It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Palin Loves her Grandchild, Obama See His as Punishment

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:34 AM

Originally posted by jamie83
Think the logic through. How would they be punished? Would they be unable to attend college? Get a high paying job? Be a big-time lawyer and have a Mercedes?

The implication is that the punishment would be in terms of money. The implication is that somebody who thinks a baby is punishment loves money more than the child.

That isn't the type of person I would want in position of POTUS.

Come on man, USE YOUR BRAIN. You people(by that i'm generalising all your obama nit-pickers, you know who you are), are so out of touch and stupid it's unbelievable.

“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.”

Translated: "I place a low value on human life". ??? ..idiots.

He is merely stating that he will educate his children about sex, but if they make a mistake and accidently get pregnant, and they dont want to have the baby(he didnt say that but use your brain its implied), he would not force his daughter to have the child, to 'punish' her and show her the consequences of not using protection.

Also, 'punishment' could be interpretated as losing some otherwise fun years of your life to having the massive responsiblity of an (un)wanted child placed on your shoulders. Basically saying that if his teenage daughters becomes pregnant, he wouldn't force them to have the child.

Now if you perceive that as as hint that obama places a low value on human life, i feel sorry for you.

One more thing, and i'll quote Bill Hicks for this, 'Childbirth is no more a micracle than you eating and turd falling out of your ass'.

The way life works is not fair, and sorry to sound cold, but if a baby gets aborted and that is 1 human that never gets to live and grow up, WHO GIVES A #. It isnt sad or tragic, some people have good lives, some suffer for a lifetime, others dont even make it to our 3rd dimension, or they stay for a bit then ascend. Its the luck of the draw.

Seriously we have already over-populated the world, there isn't enough resources to sustain the current population, let alone the extra growth and depletion of said resources as time goes on.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:57 AM
reply to post by blayze

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."

JAMIE is about as greasy as they come... above is the context.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:59 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:21 AM

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:09 AM

Originally posted by wutone

Originally posted by blayze
Seriously we have already over-populated the world, there isn't enough resources to sustain the current population, let alone the extra growth and depletion of said resources as time goes on.


And you have a point too. But obviously i'm not going to kill myself, but i will admit im as guilty as you for the state of the environment.

Mod Edit: Quote from previous post removed.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by TheBandit795]

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 07:35 AM
reply to post by jamie83

I would have to still say Obama. You are looking at this issue as a black and white, right and wrong arguement when it is in fact far more complicated than that.

I look at those two quotes and say Obama believes that people have the right to choose whether they become parents or not even after the act of sex. Should they decide that they aren't ready for the responsibility or are unable to care for the child properly or that there may be complications then they can go to a safe environment to have the few cells that don't even look like a person disposed of.

Palin on the other hand believes that if you are pregnant then its too late and that child must be born in case (a probably fictional) God takes offence to it regardless of whether the child will be loved and cared for or not.

I also don't understand the pro-lifers who say its ok to abort in rape/incest etc cases. either its ok or it isn't, make up your minds!

Finally to answer the OP's question, who shows the most regard for human life? with another question. The lady campaigning to be VP for a man who wants to bomb Iran off the face of the earth or the man who believes a woman has a right to choose?

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 08:05 AM
reply to post by yeti101

So what your saying is that a child, kid, teenager can go out and have ungodly amounts of sex, but as soon as she/or his girlfriend gets pregnant then "OH MY GOD" feel sorry for them. Now I can understand if they were raped, molested, or something terrible in that sense, then they can choose that road to go down and get an abortion. But for young people to think that abortion is an easy solution to their mistakes is absolutely wrong. If they become/or get someone pregnant then they need to step up and take responsiblilty for their actions.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 08:10 AM
Three of my four step kids had children of the by the time they were 18 and all out of wedlock and every single one of them have since told me that they regretted having children so young and so unprepared.

I understood immediately what Obama was saying and it certainly not the smear jamie is spreading.

In many ways having a child that young is a punishment... a punishment for sloppy sexual behavior.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 08:24 AM
I'm surprised no-one has said "Will someone please think of the children?!" instead of using them for political point scoring.

Interesting thread. Who cares really? I can quote something that Levi Johnson once said and take it out of context;

"I'm a fu*kin redneck, but I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some # and just #in’ chillin’ I guess. Ya # with me I’ll kick ass."

Now what does that imply? Surely a man of responsibility yes?

Here's what was available on his myspace apparently.

Status: In a Relationship
Here for: Friends
Orientation: Straight
Hometown: WASILLA
Body type: 5′ 8″ / Athletic
Zodiac Sign: Taurus
Children: I don’t want kids
Education: High school

*_* oh yes, he's ready for fatherhood, what with not wanting kids.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:25 AM
Wow, lotsa false info and surmising in this thread, but not a lot of facts. I'll just pick one post to reply to:

ChocoTaco369 Absolutely. You're the one that decided to have sex regardless of consequences. Now that something has gone awry, you're not man enough to deal with the mistake?

First of all, we are talking about young teenagers having yes they are not man or women enough to deal with these mistakes. If they were, we would legally let them drink, vote and be charged as adults in a court of law. Since we don't trust them with these responsibilities, how is raising a child any easier?

You don't have to keep the child, you know. There are countless parents out there who desperately want to adopt a child. Put the kid up for adoption if you really can't support the child.

You obviously missed Illusionsaregrander post, who was speaking from experience. Here's WorldOrphans site.

World Orphans

According to them there are 143 million orphans in the world right now. Is it a really good idea to add to that number before we find families for the existing ones?

Do you realize that for all of human existence except for the past few decades, when you had sex and things went awry, you HAD to keep the child? Now all of a sudden, because we can kill kids before they're born, that makes it okay?

That statement is completely false. Abortions have been around since mankind was able to even conceive of it.

Wiki Histroy of abortions

What if your mommy doesn't let you out on Friday night? You got in trouble at school and she grounded you. Why don't you kill her? That way, she won't be able to stop you from going out Friday night. Why not? You CAN kill her, so obviously since it's an option, it's the right thing to do, right? There's no difference between her life and the life of a baby. They're all one life. If you're going to kill the baby because you can't claim responsibility for your actions, why don't you just kill everyone and everything that gets in your way in life? Murder is murder. It's all the exact same situation. I'll never understand these people that don't value human life. They're the same exact people that commit first degree murder. They're all very dangerous individuals.

This is just a ridiculous argument. So you think anyone pro choice is a dangerous murderous person? LOL

And so continues the paradox of liberal "logic" (if you can really call it that). The same nutjobs that denounce our troops for joining a war and killing terrorists that want us all dead

Liberal's don't denounce the troops. Infact they are very well respected for their service and commitment. Liberals are grateful for their sacrifice. But most liberals will denounce the war in Irag. BIG difference!

will freely kill a defenseless, innocent baby out of sheer inconvenience. How does that work? That statement deserves a thread in itself.

Ahhh, just like the Rep prolife / capital punishment argument. Someone above tried to explain because the fetus is with out sin, while the “murderer” has sin. Can't the murderer accept Jesus as their savior and the therefore again be “without sin”? The bibles rules are just so confusing lol........Agreed about that needing a thread of it's own

ChocoTaco369, didn't mean to single you out, but it was just easier to reply to one poster as some much is being talked about.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by mopusvindictus

What the whole concept of waiting allows us to put off responsability, there is no being prepared my friend, there is nothing that can prepare you, not school, not classes, not age or wisdom.

Uh... yeah. I've been 17. I've been 30. There's a huge difference.

the average person lives now like a Kinf would have in terms of food and security and luxury a few hundred years ago

Exactly. People are living longer than ever, therefore I see no reason to begin bringing life into this world at such a young age. The world is much more complicated than it was centuries ago. I'm all in favor of young people learning about the world before they jump into the biggest responsibility of their life!

it's just not I grew more in a year than my whole life previous... all I needed was Love and a work ethic and in time I began to understand the pleasure of sacrifice...

Ok so you flourished under pressure. I'm honestly proud of you. Many other people would have folded under such huge responsibility. Statistics show this.

Just Love, Just a willingness to put food on the table, The kids Love in return is unconditional, it's a great thing

Of course it's a great thing for you. Have you ever thought that maybe you have psychological condition from being adopted and caring for these kids helped heal these mental wounds? I'm not trying to be a jerk, honestly asking?

I mean all this talk of love is great, but if life was that easy we wouldn't have massive problems in the world would we??

I can not imagine life without them, I know no greater love or satisfaction in this world

Honestly I don't think you are applying any logic here, only emotion. Of course, once they are born and you know them as a person, care for them, etc it's much different.

Really, if you would have had an abortion and had kids later you would have felt the same love for those children. Stop being so emotional and think a little bit. It's all about perspective and reference frames.

And I have a son and a daughter and you will never know yours he is dead you won't ever know you could have done it, you will never have him or her in your life

There was never a son or daughter. It was a clump of cells. No face. No name. Nothing for me to attach to emotionally. I probably could have done it and my parents would have been supportive. I have zero regrets though. I graduated from college and got a good job and am buying a condo in a few days. Will I ever be fully prepared without actually going through it? Of course not. Am I more prepared now for such a situation than I was at 21 or 17? Yes.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:56 PM
1. she is underage... 17 is just a lil shy of 18.
2. if your not a pregnant woman... how is the topic of abortion even any business of yours?
3. a baby shouldn't be called a punishment in any conversation.. thats just tasteless, but what should a woman do if she was raped and got pregnant? keep the baby and hold some bitter resentment the rest of her and the childs life??
4. disinformation is never helpful, so when quoting someone... you should always read the whole quote before making your judgement on what was said.
5. how is does some little girl getting knocked up have anything to do with the economy, food crisis, foreign policy, 2 year experience as a governer, or the dreaded "T" word... terrorism?
6. if nothing else... this whole story is simply a distraction from real issues... young women are getting pregnant everyday and being that this is America, they have this beautiful thing called a choice. I'm sure since most politicians are just pissing on the constitution right now anyway, why not take choice away too...
7. the baby isn't a miracle from god... it is semen from a guys penis that was inserted into a girls vagina and had a party in an egg... unless they had a three way with the almighty, i'd say it's all genetics

i could go on, but i don't think there's much of a point... don't be a noob and be thankful you live in a free country where the choice is yours.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by grover

I understood immediately what Obama was saying and it certainly not the smear jamie is spreading.

In many ways having a child that young is a punishment... a punishment for sloppy sexual behavior.

Seriously, what is the smear?

You reiterated and agreed with exactly what Obama said. I just pointed out what he said. I would be honestly interested in understand why if you agree with Obama it's ok, but if I post his quote somehow I'm perceived as smearing him.

"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." -Obama

What's the smear?

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by yeti101

Sigh. Getting pregnant usually isn't like getting an itchy sweater for your birthday from a relative you hardly ever see. That involves no choice on your part, and no one can blame you for not wanting to wear a sweater you didn't want.

A baby's pretty much always a possible outcome from sex, barring people with medical conditions or other extremes. Condoms, the Pill, even "tube-tying" and vasectomies are far from 100% effective. My stepsister had her tubes tied and then had her third child a few years later. If you're having consensual heterosexual intercourse - deal with the fact that there is always a chance the female partner can become pregnant. Certain measures can reduce the chance, but they not perfect. (Here's an old joke: What do you call parents who used the rhythm method? - Parents.) The people involved made a choice to engage in an activity that can result in a baby. The baby didn't magically poof into being of its own accord.

People seem to trivialize their own responsibility for their lives. I'm sorry if having a baby you don't want is a problem for you - I've know several women who were not in a place where they could raise a child, so they gave them up for adoption - it wasn't easy for them to live through the nine months of pregnancy, and then give the child up, even after knowing that it wan' "convenient" to have the baby- but they did it, and some of them weren’t even religious.

We've come to a strange place when babies are "punishment" and are grouped with STDs. Even reading Obama's complete quote can't get remove the fact that he referred to a potential unexpected grandchild as a punishment for his daughters. If he were such a great speaker, wouldn't the word "consequence", or many others have been a better choice? Wouldn't he have found the words to actually say he was worried about the life young teen and unwed mothers face, instead of stating that the baby itself is a punishment? If he's such a great speaker, I'm going to have to believe he means what he says and hold him to it, unless he chooses at a later time to expound upon it and explain it better.

Are people seriously seeing abortions as being as simple as getting a pedicure?

I heard a woman on a local radio show this morning claim that Palin was irresponsible on two counts - she should have aborted her son, Trig, for have Downs' Syndrome, and she should have forced her daughter to get one to save her career. My jaw dropped as the woman continued to tell a female caller that abortions are "no big deal", and that anyone who though different has been "brainwashed". I'm not sure where the line should exist about abortion - I don't think it should be a matter of "it's not convenient to have this baby right now - please remove it in a friendly outpatient procedure and I'll pretend it never happened." Cases of rape, incest and where both the mother and child could die or only the mother could be saved are difficult for anyone to make a rule set completely in stone that will apply to everyone equally.

I do not endorse abstinence only teaching – I think teens should take responsibility for their actions. I do not think we need to glorify teen mothers or even unwed mothers - but neither do we need to attack a 17 year old (which is legal in my state) young woman, not only for being pregnant, but then for deciding to keep her child, and then her decision to marry the father. In the area of the country I live in, we have 12-YEAR OLDS having babies. I fail to see the shock value of a pregnant 17 year old. She can still have a life, a college education and a career if she chooses - it will just be more difficult and she'll have to really want it. Her family has already pledged their support for her and promised their help.

I’d like to know what kind of help Obama would give his daughters in the same situation.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:49 PM

Originally posted by jamie83
Seriously, what is the smear?

By selectively picking only a small part of what he said and misrepresenting it as something it is not.

An analogy, and that's all it is.

"I think Jami Gertz is a beauty. She wasn't so much when she was younger but in Lost boys? Woohoo. Jami did something for me there. And in Twister, do I need to say more?"

Let's put this through your editing:

"'Woohoo. Jami did something for me there.' Man, this isn't right. intrepid is stalking me."


posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:58 PM
You know, I hear all the time how Democrats are scared and thats why they say the things about Palin. If you have so much faith that MCcain will win this election, then why are you posting threads bashing Obama?? To go as far to say things about his family!?!?! If you are so convinced that Mccain will win, then these threads are irrelevant. What that tells me is one of two things. Either you really aren't as confident in Mccain as you claim, or you are an extremely confrontational person who enjoys getting people upset.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:01 PM
Was not gunna comment in this thread, but honestly this is a non-issue.

Threads like this, with the "pro life" people coming outta the woodwork make Obama sound GOOD to me.

If it was all based on this one topic, I would vote Obama.

But the bigger issues make it impossible to vote for someone like this with a clear conscience.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:05 PM

Originally posted by LostNemesis
But the bigger issues make it impossible to vote for someone like this with a clear conscience.

Conscience and voting have long been mutually exclusive. If most would vote their conscience, this is what would win:

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:24 PM

Originally posted by jamie83
Can you suggest other words Obama might have used to get his point across?

EDIT: I decided it was necessary to reiterate myself.

Jamie, in the post you are referring to I did, in fact, explain what I thought would have been better words for him to chose. But I will explain further.

I just saw the clip where Obama made that quote and I have to say everyone is totally taking this out of context.

As I stated before, he is only guilty of a very poor choice of words.

In the correct context Obama is speaking about abstinence only education and how he doesn't agree that that should be the only education given to teens. It has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.

He said (not verbatim) that he would teach them that they shouldn't have premarital sex but he would also teach them about what they should do should they chose to have sex. He would teach them about how to protect yourself from an STD or from an unplanned pregnancy.

And what I think he should have said (and POSSIBLY meant to say) was that he's not going to refrain from bothering to teach them about having protected sex and only teach them about NOT having sex period because he doesn't want them to have to deal with the consequences of what happens if you don't teach them about safe sex.

When he said punishment he probably should have said consequence.

I really don't agree with the stance that Obama is trying to say that babies are a punishment under any circumstance for young teens. This is obviously not what he is saying.

I would have said the same dang thing, pretty much. I'm not going to teach my (future) children that they shouldn't have sex before marriage and just leave it at that. I'm also going to teach them that they need to be protected should they make the unwise choice to do so because I don't want them to have to deal with the CONSEQUENCES of that poor decision.

It's better to be safe than sorry. This is so obviously what Obama was saying.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by nunya13]

[edit on 3-9-2008 by nunya13]

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:53 PM
Sorry, here is the video in its FULL context...

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in