Novak falsely suggested Obama was discussing abortion when he made "punished with a baby" comment
SUMMARY: In his column, Robert Novak wrote, "[Sen. Barack] Obama, while asserting that 'nobody is pro-abortion,' has said that if his two daughters 'make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby,' " falsely suggesting that Obama was discussing abortion when he said that if his two daughters were to "make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." However, as video of the campaign event at which Obama made his comments shows, he was not referring to abortion but was instead referring to sex education.
In his May 26 column, syndicated columnist Robert Novak falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama was discussing abortion when he said that if his two daughters were to "make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." Specifically, Novak wrote, "Obama, while asserting that 'nobody is pro-abortion,' has said that if his two daughters 'make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.' " However, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, and as CNN's video of the campaign event at which Obama made his comments shows, Obama was not referring to abortion during the remarks from which Novak lifted the "I don't want them punished with a baby" comment, but was instead referring to sex education. Additionally, CNN reported that Obama's comments were in response to "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."
From the March 29 edition of CNN's Ballot Bowl 2008, which reported on Obama's comments at a campaign event that day in Johnstown, Pennsylvania:
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.
From Novak's May 26 column:
Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, whose Roman Catholic archdiocese covers northeast Kansas, on May 9 called on Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to stop taking Communion until she disowns her support for the "serious moral evil" of abortion. That put the church in conflict with a rising star of the Democratic Party who is often described as a "moderate" and is perhaps the leading prospect to become Barack Obama's running mate.
Naumann also took Sebelius to task for her veto April 21 of a bill, passed by 2 to 1 margins in both houses of the Kansas Legislature, that would strengthen the state's ban on late-term abortions by authorizing private lawsuits against providers. Last year, she vetoed a bill requiring explicit medical reasons for a late abortion, and she vetoed other abortion legislation in 2006, 2005 and 2003.
Those positions are necessary for Democratic politicians to pass their party's pro-choice litmus test, but Sebelius's connection with abortion is more intimate. She is allied with the aggressive Kansas branch of Planned Parenthood in a bitter struggle with antiabortion activist District Attorney Phill Kline. There is substantial evidence she has been involved in what pro-life advocates term "laundering" abortion industry money for distribution to Kansas Democrats. Kansas is the fiercest state battleground in the abortion wars, making Kathleen Sebelius the national pro-choice poster girl.
[...]
In her 2006 abortion veto statement, Sebelius declared: "My Catholic faith teaches me that life is sacred. Personally, I believe abortion is wrong." Yet, a year later, Sebelius invited [George] Tiller and his staff to a party at the governor's mansion. She thanked Tiller for his generosity in helping to finance her election and Morrison's. Last May, Sebelius was featured at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in Kansas City.
Obama, while asserting that "nobody is pro-abortion," has said that if his two daughters "make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." Would Sebelius, an avowed Catholic, change her running mate's view that a baby is a punishment? When Naumann told the Kansas City Star this month that Sebelius must confess "scandalous behavior that has misled people into dangerous behavior," the governor's spokeswoman responded that "receiving Communion has not been a problem in the past for her." An answer came last week from Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, in his online column, reproving "verbal gymnastics, good alibis and pious talk about 'personal opposition' to killing unborn children."
Let's stick to the issue ...
Of course Obama was referring to abortion! He made his remark in responding to the issue of abstinence-only education (which he opposes). (Politico)
What "mistake" is Obama talking about? Getting pregnant!
What's the "punishment," according to Obama? A baby.
Got it?
MM is really being disingenuous here.
Not cool, MM. Not cool at all.
wz,
It looks to me like you are not following the reasoning my friend. It is really quite simple.
If one of Obama's daughter's makes a 'mistake' and the punishment is a 'baby', that means her sex education failed and she is 'punished' by getting pregnant.
If the daughter should not be punished by having a baby, that means the baby in the womb has to be terminated.
If one artificially terminates a pregnancy, that is an abortion.
Let's look at Shoes' statement again, AA:
Of course Obama was referring to abortion! He made his remark in responding to the issue of abstinence-only education (which he opposes).
That is akin to saying "Of course Obama was referring to apples! He made his remark in responding to the issue of oranges...."
NOW do you get it, AA????
No, the pregnancy is the punishment. Irresponsible sex is the mistake.
"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."
Teach them first about values and morals...the "mistake" is in that context. It's hard to argue that he means that getting pregnant is the "mistake" when he also says he doesn't want them punished with an STD. Do STDs result from pregnancy?
Brab,
When Obama says he does not want his girls punished by having a baby it can only mean getting pregnant. To put it another way, you can't be punished by having a baby unless you are pregnant.
As a side note, are you aware that During the first year of condom use the failure rate is 17.4% according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
So even if his daughters and their partners use a condom they still can get pregnant. Only then are the girls being 'punished by having a baby'.
I really don't get at all why you guys are arguing this issue? Obama is 100% in the pocket of the abortion rights groups. He is for abortion. There is no question about that. His voting record proves it.
His comments are such that they are easily construed as to favoring abortion, which he is on record as supporting. To argue otherwise is ignoring the elephant in the room.
Probablities in Perspective: Example using a method with a 15% annual failure rate
For unmarried minorities, the condom failure rate is 36.3 percent, and for unmarried Hispanics, the failure rate is as high as 44.5 percent. [Jones and Forrest, 1989, p. 105.]
http://www.alphacenter-sc.org/teenfacts.html
What would you call the 24% of Americans that believe that abortion should be legal "without any exceptions" and the 11% that believe it is ok even when "the woman is in the sixth month of pregnancy or later"?
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=119
It's all kinda beside the point, butt your use of probabilities is specious.
Specifically, you're assuming randomness when you assign the probability of condom failure from the first year to the following years.
Failure of condom use is not random. It's usually a failure on the part of the user(s). They fail to put the condom on at the appropriate time, or they occasionally have sex without condoms. Those are the 15% who allegedly have a failure during the first year. The other 85% are not prone to the same mechanisms of failure and thus they won't have the same failure rate.
But the main point is that, if one believes the stats given in the link you cite, the best way to improve the efficacy of birth control (condoms and other methods) is with education. Which is what Obama is in favor of.
But...that's not okay with you, is it? You have a problem with education, don't you?
"When Obama says he does not want his girls punished by having a baby it can only mean getting pregnant. To put it another way, you can't be punished by having a baby unless you are pregnant."
That doesn't mean the mistake is the pregnancy. From the context you can see that the mistake is irresponsible sex, since STDs are another punishment. So it's about prevention, not abortion. The whole speech is about education, so you can't "easily construe" what you're saying at all. You can dishonestly do it, which seems to be your goal.
The reason people are arguing it has nothing to do with what Obama's position is. Yes, he's pro-choice. But this comment was not referring to abortion. If you made some comment that people twisted to mean that you thought everyone should be forcefully converted to Christianity, I could tell you "I don't know why you're even arguing this...your history of posts shows that pro-Christian". It would really have nothing to do with your point being misconstrued, would it?
What "mistake" is Obama talking about? Getting pregnant!
Wrong...not using a condom or other protection against pregnancy. Are you really that thick or just pretending for effect?
Read Obama's entire quote:
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.
Not cool, MM. Not cool at all."
Just curious. do you have this site automatically add that to every one of your posts?
As far as Obama's comments, it stands to reason that his daughters would be punished because they didn't have the proper sexual education necessary to make informed choices. You are inherently punished if you are too ignorant to understand your own body.
So are you for abstinence only education? I'm against it, as well as most of the scientific community now that the 10 year studies have come out showing that not only is it not effective, it actually increases pregnancy percentages.
DB,
Can you show me the scientific consensus?
link
I couldn't find a free link to the general overview of the two independent studies, but go through the pages of news about abstinence only education and you will see time and again that it is ineffective.
If you're willing to pay $15 bucks for the info, try:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/17/2013
but I think you can get the picture.
DB,
Sorry. Your google search is not good enough. If you can't produce a link proving your point, I'm not going to look for you.
Translation:
You win, DB. AA can't refute anything you say, so he's going to claim victory and run away.
let me lay it out for you in black and white, Shoes. While the original questioner that day had challenged Obama to "stop all those abortions" (or words to that effect), Obama's answer (shown at the Politico link you provided) shows that he grasps the concept that this whole issue is very complex and cannot be solved by cut-and-dry solutions, such as making abortion illegal, as so many on the right want.
Here, for your benefit, is what Barack Obama said:
"This is a very difficult issue, and I understand sort of the passions on both sides of the issue," he said. "I have two precious daughters — they are miracles."
But politicians must trust women to make the right decisions for themselves, he said.
"This is an example where good people can disagree," the Illinois senator said. "The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option."
The exchange appeared to be prompted by Obama's earlier comments that he does not favor abstinence-only education, but rather comprehensive sexual education that includes information on abstinence and birth control.
"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first 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 age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
The subject was COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION, Shoes - NOT abortion. The questioner tried to narrow the focus, but as BArack Obama showed, you need to look at the whole picture. Which is someting that poor, unfortunate people like you appear to be incapable of doing.....
Achris,
The problem with comprehensive sex education is that by it's very nature it only gives lip service to abstinence.
To me it is like telling someone to obey the speed limit and then in the next breath, giving them a radar detector so they won't get caught if they do speed.
You can say all you want about not speeding, but the radar detector give-away effectively negates all that talk.
"The problem with comprehensive sex education is that by it's very nature it only gives lip service to abstinence. To me it is like telling someone to obey the speed limit and then in the next breath, giving them a radar detector so they won't get caught if they do speed. You can say all you want about not speeding, but the radar detector give-away effectively negates all that talk."
AA,
That is a fair assesment and I can respect that view although I will have to disagree. This is defnintely a complex issue but I believe that despite the causes we have to face the reality that American kids are having sex......everyday. I would support a curriculum in which abstinence is not only taught as the first option but praised as the responsible thing to do. On the other hand, it is foolish to think that abstinence only works. For whatever reason kids aren't learning these important things at home. They see sex as a fashionable and casual experience. They see it everyday on television, movies, in their music, etc. Really, it's a horrid place our society is now in. My grandkids watch this "Real World" on MTV. I watched it a few times (I was curious) and left wondering how many young pre-pubescent and pubescent kids see getting drunk and screwing what are essentially strangers as "cool". We should be able to agree that; kids are having sex... period. Therefore, it is a viable national health and safety issue for our society. So, while a curriculum which emphasizes abstinence as the best protection should be standard, it is imperative from a health standpoint that birth control and STD prevention be taught as well. Consequences should be emphasized but to deny the knowledge these kids need to stay healthy only serves to send out ignorant masses into the world. You can look at the national data on STD's and teenagers to see this is an all important health issue. You were a 16 year old boy once, how did that abstinence thing work for you?
Achris,
We agree on the media's failure and the permissive mores of society that lead children into experimenting in premarital sex at an astounding rate. I've posted it elsewhere but go take a look at the failure rates yourself. Condoms lead to a false sense that one can avoid pregnancy and std's by using them. People are kidding themselves if they think they are doing the right thing by promoting their use. Instead they are dooming a large number of children to unwanted pregnancies and stds.
Excellent post!
Christians always get the bad wrap for "ignoring science." The biggest blasphemy for a liberal is to preach abstinence. Their first reply is ...well, abstinence education doesn't work. Abstinence works 100%, 100% of the time. The problem is that liberals don't support the education of this fact with the same fervor as they have make fun of its advocates. Not only are we bombarded with sex in the media (no one's fault), we are constantly being told (mostly by liberals) that abstinence is something to be mocked. And they don't care that they do it either. If the result is a baby *cough* excuse me...a fetus (commonly mistaken for cancer by liberals), it's no big deal because there is nothing wrong with abortion. If the result is HIV...well, with modern medicine HIV isn't a death sentence anymore.
Yes, other methods should be taught too, but you are not solving the problem, you are just managing it. ONLY ABSTINENCE works 100%, 100% of the time. Handing out condoms to stop teen pregnancy is like handing out coffee to stop drunk driving.
"The biggest blasphemy for a liberal is to preach abstinence. Their first reply is ...well, abstinence education doesn't work. Abstinence works 100%, 100% of the time. The problem is that liberals don't support the education of this fact with the same fervor as they have make fun of its advocates. Not only are we bombarded with sex in the media (no one's fault), we are constantly being told (mostly by liberals) that abstinence is something to be mocked."
"Abstinence" and "abstinence education" aren't the same thing. Just because the former works doesn't mean that teaching it exclusively is effective. What's being mocked is the idea that you can tell teenagers not to do something they're obsessed with and that they won't, not the concept of abstinence itself. You're always going to have teenagers who do it anyway, and just preaching abstinence doesn't provide any protection when they ignore that advice. I believe this is exactly what Chris said in the post you said was "excellent".
As I've said before here, teenagers are less likely to rebel against the idea of protection than the idea of abstinence. The reason for this is that there's not as large of a disparity between the alternatives. "Sex vs. no sex" bears a tremendously larger difference than "protected sex vs. unprotected sex". There's a compromise there for rebellious and hormonal teenagers. Saying "don't have sex" seems ridiculous to many, while saying "don't have sex...but if you do then you need to protect yourself" comes off as much more reasonable and gives the adults a hell of a lot more credibility.
And even then abstinence is still encouraged since the risk factors of protective methods are also taught in comprehensive sex education.
AA,
Are you seriously saying that teens won't have sex if you keep telling them not to? I am guessing you don't want education about alcohol either, do you?
Fried,
One doesn't promote alcohol education by providing six packs of beer.
One doesn't promote alcohol education by providing six packs of beer.
And if you want to provide an EFFECTIVE sex ed program, you don't go with "abstinence only" Time and time again, it's been proven a dismal failure - just like so many other worthless conservative ideas.
AA,
You're right, but your analogy would require six escorts for the kids. What is taught, however, when drugs are brought up is why they are dangerous, not solely that they are bad, but rather their effects.
Kids will drink too, but the education there is far more effective.
AA. I'm guessing you still want your kid to wear a seatbelt. I would.
sorry about the infrequent posts. i know it's hard to have a dialogue with some one who posts every few days.
Shoes
You are right, of course BO was talking about abortion, and MM has no proof that he was not. They may wish it, but they can in now way prove it.
POV,
Could you please show the context that prove Obama's remarks dealt with abortion? MM showed the clip that the CNN anchor led in talking about HIV, etc. and it seems to contradict your theory.
....and it seems to contradict your theory.
Reality contradicts POV. :-)
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!
The "mistake" Obama was referring to was his daughter's decision to have sex at the wrong time and/or under the wrong circumstances (as a teenager and/or without protection). Conservative should applaud Obama's comments because I'm pretty sure he wants his daughters to wait until they are mature adults before they have sex. It's about personal responsibility.
And since he is a parent, I'm sure he doesn't think a baby is a punishment. But ask a teenage girl raising a baby if she thinks she has been "punished" and you will probably get a different answer. And it's not about being "punished," its about being "pushed" into responsibility before the person is ready.
If only a sleezebag like Robert Novak was willing to cover the context of words used!
Of course..... if Novak gave a damn about the right and decent thing.... he'd ask that he be punished for his part in the outing of a CIA Covert OP instead of being a paid for mouth piece for the right-wing!
Novak has no credibility and as far as I'm concerned, no right to be a journalists..... he is an embarrasment to his profession!
Novak has no credibility and as far as I'm concerned, no right to be a journalists..... he is an embarrasment to his profession!
Capt- I could not agree with you more. Well said
Bush would pardon him anyway.
I don't think that treason is pardonable.....
If the senator was discussing the different options to PREVENT pregnancy how can anyone twist it to mean he was talking about ENDING a pregnancy?
And Doris, the reason that Novak still walks among us, is that he is one of the undead.
If they were to put him in a cell, he'd turn into a bat and fly through the bars.
I wonder how many secret meetings Novak attends where the agenda is to trash and lie and destroy Obama.
Grover Norquist runs just such a meeting every Wednesday, distributing the GOP lies for the week ahead.
Grover Norquist runs just such a meeting every Wednesday, distributing the GOP lies for the week ahead.
This world would be a much better place if Grover Norquist were locked up in a rubber room somewhere, where he can't do any more damage to society.
Obviously, if people have the better information, they make better choices. Obama is right on the money. Abstinence only has shown to be ineffective.
For Novack to make this about abortion is just jounalistic flaming. But why would anybody think Bob Novack has any credibility left?
Julia,
I don't know if you noticed it, but contrary to your statement, abstinence is 100% effective. :-)
Actually if you practice abstinence it is 100% effective against unwanted pregnancies & STD's, which I'm sure is what AA meant, so AA is correct.
Of course not everyone does. Though we should be encouraging our kids to at least give it a try, instead of just throwing up our hands & saying the little darlings can't control themselves.
Jeter--
You're right, we should be teaching our kids to control themselves. Unfortunately, abstinence-only programs don't work; in fact, they have been shown to be LESS effective than fully educating kids. The fact is that we cannot PREVENT them from having sex, we can only PREPARE them for it--and that includes both teaching them self-control and the consequences of losing that control. I am not advocating promiscuity, but I definitely support sex education and teaching safe sex practices.
History Geek & Julia,
I'm in no way advocating for an abstinence only program, I strongly believe that any Sex-Ed include safe sex info. However, it is sad that we are including Middle-School age kids in this. What the hell happen to childhood?
I also don't go for school nurses handing out condoms or other contraceptives without parents ok.
I do think we need to seriously address the trend of the last dozen years or so of kids having sex younger & younger. Self control & moral standards seem to have vanished.
Society in general has degraded to the point in which young kids are engaging in sex as if it were the norm
Sadly Chris you have just hit the nail on the head.
And I certainly blame TV, movies etc for promoting a lot of society's problems. And I blame parents for not caring enough about their kids well-being & teaching them morals & values at home. Of course once kids are out of your sight, it becomes a struggle to keep them from falling prey to all sorts of dangerous behavior. You just hope you gave them some standards & values.
I don't know if things can ever be turned around. I just find it sad.
However, it is sad that we are including Middle-School age kids in this. What the hell happen to childhood?
You apply solutions where the problem is, not where you wish the problem were.
I'm probably way out in left field (pardon the pun) here, but to me, using condoms *is* responsible behaviour. Teaching sex education in schools *is* responsible behaviour. Families don't talk about it at home, so it's got to be taught somewhere. Abstinence, when practiced, is 100% effective, but it's silly to think that our teens won't engage in sexual activity. Biologically, our bodies are ready for sex at puberty. And parents, you're naive to think that your teenagers haven't at least thought about (if not engaged in) sexual activity. To me (and this is just my opinion), an "abstinence only" program goes against nature and biology. Mind you, I'm not advocating that our teens engage in sexual activity; but they should be given the tools to protect themselves when they do give in to their natural whims.
"Biologically, our bodies are ready for sex at puberty."
And that's the key point. The whole problem comes from society's transformation from agrarian/trade/labor to industrial/technological. When you could just learn to be a blacksmith like your father, it didn't really matter if you knocked up a girl at fourteen years old. But now you have high school and college if you want to make a decent living. So while the biology doesn't change, the advancement of technology has created an 8-year (at minimum) waiting period for your natural instincts to deal with. That's exactly why things like sex education are necessary, and moralistic finger-wagging isn't going to accomplish anything.
Julia,
I'd like to believe you. Do you have any links to your statistics.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/216628/new_study_proves_abstinence_only_education.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html
Well, if they can't control themselves, then shouldn't we give them the tools necessary to protect themselves? Not according to the GOP. Let them get pregnant and get an STD - we're still not going to teach them about birth control/condoms, etc.
Why do Republicans hate children so much?
If they can't control themselves?
Does this extend to other things as well?
They can't control wanting something in a store, so let them shop-lift.
They can't control their anger, so let them beat the snot out of each other.
They can't control their urge to want to drink, smoke or take drugs...so let's lower the drinking age, let them buy butts, & legalize marijuana.
Poor kids. No self control. So let them run wild....
Poor choice of words for FL, but I think what he was trying to say is that a sexual drive is biological...in other words, you can't control it. Or at least, the majority of the people can't control it. And when you are denied what is natural, that drive will bring itself about in other ways (the Catholic Church comes to mind...)
One has to wonder though, if God didn't want us to have sex until we are married, but you can't get married in the U.S. until you are at least 16 (in some states at least) then are we subverting God's will by not allowing children to marry at 11, 12 or 13? After all, biologically speaking, they are ready to reproduce. Just food for thought.
but I think what he was trying to say is that a sexual drive is biological...in other words, you can't control it
D, you may not be able to control the feelings BUT you don't have to act on them. That's what self-control is all about. I think it's important for kids to understand self-control, no matter whether it's sex or some other issue or desire.
And yeah I know most mature adult would naturally be able to practice self-control a heck of a lot better than a couple of horny 14 years olds, but that doesn't mean we simply shrug & say, "well what can we do?"
This is why any sex-ed program should emphasize self-control & abstinence rather than just handing out protection.
I agree, which is what comprehensive sex education means...emphasizing self-control and restraint, but "showing them the ropes" so that if they do choose to do it, they should at least have the knowledge to keep them safe. I mean, even if we tell children about this, there's no guarantee that they would even use that information. But knowledge is power, as the old saying goes.
Of course, this is only public education. Teaching your children as parents should be a priority as well. But when parents fail, and there's no alternative, society shoulders the costs in more orphaned children, greater rates of unwed teenage mothers on welfare, and children who are more likely to commit crimes.
,...They can't control their urge to want to drink, smoke or take drugs...so let's lower the drinking age, let them buy butts, & legalize marijuana. Poor kids. No self control. So let them run wild....
Classic straw man - you can do better than that.
I pity anyone who has sex with you. Equating sex to stealing and fighting is quite the eye-opener.
And since you mentioned it, but off topic, I don't think the drinking age should be lowered, but I do believe marijuana should be treated the same way as alcohol. I see little difference in these two drugs.
Fog
an interesting question, coming from the party that supports abortion on demand, for any reason. Why do you hate the unborn?
Why do you hate the unborn?
We don't. but we DO have a problem with the unthinking - such as yourself, POV.
"an interesting question, coming from the party that supports abortion on demand,"
I'm going to stop you right there. When has any Democrat, anywhere, advocated for "abortion on demand"?
That, my friends, is a GOP talking point that is disingenuous to the very complex issues of sexual reproduction and women's rights.
an interesting question, coming from the party that supports abortion on demand, for any reason.
There does not exist now, nor has there ever existed, "abortion on demand."
But keep spreading the manure, someday a flower might just show up.
Why do Republicans hate children so much?
It's not chidren per se that Republicans hate - just other people's children.
They love the fetus, but hate the child (until it becomes old enough to be eligible for military service, that is).
Yes - there IS that pasky little 18-year gap.......
>>Actually if you practice abstinence it is 100% effective against unwanted pregnancies & STD's, which I'm sure is what AA meant, so AA is correct.
And locking yourself in a room is 100% effective against being in a car crash but you are better off going out into the world knowing what to do.
Dave,
Don't worry. One can say typical birth control sex-education has also shown to be ineffective. How's that?
There have been numerous studies that show that abstinence only sex ed is indeed successful. Here's one:
Abstinence by Choice. Abstinence by Choice operates in 20 schools in the Little Rock area of Arkansas. The program targets 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students and reaches about 4,000 youths each year. A recent evaluation, involving a sample of nearly 1,000 students, shows that the program has been highly effective in changing the attitudes that are directly linked to early sexual activity. Moreover, the program reduced the sexual activity rates of girls by approximately 40 percent (from 10.2 percent to 5.9 percent) and the rate for boys by approximately 30 percent (from 22.8 percent to 15.8 percent) when compared with similar students who had not been exposed to the program. (The sexual activity rate of students in the program was compared with the rate of sexual activity among control students in the same grade in the same schools prior to the commencement of the program.)
Stan E. Weed, Title V Abstinence Education Programs: Phase I Interim Evaluation Report to Arkansas Department of Health, Institute for Research and Evaluation, October 15, 2001. The effects of the program in reducing the onset of sexual activity were statistically significant at the 98 percent confidence level. (Data on statistical significance are not currently included in the written report but were provided separately to the author by the evaluator, Dr. Stan Weed.)During President Bush’s tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females.43 Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states.44 http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinenceonly-education.html
See - I posted part of the web page because as you said before, one cannot debate a website.
Well Fog, as far as Bush's political career,
This is one of his successes.
Fog,
Thanks for the link.
I tried to follow it to the study, but the links your link gave, did not support it. At least not so I could find it.
Dave,
My evidence is not anecdotal just as Fog's is not. They are studies. I could provide many, many more in support of my point and will do so if challenged.
At this point I would argue that your claim about "most doctors" is anecdotal. Can you provide me with any proof supporting your claim?
AA,
An anecdote is a specific example given to support a more general point, which is what you offered. what I posted was an assertion, which as you pointed out I did not prove. The assertion I made probably cannot be absolutely proven, however evidence for it is that professional societies such as the AMA do not support abstinence only programs. As for "studies", I am willing to bet that the preponderance of them do not support your point of view.
The failure of abstinence-only education comes when kids who have been taught nothing about protecting themselves give in to their biological urges. Perhaps fewer of the sample will fall prey to that temptation, but those that do are far more likely to suffer consequences than those that have been more thoroughly educated.
There were still 6% of girls and 15% of boys from this one program sample that were presumably more vulnerable than more widely-educated peers.
There is an epidemic out there that can be halted. We've got 40% of the public with herpes, and 30% of females under 25 infected with the human papillomavirus, which causes most cervical cancers. So why would we say, "Use a condom" when HPV--the number one sexually transmitted disease--is not prevented by using a condom?
If you asked 100 doctors about the best way to prevent STDs, they would advise people not to have sex until they're in a married, monogamous relationship. So why should the AMA's policy be less than the best advice you can give people?
Dr. Tom Coburn, a family physician from Muskogee, Okla., is a Republican member of Congress.
There's an expert medical opinion for you: sluts get cancer. I wonder whether Dr. Coburn diagnosed his patients by watching prerecorded videos, as Dr. Bill Frist so notoriously did with Terri Schiavo, or whether he actually required them to come in for colposcopy and a biopsy. As Coburn himself said about Congress (even before he developed his strange obsession with teenage lesbianism), "There are not many normal people up here" - and that's one diagnosis of his with which I heartily concur."
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/4/11/15222/1497
Mary,
Cervical cancer is not considered to be hereditary. It's caused by certain types of a common virus, specifically the human pappillomavirus (HPV).
When a woman becomes infected with certain “high-risk” types of HPV (such as HPV Types 16 and 18) and her body does not clear the infection, abnormal cells can develop in the lining of her cervix. If these abnormal cells are not discovered early, they can become cervical precancer and then cancer. In most cases, this process can take a number of years, although in rare instances it can happen within a year.
Dr. Tom Coburn, a family physician from Muskogee, Okla., is a Republican member of Congress.
And to use a term George W. Bush used to refer to NY Times reporter Adam Clymer, Dr. Tom Coburn is also a "world-class a-hole".
I don't know if you noticed it, but contrary to your statement, abstinence is 100% effective. :-)
If it was, it's a shame your parents didn't practice it, AA. And here's a link to a story that shows that "abstinence-only" sex ed programs are (for the most part) a dismal failure - just like conservatism:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/
wz,
Typical liberal humor. ;-)
Didn't say anything about you being overly happy - just that you seem to be hung up on this Christie guy!
No - if I were, I'd mention it in each and every thread here on MMFA. I only mention it in threads about Rush Limbaugh because it shows how the "Great American Truth Detector" can't even tell the truth about himself.
That being said, I will not discuss it again until the next Rush-related thread.
WZ
No, we are simply hoping that your genes are never passed down to another generation.
WZ
No, we are simply hoping that your genes are never passed down to another generation.
Too late, POV. I have a son who will be 33 this Sunday and a daughter who is 31. And unlike you, I've taught them to learn the facts and think for themselves - that's why they've both become liberals like dear old dad.
WZ
I do not support abortion, but in your case, it should be retroactive. Lets just hope you had yourself fixed long ago.
Actually, POV, I had a vasectomy in 1993. But you'll be sad to learn that my son was born in 1975, and my daughter in 1976.
All we can hope for then is that the apple fell farrrrrr from the tree.
At least WZ posts as if his family tree had branches.
wz,
Congratulations. I have been blessed with four. Two were conceived by unwed teens and entrusted to us. They are the light of my life!
wz,
Your link does not support your contention at all. You should have read it.
I found no link to any study that supported your claim. It only stated the opinion of one doctor who advocated comprehensive sex ed and that a group of pediatric physicians agreed.
Then try this one, AA. I'll even save you the suspense by copying the conclusion here:
CONCLUSION
Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth's willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth exposed to the programs or any evidence of success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among participants.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/
wz,
I've seen that link. I do not recall seeing where they got their statistics. The website is incredibly biased in favor of comprehensive sex ed.
A 2001 evaluation of the effectiveness of the virginity pledge movement using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health finds that virginity pledge programs are highly effective in helping adolescents to delay sexual activity. According to the authors of the study:
The study, based on a sample of more than 5,000 students, concludes that taking a virginity pledge reduces by one-third the probability that an adolescent will begin sexual activity compared with other adolescents of the same gender and age, after controlling for a host of other factors linked to sexual activity rates such as physical maturity, parental disapproval of sexual activity, school achievement, and race. When taking a virginity pledge is combined with strong parental disapproval of sexual activity, the probability of initiation of sexual activity is reduced by 75 percent or more.
"The findings indicate that making a private pledge or promise to oneself to wait to have sexual intercourse until one is older reduces the likelihood that adolescents will engage in sexual intercourse and oral sex. The effect persists even when controlling for socio-demographic variables. Making a formal pledge did not appear to have an effect on sexual behavior.
Conclusions
The findings raise questions about the effectiveness of formal virginity pledges in preventing adolescent sexual behavior. The findings suggest that sexual health programs may be more effective if they encourage young people to make a personal commitment to delay the onset of sex, foster social norms supportive of delaying sex, and raise awareness of how early sexual initiation may threaten future plans."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1949026
Yes, I found them there. I do not see how your post negates anything from that study. Here is another:
Family Accountability Communicating Teen Sexuality (FACTS). An evaluation performed for the national Title XX abstinence program examined the effectiveness of the Family Accountability Communicating Teen Sexuality abstinence program in reducing teen sexual activity. The evaluation assessed the FACTS program by comparing a sample of students who participated in the program with a group of comparable students in separate control schools who did not participate in the program. The experimental and control students together comprised a sample of 308 students. The evaluation found the FACTS program to be highly effective in delaying the onset of sexual activity. Students who participated in the program were 30 percent to 50 percent less likely to commence sexual activity than were those who did not participate.
Stan E. Weed, FACTS Project: Year End Evaluation Report, 1993-1994, prepared for the Office of Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Programs.wz,
I take back my comment about the sources on that website. They are there. and your link lists 23 references.
Wait, you just said above that WZ's link is incredibly biased in favor of comprehensive sex education, but then linked to a site which is incredibly biased in favor of "abstinence only" and "virginity pledges"? Are you asserting that your link is OK, but WZ's isn't? If so, why?
It must be because the abstinence only folks are more closely aligned with Jeeeezus. Take your religion out of my child's classroom. Keep your church out of politics - or start paying taxes.
It is willful denial to try to excuse Obama's comment as only talking about sex-education considering his 100% voting record rating and endorsement by NARAL.
AA,
I am not sure of what you mean. Just because Obama has a high NARAL rating does not mean that this comment wasn't made about sexual education. How do you equate the NARAL rating with this comment?
Obama offers the only effective way to reduce abortions...
Through better sex education and greatly improved access to contraceptives, especially for poor woman who now are not even allowed to see a doctor.
Perhaps Grampy--along with his media enablers--can demogogue this issue and get some votes from some far-right wingnuts, but ultimately he has nothing to offer.
There were several hundred thousand back alley abortions a year before Roe became law. Do we really want to go back to that?
8 wrote, "...especially for poor woman who now are not even allowed to see a doctor."
Who's demagoguing? You say poor women are prevented from seeking medical help? Please show me where that is happening.
It is willful denial to try to excuse Obama's comment as only talking about sex-education considering his 100% voting record rating and endorsement by NARAL.
So - using your "logic", anytime Barack Obama speaks - regardless of the issue at hand - he's talking about ABORTION?????
Pack it in, AA. You're more wrong today than usual.....
wz,
One should not throw stones if one lives in latex houses. So far you are batting zero. Thanks for the discussion.
You're so deep in denail you can't even see how wrong you are, AA. About virtually everything.
Teaching abstinence is a long way from effective. One Billion tax dollars per year is spent on teenage mothers just in texas.
In comparison with Canada and Europe an American teenager is: X5 more likely to have a baby,X7 more likely to have an abortion,X70 more likely to have gonorrhea,X5 more likely to have HIV/AIDS.
Unless the neocon plan to is to create more failed families along with the above and more sexual guilt. I'd call it a failure, an expensive socially crippling failure. 50 mil goes to several organizations who's only message is, keep the baby Faith.
Teaching abstinence is a long way from effective. One Billion tax dollars per year is spent on teenage mothers just in texas.
Know what they call the graduates of "abstinence-only" sex ed programs? "Parents".
There are things in this life that are personal... and by personal, I don't mean private none of your business (although that often also applies to personal things), but more like personal, as in each and every person has different circumstances in life, and different life plans: and the circumstances of our lives are very particular, and we don't discuss these things generally so, as though we were discussing matters of Public or National Policy: but we discuss these things with the intimate details of our own lives included... that's what I mean by personal (and a lot of times when strangers butt in, then it maybe becomes a private none of your business kind of thing too).
Anyway, there are lots of topics and subject matter that have little or nothing to do with Public or National Policy: finding out that you or a loved one wasn't careful enough, or maybe wasn't careful at all (like in a Momentary Lapse of Reason, where all thoughts of consequences go out the window of the car whose backseat you're in, or more likely the frontseat, reclined).
This stuff has little or nothing to do with Public Policy... absolutely nothing at all to do with National Policy that I know of... because in the moment that it's happening, all thoughts of Public Policy and National Policy and all the Departments and Agencies of all the Jurisdictions of Government, they're all so far away as to not enter the mind in any way... and after the careless moment, it's really too late.
It's so personal, it seems to involve (in most cases that I know of) simply people who are careless, and really don't care at all, about the consequences of what they're doing... because if they did, they'd still do it, but wouldn't have to worry later on, because they wouldn't be in trouble... anyway, highly personal stuff, and I have no real idea why so many politicians (most of them Democrats it seems) feel compelled to give their opinion in public, on something that does not involve National Policy in the least, or even Public Policy either.
Not in total agreement there Dem...
It seems that public policy could at least make it less likely that the consequence (unintended pregnacy) becomes a reality. If access to contraceptives was vastly improved, maybe the "consequences" could be reduced.
Really,
I didn't know you could get birth control pills at the local bar, or at the local convenience store.
I tend to agree that Obama wasn't talking about abortion. However in what is becomming a long list of speaking gaffs he alludes to it with his poorly chosen words. A baby is not a "punishment" for sex, it is the natural result of the act.
Dems,
Whether you agree or disagree about something being a gaffe, at least you are honest enough to note that Obama is not talking about abortion here. Thank you!
The rest of us who appreciate full context can see quite easily the meaning of the Senator's statement.
Dems,
Are we allowed to infera politician's true meaning based on a "poor choice of words?" If so, what do you make of this:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
—Bush addressing a group of witnesses at the signing of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 in Washington, DC on Aug. 4."
Dems,
As I stated earlier, I don't see why so many here are so intent on making Obama's words not mean what he said.
He is 100% for abortion rights. There is no doubt about it. Saying he doesn't want his girls 'punished by having a baby' means just that. It can include contraceptive education, but it isn't a given. It is a given that he means he doesn't want his girls pregnant and punished by having a baby.
Any reasonable reading, knowing Obama's stance on abortion, shows Obama included abortion in his Kerryesqe manipulation of language.
The only defense by Obama supporters is plausible denial. They have to exclude the obvious meaning in order to get to the less obvious.
AA,
How are you making the leap from sex education to abortion here? Novak was flat lying when he said this quote was about abortion. Where does McCain stand on this today? Will he change tomorrow?
So your argument is basically that he talks about education and prevention for the entire time, and talks about STDs directly after the comment in question (which have nothing to do with abortion), and that the only reasonable conclusion is that he was talking about abortion. He just threw that in there even though it's a different subject from everything around it, and the only evidence of this is that he also supports abortion rights.
I don't think you can honestly believe that's a valid argument. If you can explain how the context is consistent with the subject of abortion, please do so. Otherwise the obvious meaning of the context is what determines the meaning of his words, just as comprehension of language always works.
Brab,
Obama simply said what he was thinking. If he were only talking about birth control education, he would have said something like not wanting his girls to be punished by the possibility of getting pregnant. By saying he doesn't want them punished with a baby, he is clearly going beyond birth control and making a statement about abortion. That is not so hard to figure out.
You can see Obama's contempt for the potential baby by referring to it as a punishment. Getting pregnant is not a punishment, it is an outcome of a choice one makes. However Obama is clear that he devalues the life of the baby and assigns it a negative connotation in order to make the case for abortion while still being a politician and avoiding the use of the word.
You're still ignoring the context. He's not just talking about unwanted pregnancies, he's talking about STDs as well. That (along with the clearly-stated comments about education) show it's about prevention, not abortion. Don't give me "well he would have said...". If he was talking about abortion, he wouldn't be saying so much about education and prevention, period. The context matters, and I don't think you can honestly argue otherwise.
As far as "punishment", you seem to be trying to have it both ways. You like to say that abortion is a traumatic experience, but obviously having a baby is a life-altering experience as well. Either way, it's a result that's far out of proportion to the moral violation of premarital sex. Really, are you arguing that to a sixteen year-old girl a pregnancy isn't punishment no matter what comes of it? That's completely consistent with what Obama said, and so it doesn't advocate abortion whatsoever.
Incidentally, if we want to take your logic and apply it to McCain, then we can say that he wants our troops to be fighting for a hundred years. Never mind that he qualified the conditions of their presence in Iraq, since he is on record as supporting the war his comments can easily be construed to mean flag-draped coffins for a century. Really, if this is the sort of game you want to play with the candidates' words, you can bet McCain's going to lose that particular trade-off in the eyes of the electorate. Tread wisely.
The rest of us who appreciate full context can see quite easily the meaning of the Senator's statement.
And those who cannot grasp the concept of full concept are called "conservatives".
Most liberals have no regard whatsoever for the unborn, but they at least try to hide it with slogans.
How about a little logic, RINO? Liberals are FOR comprehensive sex education, which LIMITS unwanted pregnancies (and STD's) and therefore LOWERS the number of abortions.
Most conservatives whine and cry about how terrible all the abortions are, but do NOTHING to try to reduce them except to deny women the right to govern their own bodies.
RINO wrote:
>>Sex education accomplishes nothing, period. The government shouldn't spend one dime on sex education. That's not the proper role of government. The public schools should teach the basic subjects of math, reading, science, and english. Sex education should be solely left up to parents. It's scary what the public schools are trying to shove down our throats these days.
How rich. RINO decides to come on the boards and rant. Is this the same RINO who lied right through his teeth about the Supreme Court not outlawing third trimester abortions? Is this the same RINO who cheered on the Iraq war, ridiculed opponents of it, and is now coming on to lecture us about the value of life? Your fricken war, RINO, cost the lives of probably 100,000 Iraqis, Iraqis who would be living if there was no Iraq war. So please stop with the crap about how every baby is a gift from God.
The government is spending a hefty sum on abstinence only education. Do you want that funding from the government stopped as well, Rino? But you are correct that Obama is honest. Too bad you aren't.
It worked a lot better when the federal government was out of it.
How so?
Local communities know the needs of their schools better than the federal government. That's why I'm saying it should be up to them to fund the schools and run them. It's not a hard concept to figure out. You shouldn't be confused.
If the federal government didn't spend any money on education, they could give the American people more of their own money back. The American people would then spend the money and stimulate the economy. Having a strong economy would bring in much more tax revenue for the states which they could use on improving education.
He tied his opposition to the Iraq War to fiscal conservatism which really convinced me
Well, yippy-i-ay - you've finally got it. Believe it or not, since the dawn of civilization, war actually costs money! Too bad your fellow repubs were so scared of the Arabs that they supported this grand theft of the federal treasury. Also, fiscal conservatism is not a plank of the current Republican Party.
I'm glad you came around RH, I just wish you would have in 2004.
War opponents:"This war is based on lies, it's distracting us from fighting actual terrorists, we're involved in a civil war, we're giving terrorists recruitment ammunition, and tens upon tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children have died because of it."
RH:"I don't believe any of that, and you loony liberals can't make me."
Ron Paul:"This war is not fiscally conservative."
RH:"Good point, I will now oppose the war."
Sex education accomplishes nothing, period.
Just about as much as reading comprehension education did for you.
It just shows how quickly re-puke-licans look for ways to...
twist and distort. They're afraid of any real debate.
Only people who control the media would attempt to stoop to this level.
RH,
Your rhetoric is bordering on the extreme and totally uncalled for! I guess a similar statement would be that conservatives want to put our soldiers in harm's way and get them killed due to lack of body armor. After all, Rumsfeld said "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want." By your logic, all conservatives feel this way and only Rumsfeld had the decency to say it.
Do you think a 16-year old girl having a baby is a wonderful thing?
RINO wrote:
>>A baby is a gift from God. That was my point. Everything happens for a reason
That is just dogma. Since I am not a Christian, I don't see why I should simply dismiss it. Can you make an argument without having to bring your religious beliefs into it?
RH,
I am hoping you are able to spread your optimism to those people who have lost sons and daughters to murder, rape victims, those who have lost their fetuses to miscarriages etc. Everything does happen for a reason, but there is not a "good" or "redeeming" reason for everything and to think that we, as humans, know the "reason" for things is unreasonable. And choices are what makes us human. No human on the planet goes through life reacting to what happens and thinking there is a reason for every action that happens to them.
For example, you will never convince me there was a good reason that a friend of mine's dad killed his mom and then killed himself. You will never convince me that there was a reason that a friend of mine lost his sister to leukemia, his mother to cancer and his dad to suicide within 5 years.
I would also love to know the "reason" for having the ailments I have, most without causing them.
God knows that an abortion will happen in advance, but that doesn't mean that he approves of it. God allows bad things to happen because sin entered the world when Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Sin is always going to be around because of that, but God still expects us to do the right thing and obey the Bible.
But anyway, I agree with you that we should base our laws on the Constitution and not the Bible. I just brought up the biblical angle because Fried responded to me, and he has told me that he's a Christian. But as a purely secular argument I would say that our country would be better off if we wouldn't have killed 43 million human beings. We would have more tax payers paying into the government, and we would have more people paying into the social security system. Social security would probably be solvent if we had all those extra people.
We would have more tax payers paying into the government, and we would have more people paying into the social security system. Social security would probably be solvent if we had all those extra people.
I'd sure like to know how your brain works. "Those extra people?". You can't be serious. Tell me where the 43 million jobs are for these "extra people"?
Please find me a citation that proves that abortions are more likely to kill liberals than conservatives? I wasn't aware that political thought was determined in-utero. And yeah, that is sarcasm. :/
I am no longer amused, RH...you haven't answered my pointed questions...and you continue to insult people based on some belief that being progressive in thought leads to being an uncaring, heartless person while being conservative must provide an aura of beneficient light.
That is BS.
So again, how dare you? How dare you tell me that since I'm liberal I don't care for unborn babies? How dare you argue that abortion is wrong while doing nothing to stop it AND allowing no one else to develop the tools they need to prevent pregnancy? Have you asked your mother or wife about their pregnancies? Have you considered that there is no way t understand the effort it takes to bring a healthy, happy, loved baby into the world?
You're right, RH, it doesn't make any sense because I'm not looking at this as a black or white issues with only a right and wrong answer. I;m seeing that there is a whole wide grey area in there that leads me to step back and say loud and clear that I DON'T have all of the answers for all of the people. I suffer the loss of the baby in the womb of the rape victim, and I'm sure not going to tell her that she has to carry that baby to term, then raise that baby or put it up for adoption. But you are willing to not only make that choice but make it law. And you are willing to make sure that kids have no access to a rigorous, scientific education in sexuality unless their parents happen to be researchers in sex ed.
RH, you're telling me that you've got all of the right answers and there is no wiggle room, yet it seems that you've never met a person who was involved in an abortion nor have you ever made the decision to help someone avoid that choice and come out the other side with a happy, healthy baby. What gives? How can you know those answers without any experience whatsoever?
Dogma is bad, RH, it blinds people to realities and experiences.
No, I'm not pro-abortion, no one is. But neither will I support forcing women to bring babies into the world that they are incapable of caring for. That is why I want as much education as possible to minimize unplanned pregnancies. And that is why I want this discussion to be a civil debate where we can all see that we share a reall simple common ground..."Abortion should be safe, legal and rare."
No RH, the basic difference between regressives and progressives is the black & white, shades of grey thing.
The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives believe in smaller government, states rights, limits on government spending, and low taxes. Liberals believe that government must act to inform & protect where citizens can not possible act on their own (unions, FDA, FCC, FAA, USDA, FEMA), states rights, limits on government spending and fair taxes. Wow...not too different.
RH, I think you're taking a religious stance and applying it to a political argument, then devolvong that stance into an ideology that simply does not exist. I may be wrong though...I'm willing to be proven wrong.
So, does that rape victim have to carry the baby to term? Then raise it if adoption is not an option? And who is there to support her if she is unable to work for a month or two? Who helps her through if she can't keep her job? Let's go, RH, let's make this about a specific person instead of the vaporous "someone" and you tell me how this is all going to work...
Now you're just being ridiculous. Most conservatives oppose abortion rights. Can you argue otherwise?
As for rape, it's a terrible thing, but I don't believe that the baby should be punished for the horrible actions of the rapist. The woman can still give her baby up for adoption. The woman is NEVER forced to keep her baby.
As for rape, it's a terrible thing, but I don't believe that the baby should be punished for the horrible actions of the rapist.
You keep on calling it a baby and it's not.
Loonz,
Will you agree to the term, "partial birth abortion"?
Personally I will not stipulate that the baby in the womb is not a baby. You can call it whatever you like, but it is a human being just like you and me. The only difference is it is much younger. Life begins at conception. Anything else is an arbitrary date set for ideological purposes.
Will you agree to the term, "partial birth abortion"?
No. It does not exist. The correct medical term is "intact dilation and extraction," and it is a medical decision by physician and patient.
RH, answer the question...how are you going to tell a woman that she has to do everything a mother must do to give her baby the best chance at a healthy, happy birth? You're dancing past that and I think, based on your stated case that there should be no abortions, you've got to figure this one out and offer a solution.
Maybe sex ed can include a section of study on the growth of the baby from zygote to birth and the huge responsibility on the mother to eat, sleep, exercise and behave in a healthy way to give that baby the best chances.
DTF,
Lets assume your mother has had comprehensive sex education, did everything right, but at some point the condom failed, (as it does in around 15% of the cases over a year's time.)
How does that change your scenario? Is it now morally acceptable for that mother to abort her baby even though she is poor?
Lets change the scenario, lets say the baby is born and two years later the mother finds herself poor and single. She no longer wants the child. Is it okay now for her to kill her child or if she does is she considered a monster?
What justifies killing the unborn baby in the first instance but not in the second?
The difference is that a potential life is not a life. Moral absolutists want to equate the two, but they're simply not the same thing.
The right to life depends on the will of the parents and society in general. Before a certain point a fetus has no individual rights, so it could be aborted. After that point (the third trimester, which could be ratcheted back to the second trimester I think), the parents and society have made a commitment to the welfare of the child. From that point, birth should be guaranteed (barring any severe health issues), which guarantees rights as a citizen. This is why there's a tremendous difference between an abortion (which is a woman's right) and leaving a baby in a dumpster (which is unspeakably atrocious). From the point of commitment and on society acts on the child's behalf, enforcing its rights.
First, AA, check your stats...I think it is closer to a 2% failure rate when condoms are used correctly and faithfully over the course of a year, Now, if your hypothetical woman had comprehensive sex ed she might also be aware that she's only fertile for a few days, maybe even a few hours, every menstrual cycle. Might make sense to stay away from boys during those days/hours?
And as to your scenario...can you please realize that no one in the discussion is pro-abortion? Neither woman SHOULD have an abortion, and I hope neither do, but if a woman is unable to carry a child to term for any of the reasons I've outlined before, she should have that option. Because I prefer that horrid choice to your horrid choice of neglect or abuse.
Safe, legal and RARE. Education can help make this a rare decision.
Your statistic is misleading. Most stats I've seen distinguish between 'perfect use' and 'typical use'. I am using the stats associated with typical use as that is what would typically happen. :-) I've seen some statistics that say the typical failure rate among certain minorities is closer to 30%.
That being said your statistics of 2% are alarming enough as it is. The two percent reflect that in a years time, with perfect technique, 1 out of 50 females engaging in intercourse will get pregnant.
How many people would choose to do something for fun if the statistics told them that even taking precautions perfectly one out of 50 would die each year? Would you do something voluntary if you knew your chances of dying were that high? Would you allow your daughter to engage in this activity?
Now say that the typical person engaging in this fun activity would have a one out of seven chance of dying. Would you be so gung ho on engaging in that behavior?
Of course we are not talking here about the chances of dying but the chance of getting pregnant.
You may feel different but even the 2% failure rate is way too high to promote it as "safe sex". It is very misleading.
OK, AA, I'll accept that typical use and perfect use are two different things...though I have to say that I don't know what is difficult about installing a condom. :)
But let's go to the second point...if your comprehensive sex ed included information on the actual fertility timing, don't you think we'd drop unplanned pregnancy rates even farther?
More education = more power...and the more power kids have, the better choices they'll be able to make.
Remember AA, it does take two to tango, so how about getting the male involved in this equation edumacated, too?
I agree with your premise...and from what I remember of sex ed way back when the earth was cooling, they told us point blank that condoms were not a "get out of pregnancy free" card. So, knowing that kids will engage in sex, doesn't it make sense to give them as much info as possible?
And "safe sex" shouldn't be painted as condoms-only, try some spermicidal lube, maybe birth-control pills (though I'm not a fan - not that they apply to me), a condom and some common-sense and you're pretty darn safe from STDs and pregnancy.
As for rape, it's a terrible thing, but I don't believe that the baby should be punished for the horrible actions of the rapist.
WHAT ABOUT THE WOMAN?
It's perfectly OK to punish the woman by forcing her to have her rapist's baby. It's OK to force a woman to relive every day the horror of her rape.
What rights does a woman have over her body in your world Rino?
RH, your holding two incompatible thoughts here...the woman can do whatever she wants with her body, unless she is pregnant in which case she must do as you want.
Now once again, since I know that your goal is to have women carry all pregnancies to term, how do you propose to ensure that all of the pregnant women make the very best health choices during their pregnancies so that the babies have the very best chance at a health & happy life? How are you going to do that? How will you fund that? How will you enforce that?
OK, RH, I do understand, but you're telling me that rape victims must carry babies to term, that incest victims must carry babies to term, and you're offering precious little support to the women involved here. "Eat right and take care of yourself, but no abortion for you. BTW, if you lose your job, don't come crying to me." Isn't that kind of harsh?
Do you agree that we all want abortion to be a rare occurrence? So now you're prosecuting the doctors, giving the women in the instances I've cited no recourse but to carry babies to term. No who supports them? They are the victims of a crime, in one case a crime committed by a family member, so who is there to help? We have to hope that they have a good support system? A good job? Good health care? Good food? RH, what if they don't? What if they don't care about the baby you're asking them to carry to term? What if that baby is neglected or abused? Now the mother is in jail next to the doctor and the baby is left to fend for itself in foster care? Come on RH, tell me how we handle these situations that you can darn well expect to happen?
"What's harsh is killing a living, breathing human being. The situations that you described are terrible harsh, but NOTHING justifies murdering an innocent human being."
And this is where the folly of moral absolutism rears its ugly head.
First, the value of life is dependent on the acceptance of the parents and society, as I said earlier. A month-old fetus conceived from rape or incest has no value to the mother in most cases. We decry harm to children because the parents have made an emotional and financial commitment through the act of birth, and society grants rights as citizens at that point. It's much like the equivalence of frozen embryos and three-year old children. There's no comparison because for the former there are no emotional bonds, nobody has made any commitments to them, they aren't wanted, they're not recognized by society. So as far as secular interests are concerned a potential life is not an "innocent human being" who is the victim of a great injustice. It becomes a human being with rights when society and the parents make that commitment, not a moment sooner.
Second, I suppose the religious theory is that God wanted a child to be born out of incest or rape as part of his "grand design". I would think they would have to perform some great function in order to justify the rape or incest that God made happen, but that's just me. And then if the fetus is aborted then that innocent soul spends eternity burning in hell. The mind boggles. If you're going to worship a deity that has an innocent woman raped for his purposes, then either forces that woman to give birth or sends the aborted soul to hell, you might as well hide in your basement and pray all day long. That's the work of an insane and vindictive God, not a benevolent one who loves all his children. Since his rules and actions make absolutely no sense to us you can't possibly know what is right and what is wrong anymore, and as far as you know if you step on a worm outside he might smite you on the spot.
And if the aborted soul doesn't go to hell, what's the problem? Either it comes back into a better situation, or it goes to heaven, either way not a rationale to force a rape or incest victim to come to term with the pregnancy. And if God didn't cause the rape or incest to happen (although I thought everything happened for a reason) then why would he not understand and forgive the woman in such circumstances? Does God not have any sense of fair judgment, living instead by a strict set of rules imposed by himself and which he is incapable of evaluating or compromising under any conditions?
Third, what about miscarriages and stillbirths? If God values all potential life and wants it protected, then why does he allow these potential lives to end? Isn't that murder on his part? So don't you dare murder a "living human being" for the sake of the emotional well-being of a rape victim, but God can randomly kill off any number of wanted lives that were to be born to decent, churchgoing women, and that somehow makes sense. And what's the alternative? God isn't in control of the miscarriages? Or he doesn't care about potential life at all? If he doesn't care about people losing pregnancies they wanted, then why care about terminating one that is unwanted and psychologically harmful to boot? And what happens to the souls of the stillborn babies, by the way? It does matter, since once you go past the realm of the secular any arguments about this sort of thing can only be about the "soul" of the potential life. Otherwise it's just genetic material, which like Jay Leno said for Doritos, "we'll make more".
In any event, religious theorizing is not any grounds for societal policy and practice. We can see the problem with forcing a rape or incest victim to give birth, and worrying about the possible repercussions from a theoretical supernatural force doesn't trump those concerns. That's saying your personal beliefs are more important than a rape victim's well-being, which is atrocious.
The only role the government should have in abortion is to prosecute the doctor's who perform them.
Not so fast my confused friend, not until Roe is overturned. Last I looked its still the law of the land. But overturning Roe has been the religious nutcases wet dream for 7+ years and guess what - it hasn't happened yet and it never will. You know, RINO, you can't prosecute those baby killers but you can murder them - it's been done by people who think like you.
I don't condone violence against abortion doctors. And of course I was talking about a post Roe society. I was talking about what I think should be done if Roe is ever overturned. And if Roe will never be overturned, then why are liberal Senators so concerned about having conservative judges on the Supreme Court?
Pearlene,
The baby is as much a victim of the rape as the mother. Why do you choose killing the victim for the sins of the father?
Yes the mother would have 9 months of 'confinement' during the pregnancy in order to save the baby's life. However after the nine months, the mother can give the child up for adoption if she chooses.
Many victims of crime carry the scars of the crime for the rest of their lives. Some are disfigured or maimed. As sad as it is, nobody suggests killing the victim in order to spare them reliving the crime.
My mom is 100% pro life.
So, how do you "pro-lifers" feel about the death penalty?
I believe that the GOP is "pro-birth" only because it is politically expedient to their religious base, and cares nothing about any child until they are old enough to be sent away to be killed.
Many daughters of the stridently "pro-life" have been sent away for "emergency appendectomies."
RH,
No one here wants the guilty to get off easy. I suppose you are for the death penalty for each and every one of the jurors and the prosecutor if an innocent man is put to death, eh? Your logic on this thread is quite amazing. Liberals do not want more abortions. Liberals want all children, not just children who come from two-parent, educated homes, armed with enough education to make good decisions.
Are you going to market a shirt that says "Rape creates miracles?" Of course my example is extreme, but if every pregnancy is a miracle, it fits.
"Are you going to market a shirt that says "Rape creates miracles?" Of course my example is extreme, but if every pregnancy is a miracle, it fits."
That is just perfect. I love it.
Also it should be noted that this rationale that a pregnancy from rape is sacred validates the act of rape itself. Someone could go around raping women with the intent of getting the victims pregnant, and claim to be doing the Lord's work. After all, every life is precious and every baby is a miracle. What's a bible-belt prosecutor supposed to say? The rape is wrong because you can't force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want? Or that her pain and suffering is more important than the act of bringing souls onto earth? No, it's a miracle, and everything happens for a reason!
Well put, Brab. That's better than I can do today.
Now you're just being foolish. Abortion has to do with RIGHTS, not POLITICS, idiot.
I think it is called the right to privacy, RH...if you aren't involved in a medical decision, a moral decision, a whatever decision, if it isn't your sperm or your egg, then don't get involved.
"Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." Does "rare" not work for you? Do you need to achieve the "none" state to be at peace? Does that mean that the entire human world have to accept your moral choice? And if so, isn't that just as denigrating to those of other faiths, and even those Christians, who may think differently? Or will you tell me now that I can't hold the inconsistent beliefs of allowing abortion and being a Christian?
Abortion is not "rare" at all. As long as we have abortion on demand in this country for any reason abortion will not be "rare." Over one million abortions occur every year in this country. That is NOT RARE. And also, the word "privacy" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It doesn't exist. It was another right that was created to override the will of the people.
RH,
Its time for you to go to law school. Do you believe that the Southern states should have been admitted back into the Union the way they were? I am sure the Founding Fathers never anticipated a situation like that.
Do you agree with the Court in the Goodyear case when pay discrimination was tackled?
Fried,
I'm afraid your analogy is off topic.
The right to privacy was made up by a liberal court in order to justify abortion. It is not found in the Constitution. Some day Roe v Wade will be overturned and the issue sent back to the States.
AA,
What do you think of the Dred Scott decision?
Fried,
You are taking the thread even further off topic. The question is not what I think, but what do you think?
AA,
See Loonz's post above for the role of the Constitution.
Some day Roe v Wade will be overturned and the issue sent back to the States.
Don't think so, Nostradamus. The era of conservative thinking is OVER, and it won't return anytime soon. So unless a couple Supreme Court justices pass on in the next 8 months, Roe will be here to stay. And you'd better get used to it so how about supporting education that might REDUCE the number of abortions in the meantime.
I see that you've resorted to name calling now that you've lost the debate. That's ok. Most liberals do.
And I see you've resorted to ad hominem now that you've lost the debate.
God knows that an abortion will happen in advance, but that doesn't mean that he approves of it. God allows bad things to happen because sin entered the world when Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Sin is always going to be around because of that, but God still expects us to do the right thing and obey the Bible.
You actually believe this stuff?
I would say that our country would be better off if we wouldn't have killed 43 million human beings.
We disagree on this.
We would have more tax payers paying into the government, and we would have more people paying into the social security system. Social security would probably be solvent if we had all those extra people.
That's your argument. We should get rid of abortion to save Social Security? I have a better idea: tax the rich.
The only people of faith who deserve to be denigrated are the people of faith who try to force their faith onto me.
Separation of church and state is a wise tenet of the consitution. So is the function of the Supreme Court to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority (such as the 75% christians or whatever stat you pulled out).
Yes, I believe that stuff. I'm a Christian. Many people are. Polls show it's about 75% in the U.S.
I know that. And half the country believes in space aliens.
But the fact that you denigrate people of faith is very much like the Democratic Party.
I'm not denigrating you; I just don't understand how you can believe in that stuff.
Sounds kinda like a right to privacy to me...:)
My basic philosophy is simply that people should have the right to do whatever they want to do as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others.
So why do you insist that all women behave according to your myths and superstitions?
RH,
I assume you feel the same way about fertility clinics that dispose of unused embryoes, correct?
RH,
Who said anything about embryonic stem cells? I was asking if you opposed fertility clinics that threw away embryos. Isn't that the same thing as an abortion?
Loonz,
Christians are not pushing their religion on you. If you lived in Iran or Saudi Arabia, you'd see religious coercion. You are free to believe in anything you like.
It should go without saying that Christians have the right, the same as you or anyone else, to express themselves and vote for representatives who reflect their views. If you don't like the laws, then you have every right to vote for representatives who can change them.
Christians are not pushing their religion on you.
Not so. Why do "Christians" (The word is in quotes because the fundies act in no way like the figure their religion is named for) want to make their religious beliefs the law of the land if they're not interested in pushing them upon others?
"Opposing abortion is simply common sense. Even animals don't kill their young in the womb."
That's one of the silliest arguments ever. They don't practice safe sex either, so what? Animals don't have any concepts of limiting their offspring in any way since the idea is for the species to survive. With six billion people and means of dominating every potential predator on earth I'd say humans are in pretty good shape as far as that's concerned. Not only do we have the means to maintain our own population levels, we have every reason to do so.
That is a weak attempt to create a secular argument against abortion. There simply is no such thing.
Then from that perspective, I'll ask you this...
What are you prepared to do, as a Christian, to make certain that the next 16-year-old girl who gets pregnant does the following:
Recognizes she is pregnant early so that she can stop any behaviors that could damage the baby in-utero? Begin eating the diet described in "What to Expect"? Begin taking pre-natal vitamins? Begin a regular exercise program? Begin taking classes on pregnancy and childbirth? Begin preparing for child-care? Continue her studies? Get enough rest? Maintain that healthy diet? Get good and regular pre-natal care? Get connected with a supportive friend or partner for childbirth? Keep her hopes up when she feels too tired and too sick? Help her through the days when she just can't sleep?
And that is all before the birth and huge responsibilities that come after...
In the immortal words of Sean Connery - "What are you prepared to do?"
Deep down I'm hoping you smack me down and tell me that you adopted 3 babies from 16-year-old mothers and that you paid for every bit of the expenses of childbirth for each of them.
And I need you to tell me why so many babies are born to live painfully short lives and die at the hands of abusers? I really need to know that...cuz it makes no sense to me to shepherd every zygote into babyhood if some of those babies aren't going to make it past 6 month of age due to neglect or abuse.
What about the boy RH? Where is his responsibility in your equation? And why does this argument always seem to come down to this...
The "girl" didn't make a choice to have sex, the "girl" and the "boy" did. Period.
And it isn't all that easy to get pregnant, RH...the odds are pretty much stacked against it for all but 3-4 days of the menstrual cycle. And even then...everything has to be just right.
So we have to fight all of those crappy old lines...you can't get pregnant the first time, you can't get pregnant this way or that way, blah blah blah.
There are two people involved, RH, and you're leaving it up to the girl and her parent/guardian...nice.
Now...aboriton is the easy way out? I suggest that you talk to someone who made that decision. Yeah, there are probably some women and men who used abortion as birth control, and I abhor that. But there are probably multitudes more who searched their hearts and knew full well that they were simply not ready to carry a baby to term, let alone care for a child after birth. Dontcha think that some of those women/men/couples know their personal situations and their own responsibilities better than you, or any government, does?
Didja re-read your post? You're telling me that the girl chose to have sex so it is her responsibility...
Now, have you discussed this "easy way out" with someone who made the decision to abort? Cuz I'm betting you that no one you talk to will tell you it was the easy way out.
You're right, abortion scars women for life, which is another reason to oppose it. And I clearly stated that men are responsible for either raising the baby or providing child care payments.
If men gave birth rather than women I would still be opposed to abortion. The issue has absolutely nothing to do with gender for me. It's about protecting innocent human life.
You're right, abortion scars women for life, which is another reason to oppose it.
It's a difficult decision to make but for some reason conservatives believe women are doing it nonchalantly.
The reason for the "liberal democrat" line is that most Democrats don't even want to have a debate on the issue. You and the Missouri poster just proved that. Those of us who want a different policy on abortion should have the right to vote on the issue at the ballet box. Abortion was never a right that our founding fathers intended to be in the Constitution. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about the issue of abortion, and the people should be allowed to vote on the issue. No one person should have more say on the issue than another.
I never said that carrying a baby was easy. But in life you have to accept responsibility for your actions.
Having an abortion is one of the ways of taking responsibility.
Hey, RH, I'm a male, too. But I do like the "common liberal tactic" line.
And yes, I do respect the opinion of those women. Now ask them a quick question, do they really think that asking a 16-year-old girl to carry a child to term, when she is unwilling to do so safely, when she is unwilling to take care of her body, when she is unwilling to learn the things she needs to do to take care of herself and the baby growing inside her, is somehow good for that baby?
RH, you've got to listen to science on a coupla points here...poor nutrition and poor health choices by the mother affect the unborn infant. So do you want to attach some kind of medical professional to each pregnant woman and make sure that she eats right, doesn't smoke and doesn't drink? Wouldn;t that cost a whole lot more than teaching kids everything we can possible teach them about sexuality and the rewards and consequences thereof? Isn't that what we were discussing here?
because I'm a male is a pretty common liberal tactic.
Pregnancy is something a man will never go through [I think] so our opinion should be secondary.
And no one should be forcing a woman to carry something in her body that she is opposed to.
So a way for a woman to accept responsibility for her mistake is to kill her baby? Wow, that's some responsibility.
Yes. If you are in no condition to deal with and raise a child then abortion is one of the options.
RH,
I am a Christian, but I don't pretend to know any reasons, and when my friend had that tragedy happen, I would NEVER tell him that his dad killed his mom and then himself for a reason because I don't think God makes every decision. We have free will, and even if that was "supposed" to happen, its sick. I would hope that if something that tragic happened in your life that an expression of destiny would be repulsive to you too.
As for my friend who lost three family members, two to cancer, and one to suicide, he works for Hospice and lost the second two when he was a social worker. There are no good "reasons" for that. I don't pretend to understand God, and no offense, RH, but your words sound like you have never lost anyone too soon. I pray that someday my friends might understand, but to some extent, free will, and not God's will happens.
Fried,
There is a contradiction in Christianity between the divine will of God and free will. It has caused division within the faith. Some believe everything is pre-ordained by God and others feel that God steps aside and lets things happen.
It is a question that vexes most of us. I wish I knew the answer however I long ago gave up trying to figure it out. What is important to me and helps me out in many things are faith that I'll be reunited with my loved ones someday if I do what is right while I am here on Earth. Hope that I am worthy of that reuniting. And love. I believe that God is love. When Jesus says you cannot see the Father except through Jesus, I believe he is saying that he is love. I believe that love is the universal bond that binds us to our God and to our neighbor.
I am far from perfect and I hope I do enough right things in order to offset the wrong things. :-) I experience great peach of mind when I feel the scale is tipping in favor of the right things.
Many non-believers, even though they do not believe, actually may be more in tune to God and express God's love than those who profess their faith the loudest. We've seen that time and again.
AA,
If you believe everything is God's will and there is no free will, I think you have to believe that only certain people will find salvation and that their finding of salvation is pre-ordained and some people were created not to ever have a chance at heaven. That is why I believe in free will and that things have changed over time.
Fried,
I share your belief. At the risk of getting further off topic, are not Calvinists a group of Christians who believe certain people are predestined for Heaven but most are not?
A baby should never be a "punishment."
It is a punishment if you had no intentions of having a baby.
You're absolutely right...now, show of hands here, how many people thought past the end of their hormones when they were 16 and invincible? Anyone?
I agree, RH, but the best way to provide that kind of forethought is to educate kids to the very best of our abilities. And that means giving them every bit of info and every bit of knowledge that we have available.
It's the natural result of having sex. It's not a hard concept to figure out. If you're not old enough to raise a baby, then don't have sex.
It's a natural result of having unprotected sex. That's why need sex ed.
Then opt out if/when you have kids in public...but leave the option there for all of the people who want it.
The repercussions of teenage sexuality are public policy issues...adoption, abortion, STDs...these are things that the government should be involved in and should generate policy discussions about. If I'm going to be paying for those repercussions with my tax dollars, then there should be a policy debate so I can be heard. You're advocating throwing the whole issue back onto the parents neglecting the fact that there are two parties involved in every transmission of an STD or instance of pregnancy, and you're deciding to remove any input that anyone might possibly have on helping reduce the events.
And it isn't even the natural result of having sex! How many people do you know, RH, who had to visit fertility doctors just to have a chance at raising a child of their own? I know two couples, both of whom are probably among the very best parents that I know.
Regardless of whether Obama was talking about abortion or sex education, his comment about a baby being a "punishment" is sick and disgusting.
A teenage child having a baby IS a life altering experience. If she has family support it may lesson some of the bad things she experiences but it will not change her experience.
For those teenage children who don't have family support their lives can become a living hell. Where will you live and how will you afford diapers, formula and clothes. No high school diploma, no job. And IF you have a job, daycare will take care of that check. FACTS are, teenage children MIGHT feel that they're being punished for having sex and getting pregnant.
What about those teenage children who get a STD? You can't understand that they MIGHT feel they're being punished for having sex when they have been told that having teenage sex is wrong? You think teenage children won't see that as punishment?
The truth is you can't be with your children 24/7. You can teach your children to drive with care and caution them on speeding because your afraid for their life. The schools have classes on drunk driving and shoe the kids what they and their cars look like after a drunk driver hits them, because they don't want underage drinking. You OWE it to your children to arm them with each and every tool available when it comes to sex because unprotected sex is a hell of a lot more than a baby, it's your child's life!
For those teenage children who don't have family support their lives can become a living hell. Where will you live and how will you afford diapers, formula and clothes. No high school diploma, no job. And IF you have a job, daycare will take care of that check. FACTS are, teenage children MIGHT feel that they're being punished for having sex and getting pregnant.
And with the republican war on children, she can't even go on welfare for too long.
Regardless of whether Obama was talking about abortion or sex education, his comment about a baby being a "punishment" is sick and disgusting.
A girl having a baby at sixteen is punishment. She can't take care of herself, let alone a baby. She's ruining her life and her baby's life.
RINO Hunter - How dare you? Simple three word question, do you have a simple answer? I'm a liberal so I have little or no regard for the unborn?
Let's all say it together, it is only seven little words, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare." That is the Democratic Party's stance on Abortion as detailed by Sen. John Kerry in 2004. I'll bet that those same seven words make the platform in 2008.
And here is my really simple test...if it isn't your egg or sperm involved in the baby, or your child's egg or sperm, keep your opinion to yourself. Unless you've been in the position to make that call, and suffered all of the consequences of that call, you'd best get down off of your soapbox and close the ole' pie-hole.
No one is pro-abortion, but many people are willing to understand that some people are not capable of 1 - carrying a child to term and then 2 - raising that child. Regarding point 2, could be anything - drugs, finances, housing, job, sickness. Regarding 1, do you have any clue how much effort a woman puts into carrying a child? How much energy? How much she has to care for herself and her baby? Any clue? Ask your mother or ask your wife...I'm a guy, I'll never know what it feels like. But I know full well the effort my wife put into our son, and I'll lay decent odds that some girls and women are not able to take care of themselves and their babies with the same passion and understanding. Or spend the amount of time we did learning about our baby and the things we needed to do to make sure he had the proper nutrition.
So RH, how dare you tell me that most liberals have no regard for the unborn?
DTF,
Do not take this as flippant but being in favor or killing the unborn child negates your heartfelt words. I would argue that you or your wife or 99.99% of all people would chose living rather than their mother having prevented their birth.
Why do so many liberals think they know what is better for others than those people themselves. Who gives anyone the right to deny life to a defenseless, innocent human being who had no say in the matter of being conceived? Yes the babies are too young to speak for themselves, so it is up to us to speak up for them. Just because they are few days or a few months old does not make them any less human than you or me. Who gives their mother's the right to kill them before they even take their first breath?
Thank God that two unwed teenage mothers carried their babies to term six years ago. My wife and I have been blessed with the opportunity and honor to raise them. They deserved their right to life just as you and your wife and your son. They are terrific, beautiful, loving, fun, happy children. They bring joy to everyone who comes in contact with them.
It is a tragedy of unspeakable dimensions, that others like them, loving innocent children who only want to live and love, have been violently ripped from their mother's wombs and discarded as if they were nothing. I believe future generations will look back at this time and judge harshly the unthinking and unfeeling attitude of all those who support abortion rights.
My heart breaks for those unborn victims killed before they had a chance to live. Discarded because their mothers and fathers were so selfish that they put their welfare and convenience above their own children's right to live.
"But Obama just came right out and said it. Most liberals have no regard whatsoever for the unborn, but they at least try to hide it with slogans. Well, I guess Obama is at least an honest liberal."
He was talking about the born, not the unborn.
DTF,
Why are ignoring the studies I have provided where it has worked? I can give you lots more if you'd like.
Just remember RH, you and I want the same thing in the end, fewer abortions...I'm just willing to go from 1 million to 100,000 to 10,000 to 1,000 to 100 to 1 to 0 using different tools. And I'm betting you'll find about every liberal/progressive in the world feeling the same way...no one is pro-abortion, no one. We all want babies to have healthy lives in-utero and wonderful lives form birth on out to old age and death. But I'm willing to allow for situations I can't even begin to deal with myself - and I'll not force a child or woman to carry a baby to term if that baby's life will be in jeopardy from neglect or abuse.
That being said, my fingers hurt too!
Peaceful night and pleasant day tomorrow!
RH and AA and POV, Shoes, etc.,
I hope you had an enjoyable night. Here are some questions for you:
1) If you get your way and abortion is murder and a fetus is a person, will you call on a homicide team to investigate every miscarriage? How will you keep the "crime scene" from being corrupted? If a woman loses the fetus, is she guilty of negligent manslaughter? After all, the "child" will be dead. Will you call for comprehensive investigations of doctors every time a woman loses a fetus? After all, they could be complicit.
2) If life begins at conception, do women who are malnourished or deprive their fetuses of the nutrition they need in the womb committing child abuse?
3) How will you make sure that all pregnancies are registered with the state? As you know, after a child is born, there are social security numbers, birth certificates, etc. Are you proposing expanding the government to have an agency, or bolstering the bureaus of vital statistics to fill this role?
4) Will families that don't have adequate health insurance be guilty of child abuse?
5) Will you arrest every woman who has a baby who shows signs of a chemical dependancy for child abuse? If not, why?
6) Since you are not for sexual education in schools, if you had your way, the numbers of pregnancies are sure to rise. Without abortion, do you propose thousands of government-run new foster homes and adoption agencies? If so, how do you propose to pay for these? All of you say you are fiscally conservative, so I expect to hear how tax dollars will be spent in this regard.
7) When will a woman be required to register her pregnancy, at what stage? If life begins at conception, the morning-after pill should also be illegal, right?
8) On a lighter note, in your scenario, shouldn't every woman who has had unprotected sex be allowed to drive in the carpool lane? After all, there might be two in there.
I would appreciate your answers to these questions. If you have any for me, write them down and I will get back to you this afternoon or evening.
RH,
If abortion is termed murder, as you would like it to be, the woman consenting to abortion is necessarily an accessory to the crime.
If abortion is merely illegal, that's one thing, but it would have to be defined as something other than murder.
It sounds to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, that you would be ok with a woman poisoning her fetus in another way, but just not allowing formal abortion, why?
Also, you said in your last post that abortion should be legal in the most extreme circumstances. What are those in your mind?
Ok, back to this, RH, how about answers to the direct questions instead of more dogma?
And how about this...we've danced round & round...are you going to advocate prosectuing each and every man involved in these abortions for adultery? I think that law is still on the books in most states...
Let's be really blunt here...you and others are willing to demonize the women involved in pregnancy but the men get off without a care. That is BS and shouldn't be accepted by anyone. Anywhere. And I'm sure hoping that you're not relying on a Biblical notion that women are by nature subservient to men...
Well done. I doubt that AA/rino and others who want to overturn Roe v. Wade have thought about the repercussions of that at all. they just want to "save" the fetuses. Well I had a miscarriage before having my 3 kids. That is called a "spontaneous abortion" No one came to my house to investigate.
I remember well the years before Roe. In high school, one of the popular girls got pregnant by her jock boyfriend. They got married (she had of course to drop out of school) had the baby, and he was abusive. It was a rotten situation.
In college, one of my close friends had a secret that she finally told me. Her boyfriend had pressured her to have sex although she didn't realize that she'd even HAD sex at the time, and she got pregnant. (we were so ignorant back then!) So her parents sent her away to a home to have the baby; the people running the place were hostile and cold; she was in labor with no support or sympathy, and her baby was immediately taken from her. Then she returned to college, told to "just get over it."
Another close friend told me her secret: During a party in high school, she'd gotten drunk and had sex and became pregnant. her parents sent her out of state where a doctor performed an abortion. They had to pay plenty for that of course, since it was illegal.
Do you cons actually believe that if abortion is made illegal that abortions will stop? Do you even understand the relationship between educational opportunities for women and the decline of abortions?
Until you give us some idea of how you see doctors and women "punished" if Roe is overturned, I very much wish that you would all just shut up.
Mary,
Your stories are sad indeed.
As a conservative my hope is that abortions will stop, but I don't think it will eliminate all of them. Most conservatives think the issue should be handled through the legislature rather than by judicial fiat. Overturning Roe-v-Wade, if it ever happens, will not make abortions illegal, it will send it back to the States for them to determine.
With regards to the educational opportunities of women, please explain the relationship with the decline of abortions.
You probably know that single motherhood is the surest way to poverty for most women. That fact alone should cause women to "just say no". Instead nowdays women are deceived into thinking they can have "safe sex" when there really is no such thing. It is liberals who are doing the damage to women with their emphasis on what is really a failed comprehensive sex-education program that promotes premarital sex rather than discourages it. Liberals are full of good intentions and ignore the unintended bad consequences by advocating more of the same.
Do you cons actually believe that if abortion is made illegal that abortions will stop? Do you even understand the relationship between educational opportunities for women and the decline of abortions?Fried,
I have never argued that abortion be considered murder. So you are setting up a straw-man as far as I am concerned. One does not have to legally define abortions as murder to outlaw them do they? If so that right there takes away most of your talking point questions.
Women without insurance are not automatically guilty of child abuse right now why would you think it otherwise if abortions were outlawed?
You are the attorney, why don’t you answer your own question regarding whether chemically dependent mothers are guilty of child abuse against their children? I assume you already know the answer.
I never said I was against sex education in schools. Again you are setting up a straw-man. Because of that, your assumptions following are incorrect. (For the record, I am against comprehensive sex-education and for abstinence only sex education.) Your assumption that there would be a need for thousands of new foster homes/adoption agencies is without evidence and grossly overinflated.
Yeah it is fun. I realize it is easy for you to simply ask questions and I don’t mind answering those questions, up to a point. However I’d rather discuss the issues with you and hear your thoughts than constantly be cross-examined.
Sorry, AA, I guess most of those questions were for Rino who has stated before that he thinks that abortion is murder and that sex education shouldn't be taught in schools.
I guess I was just asking what you thought the punishment for abortion should be. As far as the life question, I think that life begins when a child can survive outside the womb and not before. I know friends who have had abortions and I don't consider them bad people and resent the talk (not by you) that women who part with a fetus are.
Sorry, I should have been more clear.
It is indeed disgusting how this traitor continues with his deceptive lies.
Novak is truly a 100% scumbag.
"All this talk of sex education is just fog to mask the real issue - 'progressives' hate the human race and wish to see it eliminated (except for themselves)."
Please don't flag this. Stupidity of this magnitude practically rises to a form of art. It should be saved for posterity.
Wow. It truly amazes me that AA and RH are willing to spend a copious amount of time away from family or other pursuits to argue about abortion and essentially change nobody's mind. Well done, sirs. There's a clue in there.
Oh, the clue is that if you really felt that strongly you wouldn't waste time on a liberal posting board of adults whose minds are made up on the subject. And the subject wasn't abortion for this thread anyway. It was Obama's exhortation to educate our young people to make better choices. Something that responsible adults do, not leaving them in ignorance.
This forum is for anyone to use. If you want some kind of limit on the amount of posts that one person can write feel free to take it up with the moderators. Until then quit whining.
In context Obama was saying that if his daughters make a "mistake" (have sex out of a committed relationship), sex education gives them a leg up on practicing safe sex, thereby minimizing the chance of being "punished" by STD, Aids, or unwanted and unprepared for pregnancy.
However Obamas wording was poor. The phrase "I don't want them punished with a baby" is kind of ghastly and is a phrase I don't think Obama would like to be remembered for. Not to mention for political enemies, it can be easily construed as a "Kill the baby" mindset.