waiting for this guy to sink himself - and he's well on his way to doing just that.
You're overlooking the fact that people are ready to have sex long before they're reasonably able to procreate. It's not like if you get a girl pregnant your dad can teach you how to be a blacksmith and you're all set anymore. The world is a much more complicated place, while the age of sexual maturity and the natural desires that go with that remain the same as always. But go ahead and tell everyone just to hold it in until they graduate college, that should be really effective in dealing with the problem.
Just out of curiousity--do you really think that the ONLY purpose of sex is reproduction?
On this specific issue, anyone who would not force parenthood on us would be my guy (or woman). Believe me, while I realize for a lot of people, children are this amazing blessing, I find them much less "cute" than their parents seem to.
"Oh, isn't it adorable how little Johnny screams in the nice restaurant?" Um, no, not really. Can you not leave Johnny at home until he learns volume control?
Wild,
I personally consider children to be God's greatest gift. Since you feel differently, it is probably a good thing you don't have any.
This is the point I am making. I just don't appreciate being told that since we don't want children, we're apparently not doing sex right.
As a side note, it's not that people find their children to be God's greatest gift I mind. It's that if I also don't find their kids to be God's greatest creation, I must be blind to their charm.
You'll only feel differently when you have one of your own.
My wife and I, when we find ourselves in a restaurant near a loud child, sympathize along with probably all the other parents in the restaurant what the child's parents are going through. We also realize those that don't have children never will. :-)
I am not being punished at anyone's hands. We use birth control. If my wife gets pregnant, we have the choice of keeping the child, putting him/her up for adoption, or terminating the pregnancy. That choice is between the two of us, and is really no one else's business.
Hugh Hewitt is one scary dude.
I'm not sure why Obama thinks having a baby is a punishment? I'm not confused into thinking this is about abortion, but I do think saying that having a baby is 'punishing' them, is not a prudent statement & upset me.
Crazy-
Subsitute 'unwanted pregnancy' for baby. Now do you understand?
Kyle, I don't think this ones going to sink in to the Fetophiles.They don't seem to be any closer than on the day it first came out.
I heard BilldOreilly 's take on it last night, framing it as "when you say something negative about an infant...". It's actually fooling the zombies, that putting an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy in the negative column is insulting little babies.
Kyle,
You misintepreted Crazy's statement. Simply putting a euphemism for baby in the sentence still begs the question.
Engaging in sexual intercourse has the distinct possibility for the girl to become pregnant. It is an outcome, not a punishment. Calling a baby "a punishment" is certainly dehumanizing and speaks to Obama's mind-set. He is rationalizing recreational sex by portraying his daughters as innocent victims of a mistake that imposes too harsh of consequence.
It is this type of thinking that tries to ignore the biological fact that sexual intercourse, although pleasurable, is nature's way to carry on the species. Nature doesn't care if you are 16 or married. If you engage in intercourse, you better understand that you might be conceiving a new life.
Thanks for comming back AA- I was tiring of taking on this argument by myself.
Let's hope your words do a better job than mine of pointing out the real issue here.
Oh get a clue. MMFA's stated mission has nothing to do whit what they actually do. They find insignificant crap on stations that nobody listens to, reads, or watches and twist it into a launching pad for their own political agenda.
I wouldn't worry about the grammar - many typos happen in quick post discussions.
Personally - I never heard of Hugh Hewett until this post today.
For the childless among us, 'dropping the kids off at the pool' has an entirely different meaning.
Bizarre equivalence that, "baby" and "STD".
Whatever was he thinking?
The context here is birth control, and the "punishment" that can result if it isn't available.
Obama probably meant "baby" as shorthand for unwanted pregnancy. I certainly interpreted it that way. Even so, I doubt most voters consider "unwanted pregnancy" and, say, AIDS as equivalent punishments.
Unfortunately, that's what Obama's parallel rhetorical structure implies.
It would be easy to make too much of this. He misspoke, that's all. Happens to everyone.
I don't think most teenage girls would consider gonorrhea as big of a deal as a pregnancy. He didn't specify AIDS, did he? Trying to compare a single thing to a group of diseases of varying severity doesn't logically work, so the implication is rather hard to accept.
What would you suggest, "I don't want my daughter to get an STD or have a baby at age 16"? Then they're grouped together, so I don't see the improvement. How about "I don't want my daughter to get an STD or have a baby at age 16, not that I'm saying having a child is as bad as AIDS, because someone out there might think I'm implying equivalence because I'm talking about two different things"? I think reasonable people can realize he's just talking about two results without comparing anything.
If he'd just said, as you suggested "I don't want my daughters exposed to an STD or unwanted pregnancy at age 16." I think he would have been fine.
But the repeated parallel sentences directly invite the interpretation that the punishments are on a similar level.
And "punishment" has strong moral connotations. It's the language of the religious right. Not his style.
Obama delivers a great prepared speech. If he'd written this down beforehand, I doubt he would have used the words he did.
"If he'd just said, as you suggested "I don't want my daughters exposed to an STD or unwanted pregnancy at age 16." I think he would have been fine."
Like I said though, it's just as easy to say "why is he lumping them together like that?". Any wording can be argued as "equating" the two if you really want. I agree he could have said "unwanted pregnancy" instead of "baby". As for "punished", I don't see that as particularly religious. Punishment is simply a negative consequence, and that concept is used in secular and liberal contexts.
Almost anything can be said better, but unless there's something that distinctly creates the wrong impression, it's not really noteworthy. I just don't see how it's a strong implication of equation.