Obama thinks babies are punishment!

[Ransac]

What are you TALKING ABOUT!!! We garnered no fewer than 1/2 of 15% of a third of less than 1 percent of the votes in the last election! The people love us!!!!! That'll work in our favor this year.


Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Spiderman]

I think you just want a poo-flinging running mate...

 

[rokapoke]

I think you just want a poo-flinging running mate...

Yeah, so he's not the only one...

 

[DarthFerret]

Today's Political Headlines:

RANSAC/MONKEY TAKE OUT DEMS AT DEBATE WITH POO!

 

[EricBess]

I'm definitely "pro-life", but I also understand that there are certain circumstances where abortion is appropriate. Most notably would be rape or when the health of the mother is compromised.

My concern in general is that people have a tendency to not want to have any consequense to their actions. I would never suggest that abortion is an "easy way out". However, I think a lot of people see it as the "easiest way out". Let's face it, there is no "easy" way out of an unwanted pregnancy. But there are options that I feel should be explored first. Adoption is certainly high on the list and a lot of people wanting to adopt will help cover medical expenses.

I'm sure it is very heart-wrenching to actually bring a child into the world and then have to hand them over to someone else. But I'd be willing to bet that a better lesson is learned and that person is less likely to have another unwanted pregnancy in the future.

Again, my opinion and I'm sure some here disagree with it.

As for teaching abstinance being useless, turgy, I think it depends on how you look at it. I think sexual education and abstinance in particular need to be taught in the home, not in an institution, to be truely effective. However, you say half of the girls got pregnant. To me, if there was even one girl that decided to abstain because of it, then it certainly was worthwhile.

 

[Spiderman]

I think a lot of people see it as the "easiest way out".

It would be interesting to see if that is indeed the case (i.e. polling the women getting abortions as to their reasons why).

 

[Killer Joe]

Not sure if anyone would be "truthful" enough to admit that, especially in today's society which is at a conservative high point these days.

 

[turgy22]

As for teaching abstinance being useless, turgy, I think it depends on how you look at it. I think sexual education and abstinance in particular need to be taught in the home, not in an institution, to be truely effective. However, you say half of the girls got pregnant. To me, if there was even one girl that decided to abstain because of it, then it certainly was worthwhile.

Actually, I said half a dozen (aka "6"). I did have a really small graduating class.

I should probably clarify my comments. Abstinence-ONLY education is completely worthless. Obviously, kids should learn that the only 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy and STDs is through abstinence, but that's not going to stop all of them. For those that it doesn't stop, they should be briefed on safe sex through contraceptives and given free contraceptives, if that's what they choose.

 

[Mooseman]

I don't believe that a lot of those who receive an abortion are doing it for their regular birth control or an "easy way out"..... it is a very difficult decision for both mother and father....

RAPE? So, it would be ok for that instance, but not any other that doesn't endanger the mother? hmmmmmm....

I for one want the reasons for abortions to be eliminated or reduced to a few exceptions, but the choice should not be taken away by those that want to intrude us......
I definitely feel that late term abortions are wrong..... but what about the pill that can be taken the night after to ensure no pregnancy.... what was it called? UB40 or something like that?
Is that an abortion?

I do find those who are against abortions at any time, but are also against teaching sex ed in schools are just idiots.....

 

[rokapoke]

but what about the pill that can be taken the night after to ensure no pregnancy.... what was it called? UB40 or something like that?

That's right, you just have to listen to a few bars of "Red, Red Wine" to take care of that potential baby brewing in your belly. Haha.

Anyway, here's a thought -- not to say that it represents my feelings on the matter here, but it's a thought nonetheless....

...there are certain circumstances where abortion is appropriate. Most notably would be rape or when the health of the mother is compromised.

Undoubtedly many people feel that these are two situations in which abortion is, quote unquote, acceptable. Sometimes these people are the "pro-lifers" who argue that the unborn child is still a living being. So could it not be argued (not necessarily in all cases, I'm sure) that by choosing an abortion rather than risking the life of the mother, you could be trading the child's life for the mother's? Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but it's still a question in my mind. And I certainly hope to never be in such a situation.

 

[Spiderman]

I'll play your counter and argue that while an unborn child's life is just beginning, it really hasn't set any roots, certainly not as many as the mother, who has many others, like family and friends, who know her and is a part of her life and has been for many years.

This kind of argument smacks a little of the "aggressor/victim" argument: Both have rights certainly, but let's face it, the former is the person who caused the situation in the first place. His rights shouldn't trump the victim's rights.

 

[turgy22]

Undoubtedly many people feel that these are two situations in which abortion is, quote unquote, acceptable. Sometimes these people are the "pro-lifers" who argue that the unborn child is still a living being. So could it not be argued (not necessarily in all cases, I'm sure) that by choosing an abortion rather than risking the life of the mother, you could be trading the child's life for the mother's? Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but it's still a question in my mind. And I certainly hope to never be in such a situation.

I really don't think there's an argument to be had here. I think you're looking at this too much from the potential father's point of view. Instead, try looking at it from the mother's side. Would you be willing to die for your unborn child? I think most non-suicidal people would say no.

 

[EricBess]

I don't believe that a lot of those who receive an abortion are doing it for their regular birth control or an "easy way out"..... it is a very difficult decision for both mother and father....

Again, I don't think there is an "easy" way out, but regardless, abortion is the one answer where you don't have to spend 9 months being pregnant...

RAPE? So, it would be ok for that instance, but not any other that doesn't endanger the mother? hmmmmmm....

I gave that as the most obvious example and I'm open to other situations where abortion might be the appropriate solution. However, rape has one very important factor that isn't involved in a "normal" pregnancy. The mother didn't choose to have sex. In addition, rape is already a very traumatic situation and having to bear fruits of that "relationship" could certainly cause mental distress unlike anything else. So yeah, I see rape as very different and it falls under health of the mother.

I for one want the reasons for abortions to be eliminated or reduced to a few exceptions, but the choice should not be taken away by those that want to intrude us......

Yes, fair enough. However, the concern I have is that government seems to want it to be an absolute. I don't really see it as such. In general, however, I would rather err on the side of caution. Perhaps the problem is that no one can agree on what side that is. I definitely think it dangerous to have legislation to say that abortions should be allowed with no questions asked or that an underage minor should be allowed to get one without at least talking to their parents and/or counsellors first.

I definitely feel that late term abortions are wrong..... but what about the pill that can be taken the night after to ensure no pregnancy.... what was it called? UB40 or something like that?
Is that an abortion?

Personally...I don't like it. I think it is way too gray an area. But I do agree that something like this should probably be an individual choice.

I do find those who are against abortions at any time, but are also against teaching sex ed in schools are just idiots.....

In an ideal situation, I would disagree with you here. Sexual behavior should be taught in the homes where it can be overseen by parents. Having said that, I agree that it is preferable to have a student take sex ed in school than "on the streets". My biggest concern, however, is that the schools seem to want to teach it one way and the parents end up with no control at all over what the child is taught. That is a very dangerous precident as well.

So could it not be argued (not necessarily in all cases, I'm sure) that by choosing an abortion rather than risking the life of the mother, you could be trading the child's life for the mother's?

Perhaps. However, if it is early enough in the pregnancy (which it often is), then it's not really a choice of the mother or the child, but the reality that if the mother dies, the child isn't going to make it either.

I really don't think there's an argument to be had here. I think you're looking at this too much from the potential father's point of view. Instead, try looking at it from the mother's side. Would you be willing to die for your unborn child? I think most non-suicidal people would say no.

I'm guessing here that you don't have children turgy? I think you would find that a lot of mothers would gladly give up their own life to save that of their child. If anything, it is the father who would be overwelmed at the thought of having to raise a child without a mother present.

 

[turgy22]

I'm guessing here that you don't have children turgy? I think you would find that a lot of mothers would gladly give up their own life to save that of their child. If anything, it is the father who would be overwelmed at the thought of having to raise a child without a mother present.

Guess again. I agree that a lot of mothers would give up their lives for their children, as would a lot of fathers. But I only think that would be the case with their "external" children that they know and have grown attached to.

Speaking from personal experience, my wife and I both love our daughter. But if something had come up during labor where an abortion was absolutely necessary to save my wife's life, I don't think either one of us would have hesitated to make that decision. It would have been difficult, sure, but at least we'd have each other in grieving, whereas a baby would just add stress.

And, wow, that response was very hard to type. Having a child, it's now really difficult to imagine anything happening to her, but if I honestly put myself back in my pre-fatherhood state of mind, it's really not a decision. It would be extremely sad to lose an expected baby, but losing my wife would be completely unbearable.

 

[Killer Joe]

I think that's what it's called because when I worked as a bus-boy we used the term "86" as code for being fired from your job, "Billy isn't working hard enough, he's gonna get 86'd if he doesn't shape up." So I remembered that when I first heard of the name of that morning-after pill. I could be wrong though.

The problem with teaching sex education to youths are: ???
I'm pretty sure Theodore Cleaver pretty much had a good idea on what sex was about, you think he never walked in on June and Ward getting busy?!? Or just June?

The problem with abstenance is:???
Kids aren't as innocent as they may seem (case in point is the "Murder plot" against a third grade teacher in the South somewhere last week). Do tell them that not having sex is a great idea and then tell them that if they DO have it, here's how to prevent your family from a "social embarassment" (which is what this topic is really about).

In my opinion, as long as there are "prude" types out there who refuse to speak to their children about s-e-x (shhhhh) then there are going to be many "accidental" pregnancies.

 

[rokapoke]

In my opinion, as long as there are "prude" types out there who refuse to speak to their children about s-e-x (shhhhh) then there are going to be many "accidental" pregnancies.

I personally believe that the "sex chat" is not a necessity in preventing the accidental pregnancy. I, for one, never received such a talk -- much to my relief -- but still spent a good deal of my young adult life abstinent. I think it's more about upbringing and good parenting (of which, in retrospect, I was a beneficiary) than about a "birds and bees" discussion.

As Bart Simpson said, "What a day, eh, Milhouse? The sun is out, birds are singing, bees are trying to have sex with them -- as is my understanding..."

 

[Oversoul]

You guys are needing my wisdoms badly. Nah, I'm just kidding. But I'll bite...

Obama is a candidate for the Presidency. Therefore, among many other qualifications, comes public speaking skills. (Yes, Bush has none either).

Um, I'm not following this whole debacle and don't really intend to, but I have seen video footage of both men speaking in public and Obama's elocution is so much better than Bush's I don't know how to compare them. The Obama fans I actually know seem to think he has more charisma than god, but whatever. He does have decent speaking skills and Bush has really, really bad speaking skills.

Perhaps he meant social punishment, perhaps not. However, if a person makes a mistake then they should suffer the consequences. Example, I decide to quit my job and blow all of my savings on Magic. (I know, this is supposed to be off topic but I could not resist) In 2 months I get evicted from my home, lose my vehicle, and am forced to live out of a suitcase. (been there, done that, not proud of it, just have the point of view) Should I be able to just say, "oops, that was a mistake, hello government, fix me up with everything again." I do not believe that is a viable option (Yes, I know there are some people that go through life just like that) I think if you create a situation that is likely to become uncomfortable for yourself, you should have to suffer all of the consequences. Guess what, bet ya never do that again.

Not sure if this clarified anything, but it was the best I can do at this time of night.

That's not really comparable to abortion, if that's what we're talking about, because the issue isn't the government coming in and doing abortions for people, but rather stopping them from getting them. Very different.

<shrug> People make slips all of the time, public speaking or not. Hillary's gaffe about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia comes to mind. I'm sure there's some website that keep tracks of these sorts of things...

Not to side with anyone, but if she actually claimed to be under sniper fire when she was not under sniper fire at all (that's what I heard somewhere, but I didn't read up on it or anything), that's a far cry from a "slip."

I personally am pro choice, but only because I do not think I have the right to tell someone else what to do.

But you said you were pro-life in this very thread!

Here's my issue. I understand his point because having a child is a huge responsibility and incredibly life-altering. The fact that he calls it "punished" is a slip of the tonge, but is understood.

Maybe he didn't mean it, but I do. Children are definitely punishment.

My problem, however, is the underlying attitude. An argument of "they aren't ready to be parents and a child raised by them would have problems" I can understand, whether I agree with it or not. But he is basically saying that they shouldn't be accountable for their actions because that's too much of a price to pay.

I think I kind of addressed this with DF, but I'll try to make it clear. This isn't "accountability." If I am careless and I cut myself while peeling potatoes, no one is suggesting that the knife should be sent to jail. But I would like to be able to bandage the wound without government interference. And if people want to block me from getting to the bandages because I need to be held accountable for my culinary recklessness, well, I'm going to crack some skulls. It's a silly metaphor, but I'm sure you see my point.

Whatever it is, from a legal standpoint, the abortion issue cannot reasonably be about accountability.

What about the student who gets drunk and kills a guy on his way home? Isn't that a mistake also? Should that person be punished? Or should we let them off without consequenses also? While were at it, why should any action have consequences? It's just so unfair and life shouldn't be that way....

Sorry, but I don't buy it. That's a crap excuse for a pro-choice argument.

I agree, I guess. It is a crap excuse for legalized abortion. But you muddled the issue by bringing accountability into it. If abortion is murder, then it's murder, regardless of the circumstances and whether the parties in question behaved responsibly according to society's standards. If it isn't murder, then the government can kindly keep out of it and again, circumstances be damned.

Chiming in on the whole abortion debate:

Personally, I hate the fact that an issue as complicated as abortion basically gets divided up into two categories: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. Pro-Choice people say that it's a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, failing to mention that there is a living, feeling being inside her that doesn't get much say in the choice. Pro-Life people say abortion is wrong and it should be outlawed, without accounting for what would inevitably happen if there was no abortion (overpopulation and riskier illegal procedures.)

I doubt overpopulation would be an issue. But all of the other problems that were going on back when abortion was illegal sure would come back, and we'd probably get some new ones.

There are a lot of shades of grey in between there that nobody cares to address. For the most part, I agree with the Pro-Life side. An unborn baby is still a living, feeling human being. When does it reach that state? I'm not sure, but I don't see how you can say that a baby born 2 months premature is alive and has rights, but a baby inside a woman who is 8 months pregnant is not alive and lacks those rights, despite the fact that it is more developed and functional than the former.

Well, "alive" isn't really up for debate. The youngest embryos are alive. So are sperm cells, though, and most people aren't crying over that one. For that matter, bacteria are alive and we disinfect things casually all the time. So yeah, whatever the abortion issue is about, it's not "life."

 

[Spiderman]

Not to side with anyone, but if she actually claimed to be under sniper fire when she was not under sniper fire at all (that's what I heard somewhere, but I didn't read up on it or anything), that's a far cry from a "slip."

<shrug> No, she wasn't under sniper fire. But I think it depends on your view of Hillary of whether it's just a "slip" or not.

Speaking of the abortion debate (and spoken a bit tongue in cheek, but just a bit): With the developments of gene testing, people may eventually choose whether to carry to term a child with disabilities or ailments more serious or even whether they should have a boy or a girl (this is kinda done already anyway, especially in China from what I've read). Just another added argument/reason behind why some may abort in the future...

 

[Killer Joe]

I recently heard on NPR that Asian immigrants are having more boys as a direct result of genetic manipulation. Surely that's no right, denying a girl a life, right?

 

[Spiderman]

I think it's after they've had a girl though...