I don’t want them punished with expensive health care. I don’t want them punished with minimum wage. I don’t want them punished with a high ARM. I don’t want them punished with blood oil. I don’t want them punished with responsibility.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2008 at 2108 hrs
sick.
Posted by Brandon on August 11, 2008 at 2319 hrs
I don’t want a man for president, who doesn’t believe in punishment for misdeeds.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on August 12, 2008 at 0559 hrs
How can someone with no values and morals teach values & morals?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2008 at 0743 hrs
I think he’s spot on. There is a strong element of sin-and-punishment in the attitudes of many so-called ‘values voters.’ Especially when it comes to reproductive rights. They don’t like abortion and they won’t promote contraception because it means people can have—gasp—sex! and won’t have to have those character-building “consequences” that should naturally accompany such behavior.
I want a world where no woman ever becomes pregnant unless she explicitly chooses to. No matter how sexually active she chooses to be. If you don’t want that too, you’re likely to object by saying “I think actions should have consequences!” And on that I rest my case.
Posted by scott on August 12, 2008 at 0857 hrs
I want a world where no woman ever becomes pregnant unless she explicitly chooses to. No matter how sexually active she chooses to be.
That’s a drastic change to how we have evolved. So you have no trouble with us changing how our bodies work, do you have trouble with us changing the climate. How many millions of children would not be in existence today if you had your ideal world? Talk about voter suppression, WOW!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2008 at 1011 hrs
So you have no trouble with us changing how our bodies work, do you have trouble with us changing the climate.
You have a problem with us tinkering with our internal chemistry? Your health insurer must be really happy with your aversion to prescription drugs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2008 at 1026 hrs
That’s a drastic change to how we have evolved. So you have no trouble with us changing how our bodies work, do you have trouble with us changing the climate. How many millions of children would not be in existence today if you had your ideal world? Talk about voter suppression, WOW!
Wow is right. I’m talking about reproductive freedom as a basic human right and you’re talking about whether it’s hubris to exert control over the natural processes of our lives. Do you have a problem with all the medical science advances that allow for such a low infant mortality rate? I mean, there’s nothing more natural than losing one in three children to disease. How do you feel about shaving and haircutting? Was coming down out of the trees a bad move in your book?
I believe that every human being on earth should have the absolute right to choose when and if to reproduce. Period. And it’s not good enough to leave it tied to one’s desire for sex, as it’s fundamental to normal, happy adult relationships.
Posted by scott on August 12, 2008 at 1034 hrs
An interesting (albeit odd) goal. Too bad nothing the Left advocates today will actually do anything towards achieving it.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 12, 2008 at 1044 hrs
O RLY? What about sex ed and making contraception easy and available?
Oh, right, it’s already easy enough! You don’t want to lift a finger to make it easier still. After all, people need to be responsible! And those who are irresponsible, well, they get what they deserve, right?
And that, if I’ve accurately predicted your response, pretty much proves my sex-must-be-punished thesis above.
Posted by scott on August 12, 2008 at 1050 hrs
Anyone being honest with themselves knows what he is talking about here. Teens having babies often look at having a child as “punishment” for having sex, and he is saying that those teens should be given information to avoid that situation because they shouldn’t start out as a parent feeling punished, and a child they may have shouldn’t start life as an unwanted burden.
Anyone who has had a friend or family member go through a teen pregnancy knows the stress it can put on the teen, their family and the obstacles that teen and their child will face growing up. There is an easily clickable longer version that pops up on youtube when you watch that clip, where Obama talks about our moral responsiblity to engage with our children about everything from abstinence to contraception to prevent teens from getting pregnant and avoid STDs, so as to avoid early life mistakes that create life long obstacles and complications.
Also notable, this is strictly a conversation about avoiding pregancy and STDs, not a conversation defending abortion rights, as I’m sure many pro-life advocates would like it to be viewed as.
So unless someone on here is going to start arguing that teen pregancy needs to be increased, and more babies should be having babies, maybe we should move past our mock indignation and admit that on this issue he is talking about values that we all share, those being the avoidance of teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2008 at 1202 hrs
And it’s not good enough to leave it tied to one’s desire for sex, as it’s fundamental to normal, happy adult relationships.
And this has nothing to do with what Obama is railing about… and you know it.
Do you have a problem with all the medical science advances that allow for such a low infant mortality rate?
No, I don’t, and I don’t have a problem with a child discussing birth control options with their or any licensed doctor either. But we all know that you are for handing out BC from dispensers on each street corner.
What about sex ed and making contraception easy and available?
Oh, right, it’s already easy enough! You don’t want to lift a finger to make it easier still.
Yup, I was spot on.
And you completely glossed over my main point, which was, how many people in the world would not be here today if we all had your “Easy Button”? How many terrible people, and how many great people?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2008 at 1224 hrs
But we all know that you are for handing out BC from dispensers on each street corner.
I’m for whatever works to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Why aren’t you?
how many people in the world would not be here today if we all had your “Easy Button”?
They’d all be here. We’re talking about the future, not the past. If you want to have a discussion about all the future Mozarts and Einsteins that won’t be here because women have complete control over their reproduction, fine. List their names and I’ll justify each and every one of them.
This isn’t Back to the Future. This isn’t a sophomoric metaphysical game. This is real people and their real lives. Having every child planned (or at least wanted) would be an unmitigated Good.
Posted by scott on August 12, 2008 at 1301 hrs
Waitasec—you were explicitly talking about sex totally divorced from pregnancy. Until science does away with that thing called the “failure rate,” this is a fantasy which condom distribution will do nothing to bring about.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 12, 2008 at 1316 hrs
Fine. I’m all for minimizing it down to as close to zero as is humanly and technologically possible. Are you?
Posted by scott on August 12, 2008 at 1325 hrs
If science gives us a foolproof, zero-failure contraceptive (that isn’t abortive, naturally), then fine, people can use it however they like. However, that still wouldn’t make it right for the schools to treat promiscuity like it’s equally as valid as abstinence. After all, the dangers of casual youth sex go beyond pregnancy and STDs:
www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/cda0304.cfm
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 12, 2008 at 1538 hrs
List their names and I’ll justify each and every one of them.
Hahahaha, wow you’re on a roll today. How about you list each and every woman who would push your “Easy Button” and we can justify it then.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2008 at 1539 hrs
If science gives us a foolproof, zero-failure contraceptive (that isn’t abortive, naturally), then fine
“Then fine”? That doesn’t sound like enthusiasm. In fact, it sounds grudging. Why? Why wouldn’t you be pleased at such a development? There would be no unwanted children and no abortion. Poverty would drop. Education levels would rise. It would be an amazing and profoundly positive development in the history of human beings, and all you can muster is “fine”?
I think I know why you respond this way. It’s because deep down it bugs you that someone might be having sex free of the risks of unwanted pregnancies.
How about you list each and every woman who would push your “Easy Button”
Sure thing! ALL OF THEM would. All of them would be on the absolute infertility plan until such time as they chose to have a baby.
But actually I think you misunderstand the “button” that I have mentioned here before. It’s not something that each woman would have to press. It’s something YOU would have to press—or not. Press it and—bang!—we have technology and behavior which makes it so that every woman was completely infertile until she explicitly chose to become pregnant. Don’t push it, and we are where we are today. I’d push it. Many of you wouldn’t. I think you’re nuts.
Posted by scott on August 12, 2008 at 1549 hrs
Whats the outrage here specifically?
That a teenager having a baby is characterized as “punishment”?
Is it the baby = punishment aspect?
I have to be honest, I can’t stand Obama and I think he’s an elitist demagogue, but this seems like quite a stretch to frame these comments as pejorative.
If he had said “I’m going to teach my daughters morals, but if they make a mistake at least they’ll be blessed with a baby” would that be better?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2008 at 1609 hrs
“Then fine”? That doesn’t sound like enthusiasm. In fact, it sounds grudging. Why? Why wouldn’t you be pleased at such a development? There would be no unwanted children and no abortion. Poverty would drop. Education levels would rise. It would be an amazing and profoundly positive development in the history of human beings, and all you can muster is “fine”?
It’s not grudging at all, and certainly would have a positive impact. I’m just not wowed by the prospect of people preventing one way something they already know exactly how to prevent another.
I think I know why you respond this way. It’s because deep down it bugs you that someone might be having sex free of the risks of unwanted pregnancies.
Do you realize that every time you say moronic things like this, it indicates that you haven’t the foggiest clue what/why other people really believe things, and that you seem to have made very little effort to do so?Oh, and way to completely ignore the most important part of my post.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 12, 2008 at 1651 hrs
Calvin, that’s a good article thanks for sharing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2008 at 0808 hrs
Whats the outrage here specifically?
That a teenager having a baby is characterized as “punishment”?
Is it the baby = punishment aspect?
I have to be honest, I can’t stand Obama and I think he’s an elitist demagogue, but this seems like quite a stretch to frame these comments as pejorative.
If he had said “I’m going to teach my daughters morals, but if they make a mistake at least they’ll be blessed with a baby” would that be better?
Proof that if you talk to anyone long enough, you’ll find an area of agreement, no matter how much you differ on everything else. Well put xxpilot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2008 at 0936 hrs
Total Entries: 19655
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 08:28 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 52
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 09:25 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).