It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mopusvindictus
Obamas view is indicitive of his feelings on the subject... Like many Americans he views having a child as a "hold back" for a woman.
I won't break his cajones for saying punishment, I hate pc word games
But it is what it IS
and that is: a statement as the majority of Americans and people in Western civilization feel, Women who have babies are LESS than the rest of us, career is more important, self indulgence is more imortant (me, me, me) Finance is more important, children are a burden and:
Originally posted by jamie83
Yes, the underlying message in Obama's "punishment" statement is money is valued higher than human life.
Originally posted by sos37
Can't you understand where the pro life group would feel a sense of outrage over that statement since they believe that every human life, intentional or not, is precious?
Originally posted by intrepid
Or, without political slant, wait until you are mature enough, responsible enough and monitarily capable to give a child a good life. Which is exactly what he was saying.
Originally posted by jamie83
Originally posted by intrepid
Or, without political slant, wait until you are mature enough, responsible enough and monitarily capable to give a child a good life. Which is exactly what he was saying.
I would buy that explanation if he were talking about having sex, not having a baby.
Obama's entire premise begins with the hypothetical situation in which his daughters already had sex and became pregnant. Keep in mind that this is Obama's hypothetical, not mine. He's the one who brought his pre-teen daughters into the discussion.
So rather than address the CAUSE of the problem, which is having sex, he's addressing the effect, the resulting baby, and calling the baby "punishment."
When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the 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 am 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."
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by sos37
Can't you understand where the pro life group would feel a sense of outrage over that statement since they believe that every human life, intentional or not, is precious?
I think Obama is just saying that his daughters' lives are also precious.
It seems to me that many of the right to life group think that a childs life is MORE precious than an adults. Many of the "pro-life" segment are also "pro-death penalty" which technically speaking, is inconsistent with a "right to life."
Many of them also seem to feel that a fetus, embryo, or baby is more precious than the hopes and dreams of the mother. And it generally does come down to the mother, not the father, in who is responsible in many of their eyes.
Besides, he isnt talking at all about aborting a baby. He is talking about giving them the information and access to preventative measures to prevent their ever getting pregnant or an STD.
Why do you have to make a speech about prevention and access to information and means of prevention into a statement on abortion?
Originally posted by sos37
Obama's words are "punished with a baby". He may not be referring to abortion but he's definately referring to a baby in a negative context, as if the baby was to blame for the daughter's sexual conduct.
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by sos37
Obama's words are "punished with a baby". He may not be referring to abortion but he's definately referring to a baby in a negative context, as if the baby was to blame for the daughter's sexual conduct.
Are you saying that a 14yo having a baby is a positive thing? I'd argue that, and I have a 14yo daughter.
As to the bold, I have NO idea where that came from.
Originally posted by intrepid
He IS addressing the issue, EDUCATION!!!
Originally posted by dbates
]
I'm confused. Is the baby a STD or just punishment in itself?
Originally posted by jamie83
Originally posted by intrepid
He IS addressing the issue, EDUCATION!!!
Yes, he began by addressing education, but he continued by commenting on the hypothetical situation that his daughters got pregnant.
look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am 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."
What mistake is he referring to? Missing a question on a spelling test???
Personally, the only time I agree with the woman's right to an abortion is in cases of rape or if it endangers the life of the mother. I'm not a purist in the sense of pro-life because I don't believe a blanket rule covers it all.
Is there ONE person here at ATS with kids or grandchildren that honestly believes they were sent as punishment?
Originally posted by yeti101
i think forcing someone to have a kid when they dont want to is punishing them.