it's too bad his mama and her parents didn't feel the same way.

On what basis is it not "punishment" to force people to have babies? It's painful. There are health risks involved. If the state says that they must unwillingly accept that pain just because they chose to have sex, then of course that's punishment.

And since only extremist America-hating wackos think that having sex is inherently immoral, I hardly think he's on the fringes by saying that the state shouldn't be subjecting women to forced pregnancy just because they chose to have sex.

To review: a baby = a baby. Forced pregnancy and forced childbirth forced on people at gunpoint by the state just because they did something that wasn't wrong to begin with = punishment. Simple?

Confederate Yankee, respectfully, you wouldn't vote for Senator Obama if he said he was pro-life. As your tagline says: "Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state". And Obama is a liberal so done deal.

Am I wrong?

Obama should take his problems up with God. The Creator's design was to bring about babies. First, he hated the USA, then...

Since His Obamaness won't let the country at large in on his beliefs, it's up to bloggers like CY to put the information out there.

This has nothing to do with whomever CY will vote for come November. This is CY doing the job the MSM refuses to do.

T-Steel, by that logic, since 90% of the reporters at the New York Times won't vote for McCain no matter what he says or does, they shouldn't be permitted to write articles or editorials (which are basically the same thing for the NYT) on him.

Do you see how absurd your assertion was now, or do I have to put in even shorter words?

A baby is more than a baby. Even Obama later on called them "miracles." Quite a few Americans don't think getting pregnant is "punishment."

I would venture to say, Persoon, that the majority of women (can't speak for men or those too irresponsible to have safe sex in this day and age) do not look at their children as punishment, even those unplanned. Sex isn't wrong to begin with, unprotected, irresponsible sex is if you are so shallow you won't live up to the consequences and consider murder to be a viable option.

Did I say CY wasn't entitled to an opinion? What I'm saying is by reading this blog, regularly I may add, if a liberal makes a statement, regardless of the intent or non-intent, it will be micro-parsed to "slam" that candidate (and I use "slam" in a rhetorical sense). I don't support McCain, Obama, or Clinton. I'm pointing out partisanship since I'm an anti-partisanship type of guy. Personally I didn't see Senator Obama endorsing abortion. I see him endorsing information. But I'm not stupid to not see how if you are of a particular faith and/or hold a particular value system you will be repulsed at the statement Senator Obama made.

Quite a few Americans don't think getting pregnant is "punishment."

I don't think so either BUT I work with teenagers everyday (I'm a high school football coach that works in the school also). When I see girls get pregnant, they are "punished" by the "high school order". Frequently they are shunned, talked about, and ridiculed. And they frequently say and feel punished by getting pregnant. I find that very unfair.

So in a nutshell, I don't find Senator Obama's words offensive.

T-Steel, if you don't have a problem with CY having and expressing his opinion, why even comment?

By the way, when you find yourself in a hole, the wise thing is to stop digging.

Peckerhead keeps runnin' his mouth and diggin' a deep hole at the same time don't he?

Digging what hole? The only holes I see the openings my offensive linemen are making on the film I'm watching. And comments don't necessarily have to be made to agree or disagree. They can be made as an observation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Peckerhead?? Why all the hostility? I'm not calling people names around here. Oh well.

The guy just equated a baby with an STD.

This is not relivant...how?

I do find it HIGHLY important to know that Obama hasn't changed any from his murder-supporting ways.

Ahh, I see, T-Steel is looking down upon us poor benighted partisans from high in his ivory tower.

Of course, he seems not to be up on his history... since Presidential campaigns have been vicious since 1796.

The campaign was a rough and tumble affair. The Republicans sought to convince the electorate that their opponents longed to establish a titled nobility in America and that Adams–whom they caricatured as His Rotundity because of his small, portly stature–was a pro-British monarchist. President Washington was assailed for supporting Hamilton’s aggressive economic program, as well as for the Jay Treaty of 1795, which had settled outstanding differences between the United States and Britain. The Philadelphia Aurora went so far as to insist that the president was the source of all the misfortunes of our country.

The Federalists responded by portraying Jefferson as an atheist and French puppet who would plunge the United States into another war with Great Britain. They also charged that he was indecisive and a visionary. A philosopher makes the worst politician, one Federalist advised, while another counseled that Jefferson was fit to be a professor in a college . . . but certainly not the first magistrate of a great nation. Newspapers such as the Gazette of the United States and Porcupine’s Gazette asserted that Jefferson’s election would result in domestic disorder.

Oops, guess I shattered an illusion that all this rancor is a "modern" thing and that if we just returned to the horse-and-buggy era everything would be as kind and peaceful as is portrayed on PBS.

I am very conservative and very anti abortion. But lets be perfectly honest here, a 13 yr old having a baby would most surely be a punishment. Her youth would be taken away the responsibilties of adulthood coming at a very young age. Yes of course everyone would love the baby but.

C'mon C-C-G. I'm not looking down upon you or any partisan. I am (and I emphasize "I") not a partisan man. Plain and simple. I like the notion of bringing politics together instead of separating (and Senator Obama is a partisan no matter what he says in his speeches and town halls). And did I mention anything about "modern politics". I simply stated that I was anti-partisanship. Regardless of how new or how old it is. I understand. You just picking a fight by associating notions/ideas with what I said. I won't play that game with you.

So far I've called a "peckerhead" and now I'm "looking down" at partisans even though there is NOTHING in my words that are condescending. Feels like Daily Kos over here with a conservative slant. Same type of games over in that crappy site.

Yes of course everyone would love the baby but.

And that's the issue. The "but". Look I would like nothing more than ALL conceptions to be look upon as the miracles that they are BUT frequently teenaged girls are "punished" by society. If information can prevent those type of pregnancies, then I'm all for it. Not once did I hear Senator Obama advocate aborting a baby after a teenage girl gets pregnant.

Dennis D -
You can give up the kid.

Choice: murder your flesh and blood, or take six months MAX out of your childhood-- which you presumably already gave up when you agreed to screw someone-- and let the kid grow up with folks who want them.

Even in the tiny town I grew up, there are five families advertising for young women who don't want their children, so that the families can adopt the kid.

A baby is more than a baby. Even Obama later on called them "miracles." Quite a few Americans don't think getting pregnant is "punishment."

A baby IS more than a baby. A baby is a 24/7 responsibility for at least the next 18 years of the parents' lives. When the "parent" is 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 years old, *that is a punishment.* And when Obama "later on called them miracles," he was *talking about his daughters,* who were obviously wanted by parents who were old enough and mature to care for them. He was NOT making a general statement about all babies in all circumstances.

Dennis D at least has the common sense to know that having a baby when you are still a child yourself is extremely punishing. I do take issue with his last sentence, though. There is no "of course" about a baby born to a 13-year-old being loved. It depends entirely on the girl's particular circumstances. You might be talking about a girl who has no loving family herself. You just cannot make these sweeping generalizations.

Dennis D & T-Steel: What's wrong with societal pressure to do the right thing? 50 years ago, having a child out of wed-lock was a 'bad' thing...so was being a slut...so was being a dead-beat dad. Granted, there were lots of 'bad' things that were also hidden those 50 years ago as well like spousal abuse and such.

I had a classmate in high school who married as a senior, then got pregnant, and was not allowed to walk with us for our graduation because of those 'old rules'. That was a mere 22 years ago. However, teen pregnancy percentages were extremely rare in my neck of the woods at that time. Approximately 5 years later they were through the roof...upwards of 25% of 16+ year old females in that high school. Of course, the "powers that be" reversed many of their rules about teen pregnancy after my class graduated. Connection to the pregnancy rate? I think so.

Kathy-

I say again:
A woman need not KEEP the child when she chooses not to kill a human.
http://www.adopthelp.com/adoptiveparents/faq.html

I've been "unwanted" in various places-- though not by my parents. None of those people had a right to kill me to make it so they didn't have to put up with me.

As my mother puts it: what if you only want babies, but not children? Is it alright to kill them after they go past the "baby" stage?

It's amazing how far people who love slaughtering babies like Kathy will go. As Foxflier said, there's always adoption. The adoption list is long enough for all the unwanted children.

Geez, maybe if Obama doesn't want his daughters to catch a parasite, Vagina Warrior speak for fetus, he should educate them to keep their legs closed or have safe sex. The abstinence route is obviously not politically or socially popular.

Obama endorses information? Not for parents, though, right?

Pregnant a reward not a punishment. He is out of touch with the teenage pregnancy issue. Lower income desire pregancies it gets them housing food stamps welfare etc. The more kids the more money its a living for them. That's their "job". That's the reality and goals of 13 and 14 year olds getting pregnant its a ticket to an all expensed paid apartment.

Am I the only one who read that Obama quote and thought he was referring to birth control and condoms?

I know CY loves to dive off the deep end and label Barack a baby-killing sociopath, but is it possible that he was not - in fact - openly encouraging his kids to get stabbed in the uterus by rusty coat-hangers? Is it possible that he was encouraging his daughters to have safe, protected, responsible sex if they felt the need to have sex at all?

I know rock-ribbed conservatives think they can through off several billion years of breeding instinct with a stern lecture and a set of Hail Marys, and I'm sure CY doesn't know any true-blue Christian families who have ever had to deal with their children getting pregnant. But for the rest of us sinful, heathen masses who have not the will power to "keep their pants on", doesn't it make sense to provide accurate sexual education? I remember my Texas High School trying to scare the hell out of us with statistics a quick internet search proved to be totally bogus. Needless to say, a bunch of people still ran off and got laid on prom night.

Was it better that we were all told how condoms fail 40% of the time? Or that one-in-four of our classmates had chlamydia?

Barack is going to educate his two daughters. You guys call that "baby killing". I don't know what to think of that.

Zifnab - Yes

Zifnab - I'm not inclined to be an Obama supporter, but you are right on the money here. I read the quote from Obama the same way you did. This piece is massive over-reaction.

zifnab,you from texarkana,aint you?

I had a classmate in high school who married as a senior, then got pregnant, and was not allowed to walk with us for our graduation because of those 'old rules'.

Wow! And she was MARRIED! Imagine how a teenage girl who was pregnant and NOT married would have been treated in those good old days. It's so good to know that back then having a baby when you're only 16 was considered a blessing, and not a punishment. And it's wonderful to know that today we live in more enlightened times, when no one wants to bring back those terrible days when teen pregnancy was considered a crime punishable by public shunning.

As my mother puts it: what if you only want babies, but not children? Is it alright to kill them after they go past the "baby" stage?

Apparently it is, because full-term pregnancy and childbirth is much more dangerous for a 12- or 13-year-old child than abortion, especially a first-term abortion. Pro-lifers, however, prioritize the unborn baby's life higher than the life OR health of the child who is obviously no longer a baby.

When I saved the Obama quote concerning the sanctity of all life, I thought that the filename was appropriately shortened to reflect his view, i.e., I don't want them

Kathy --
Hello, non sequitur. Passing, for the moment, on your assumption that it's more dangerous to give birth...that is not the parents of the child killing the child once it has passed the "baby" stage.
IE, the question was: does the desire of the parent outweigh the life rights of their progeny at all stages, if we assume it does so prior to birth.

As to your assumption:
http://clinmed.netprints.org/cgi/content/full/2001030003v1
http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/stakes.htm
An aborting 13 year old child would be more likely to commit suicide, and the only study based in a country where decent records are kept on abortion indicates that it's far more dangerous than childbirth.

Also: the only study--as opposed to self-referencing page-- that I could find as to risks of young motherhood was this:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3ek04pcnbpmy8l5/
Pregnant teenagers appear to be at increased risk for poor maternal weight gain, abortions, hypertensive disorders and delivery of low birthweight infants.

babies are not a punishment they are the result or in this case consequences of people being irresponsible in having unprotected sex especially outside of a relationship stable enough to have a family. abortion has become a form of birth control in these times which it should not be.

Kathy - Have you ever met any prolifers?

Kathy - Have you ever met any prolifers?

Yes.

does the desire of the parent outweigh the life rights of their progeny at all stages, if we assume it does so prior to birth.

To the first part of your question: Does the desire, [and health, welfare, or life] of the parent outweight the life rights of their progeny at all stages after birth?

No.

To the second part of your question:

Does the desire, [and health, welfare, or life] of the parent outweight the life rights of their progeny prior to birth?

Yes.

Okay, Kathy, name for us, please, the precise medical conditions during which pregnancy constitutes a risk to the health of the mother, and for which aborting the fetus represents the best or only means of improving the medical condition.

Then, since you know so much about it, tell us how often those conditions arise in the United States of America.

I anticipate either spin, or an echoing silence.

Maybe AlGore, His Obamaness and these baby murdering libs could get together and write a book, they could call it, "An inconvenient birth".

Kathy - Would the prolifers you know agree with the way you are describing their positions? If not, why would they disagree?

Would the prolifers you know agree with the way you are describing their positions? If not, why would they disagree?

I don't know, to both questions. Since I have not spoken to any pro-lifers except the ones here about whether an unborn baby's life takes priority over a 13-year-old girl's life, I can't say what they would say.

However, if I had to guess, I would guess that if I put this question to a pro-lifer, the pro-lifer would say, Of course not! All life is sacred. The girl's life is sacred, too. Because of course no one wants to admit that an argument they cherish leads to the conclusion that the life of an unborn baby comes first, and the life of a 13-year-old girl, second if at all.

I anticipate either spin, or an echoing silence.

Then why should I bother answering?

Since I have not spoken to any pro-lifers except the ones here about whether an unborn baby's life takes priority over a 13-year-old girl's life, I can't say what they would say.

Kathy, you have yet to show that there IS a risk to the life of the mother.

You just assume it is so, and that anyone who opposes abortion wants a dead 13 year old.

So far as I know, the only time I'm familiar with that the mother's life is threatened directly is a tubal pregnancy.

Even the Catholic Church allows for the tube to removed in that case, thus saving the mother and indirectly causing the death of the child.

Now, unless you can prop up your strawmen, please stop throwing insults and accusations.

Foxfier - I presume you are including making up arguments of opponents, e.g. strawmen, in your admonition of Kathy, such as those of the prolifers she claimed to know, but now admits she never talked to.

“I goess [sic] we could call these his ‘terminating the family’ values… Now He’s [sic] informed his chldren [sic] via the media that daddy will drive them to Planned Parenthood if they get knocked up.

I'm questioning your ability to spell without spell checker.

daleyrocks-
Honestly? I'm MOSTLY offended by her amazing lack of reading comprehension of what has actually been said here; some folks know only very, VERY strange folks, so I tend to avoid the views of people who someone on the internet says they know. (if they spoke to them or not)

Well, I am afraid you will have to grapple with the question of whether pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous for a 13-year-old on your own, because Bob has his filter set up so that information about teen pregnancy cannot get through.

If you are so inclined, you can google the terms "health risks teenage pregnancy" (w/o the quotes) and you will find all the information you could want or need.

Having tried to provide the "proof" you claim you must have before you will even begin to seriously consider the *shocking* proposition that full-term pregnancy and childbirth is more dangerous for a young teen than a first-term abortion, I have to say that I find it horrifying that anyone could be so -- either ignorant or blinded by ideology, or maybe both -- that it would come as outlandish news to them that 13-year-olds are not physically or emotionally ready to go through pregnancy and childbirth, and that children born to 13-year-olds face severely compromised health outcomes themselves.

You need proof that a 13-year-old girl's body is not mature or developed enough to have a baby w/o incurring serious health risks? And absent that "proof," you will refuse to believe that pregnancy and childbirth is traumatic in every way possible for teenagers, especially young teens under 15?

That is terrifying. I want to put my arms around every preteen and young teen in this country and protect them from the likes of you.

There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I am comprehending just fine. The physical and emotional and psychological health and well-being of a pregnant child means nothing to you. And come to that, the postnatal health and well-being of the unborn baby mean very little to you as well. All that matters to you is that single moment when a baby emerges from the womb. Human life to you means *only* being born. Everything after that is unimportant.

Ah. I see. You're Pro-teen-pregnancy then? Teen-pregnancy is a gift it would seem? A reward? Interesting position for conservatives to take.

...
Kathy, I posted evidence that abortion is more dangerous.

All we have is you standing here, yelling that having a kid is more dangerous, vs actual studies that disagree.

Johnny-- I'm betting our host is pro-don't-screw-around.
Amazingly, you can graduate high school without screwing.

"The physical and emotional and psychological health and well-being of a pregnant child means nothing to you."

Kathy - Do you believe that they are prepared for the physical, emotional and pschological health consequences of humping their brains out that liberals seem to encourage even if they manage to avoid getting pregnant or can get abortions?

Then why should I bother answering?

Maybe in order to show us just how many abortions are medically necessary?

Of course, you won't... you can't... there are a handful of conditions where abortion is the best or only treatment, and they occur very rarely... but still you tried to ride that old canard about "the mother's health" all the way to victory.

Oh, and the spam filter permits TinyURL addresses... so quitcher whining about Bob's filter.

Want to live in a country that outlaws abortions ? Move to Saudi Arabia or Iran

Or Ireland, Kenya, Venezuela, Lebanon, Mexico and dozens of others. Saudi Arabia allows abortion to "protect a woman's health" though.