# Obama - I don't want my daughters "punished with a baby"



## -Cp (Sep 11, 2008)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo]YouTube - Obama - I don't want my daughters "punished with a baby"[/ame]

WOW... what a POS...


----------



## Shogun (Sep 11, 2008)

post the video 

[youtube]GbZJYWjkAPo[/youtube]


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 11, 2008)

I wish his babies weren't punished with Obama.


----------



## Silence (Sep 11, 2008)

is this the next lipstick comment?

if you're to fucking stupid to get what he's saying then that's your problem.

but here allow me to spell it out for you


he's saying give them education and knowledge to practice safe sex so they don't get PREGNANT and aren't forced to make a decision whether to have a baby or not have a baby.  

and yes, not giving them the tools to make an informed decision and then trying to force them to have a child because they make a mistake IS punishing them with a baby.  

It's the whole take responsibility argument the cons are always spouting.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 11, 2008)

Silence said:


> ...
> 
> he's saying give them education and knowledge to practice safe sex so they don't get PREGNANT and aren't forced to make a decision whether to have a baby or not have a baby.
> 
> and yes, not giving them the tools to make an informed decision and then trying to force them to have a child because they make a mistake IS punishing them with a baby...



Actually this is pretty much our interpretation of what he said.

We just don't see babies as punishment regardless if their conception was planned or not (but in your case we'll make an exception).


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 11, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> Actually this is pretty much our interpretation of what he said.
> 
> We just don't see babies as punishment regardless if their conception was planned or not (but in your case we'll make an exception).



Way to twist the argument.  Anyone with half a brain gets it though.  A woman having a baby at 17 means that she is going to sacrifice so much of life that would normally be available to her in the time between graduation from high school and eventually marrying, settling down and having a family.  That's what Obama meant but his words are deliberately twisted by the propagandists.


----------



## Silence (Sep 11, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> Actually this is pretty much our interpretation of what he said.
> 
> We just don't see babies as punishment regardless if their conception was planned or not (but in your case we'll make an exception).



again you're making something out of nothing because you can't debate the issues.  

Have you never heard a parent say "you're my punishment for giving my paretns a hard time"?   I've said it myself.  

and to a young girl, who isn't ready emotionally, financially or physically to have a child...a baby CAN feel like a punishment.  

why do you ignore that he included STDs in that statement and only focus on the baby part?  to an immature person a baby IS a punishment for messing up and making a bad decision because they either live with the decision to terminate or they have the baby and raise it, struggling as a teen parent or the have it and give it up for adoption and wonder whether the baby is healthy and happy.

see...all three choices are torture for smeone too young to be in that situation.


----------



## Denny Crane (Sep 11, 2008)

-Cp said:


> YouTube - Obama - I don't want my daughters "punished with a baby"
> 
> WOW... what a POS...


Are you saying that you would want your daughter or daughters burdened with a baby before she graduates high school, and that you would be fine with then getting a sexually transmitted disease?


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 11, 2008)

Silence said:


> again you're making something out of nothing because you can't debate the issues.
> 
> Have you never heard a parent say "you're my punishment for giving my paretns a hard time"?   I've said it myself.
> 
> ...


You know, if a fundie were to call STD's "a punishment" y'all would be spitting blood out of sheer rage.

In fact, y'all did go apeshit when a select few evangelicals called AIDS a punishment.

It's a good thing for Obama he isn't a Christian.

Still, babies aren't punishment. They're hard work--and I suppose to liberals THAT could be construed as punishment.

All this shows is that once again Little O's supporters have to cover for him because while he might be clean he's not nearly as articulate as his lesser choice of VP makes him out to be.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 11, 2008)

It was a dumb thing for him to say.

I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it to mean babies are punishment. Obviously, he's got two of his own.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 11, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Way to twist the argument.  Anyone with half a brain gets it though.  A woman having a baby at 17 means that she is going to sacrifice so much of life that would normally be available to her in the time between graduation from high school and eventually marrying, settling down and having a family.  That's what Obama meant but his words are deliberately twisted by the propagandists.


And what makes you think a baby at 27 doesn't require sacrifice.

Alas, Mr. Articulate, ain't. There is a tremendous gulf between the words "punish" and "sacrifice". We punish bad things, we sacrifice for good things. No one could ever sacrifice for a bad thing.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

I love it when Obama says stupid things, which show us what he really thinks...and die-hard libs, who know mainstream America is appalled, fall over backwards to translate.

He meant what he said, dillholes.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> And what makes you think a baby at 27 doesn't require sacrifice.
> 
> Alas, Mr. Articulate, ain't. There is a tremendous gulf between the words "punish" and "sacrifice". We punish bad things, we sacrifice for good things. No one could ever sacrifice for a bad thing.



The abortion argument for lefties is about them trying to march those poor, stupid girls into the ovens...er, I mean abortion clinics....to get rid of the "criminals" they carry, don't you know?


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 11, 2008)

Ravi said:


> It was a dumb thing for him to say.
> 
> *I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it to mean babies are punishment.* Obviously, he's got two of his own.



Finally! Some honesty.

At least he knows how to pronounce nookyulur.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I love it when Obama says stupid things,.



Then I assume you LOVE Bush.  You supported him for, probably 5 or 6 years before the GOP tried to sever ties, then you followed suit.


----------



## Denny Crane (Sep 11, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> You know, if a fundie were to call STD's "a punishment" y'all would be spitting blood out of sheer rage.
> 
> In fact, y'all did go apeshit when a select few evangelicals called AIDS a punishment.
> 
> ...



Since you are complaining about Obama supporters I take it you mean me also.

You're barking up the wrong tree with your "Little O's supporters" comment. I never said anything about it being a punishment. I implied it would be a burden for a young girl to have a baby because of the stupidity of a parent who chose not educate their kids about sex or sexually transmitted diseases, which is what Obama seemed to be saying.

I'm not covering for anyone. I'm pointing out the obvious, which is all Obama was doing in the clip.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Silence said:


> he's saying give them education and knowledge to practice safe sex so they don't get PREGNANT and aren't forced to make a decision whether to have a baby or not have a baby.



Are he and his wife too incompetent to do that ??

I'm beginning to think that sex ed is for everyone else child.  " I don't want YOUR kid to get MY kid pregnant or give her/him STDs ".


----------



## Silence (Sep 11, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> You know, if a fundie were to call STD's "a punishment" y'all would be spitting blood out of sheer rage.
> 
> In fact, y'all did go apeshit when a select few evangelicals called AIDS a punishment.
> 
> ...



are you seriously so fucking retarded that you don't see the difference between a right winger saying AIDS is GOD's punishment on gays and someone saying he doesn't want his children punished with an STD because he's kept them ignorant?  

WOW... just with I think a con can't be more dense one comes out and surprises me.

dillo, I'm not sure why I expect anything different from you because you're as big an idiot as the rest of them

Do you refuse to acknowledge what he actually said?  seriously?  

does that make the fact that this country is swirling around like a turd in a toliet bowl any easier to take?  it must if this is all you've got to argue with. 

Let's face facts... most parents aren't to bright about sex education since they probably grew up in an era when it wasn't readily available.  Most aren't up to date on the latest stats on teen pregnancy and rising STDs among teens either.  Do you not think it's WISE to put PROFESSIONAL HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS in a position to teach the children of our country the FACTS and give them to tools to put those facts to good use....as in protecting themselves.  

A baby is the least of the problem at this point.  People are DYING from having unprotected sex.  GET A FUCKING CLUE ALREADY!


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Silence said:


> are you seriously so fucking retarded that you don't see the difference between a right winger saying AIDS is GOD's punishment on gays and someone saying he doesn't want his children punished with an STD because he's kept them ignorant?
> 
> WOW... just with I think a con can't be more dense one comes out and surprises me.



Do you not see how ignorant a man is who thinks someone else should teach HIS kid sex ed ?


----------



## Ravi (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Do you not see how ignorant a man is who thinks someone else should teach HIS kid sex ed ?


I don't. It's a biological function. I've got no problem with kids learning about biological functions as part of biology class.

Why do you?


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Do you not see how ignorant a man is who thinks someone else should teach HIS kid sex ed ?



The problem is, not many children will have parents that will talk to them, so we need to inform our children.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

Remember, they know better than everyone else. THerefore they are justified in forcing us to accept their teaching, and forcing us to teach our kids that abortion is ok.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Remember, they know better than everyone else. THerefore they are justified in forcing us to accept their teaching, and forcing us to teach our kids that abortion is ok.


Wrong again. You can opt out. In fact, parents in our school district have to opt in. If you don't want your kids to take sex ed, they aren't required to take it.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your hysteria.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I don't. It's a biological function. I've got no problem with kids learning about biological functions as part of biology class.
> 
> Why do you?



Except it isn't taught as a biological function. If it was just taught as a biological function, the counselors wouldn't have the names and numbers of nearby abortion clinics...nor would they have contraceptives out on their desks.

Is homosexual sex a biological function?


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Remember, they know better than everyone else. THerefore they are justified in forcing us to accept their teaching, and forcing us to teach our kids that abortion is ok.



No, we are forcing our children to believe in protection.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> The problem is, not many children will have parents that will talk to them, so we need to inform our children.



Fine--INFORM you're children--The sexual education of OTHER people's children is none of your business.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Fine--INFORM you're children--The sexual education of OTHER people's children is none of your business.



Oh thats right, good point.  So I am just going to sit back and let millions get AIDS when I could have done something about it. WHAT was I thinking?


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

I teach my children the result of sex is pregnancy. I do believe that biologically correct.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I teach my children the result of sex is pregnancy. I do believe that biologically correct.



As a parent, wouldn't you want as few lives to be distroyed by disease as possible?


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> Oh thats right, good point.  So I am just going to sit back and let millions get AIDS when I could have done something about it. WHAT was I thinking?



So let me get this straight...the sex lives of others is none of our business, and we have  no right interfering with sex education and abortions...

But it is YOUR business...and we should just sit by while you do your thing.

Gotcha.

Only the people who preach death to babies and sex to children should be allowed to say anything.

The rest of us have to watch from afar.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> Oh thats right, good point.  So I am just going to sit back and let millions get AIDS when I could have done something about it. WHAT was I thinking?



Get you a school bus and hit the road with your traveling STD rodeo for all I care--just get your ass out of public schools.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> So let me get this straight...the sex lives of others is none of our business, and we have  no right interfering with sex education and abortions...
> 
> But it is YOUR business...and we should just sit by while you do your thing.
> 
> ...



I am glad you are clapping for yourself, because nobody else is.  I disagree with your opinion but I see that I have no choice but no accept it.  Do not let the deaths of children who could have been saved weigh on your conscience too much.


----------



## Silence (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Do you not see how ignorant a man is who thinks someone else should teach HIS kid sex ed ?



but is that REALLY what he said dillo?  

transcript:



> Obama:
> when it comes to, when it come specifically to HIV/AIDs, the most important prevention is eduction...which should include absteience education and teaching children that sex is not something casual.  It should also include other information and contraception.  *Look I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old,  I'm going to teach them first 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... so doesn't make sense to not give them information.. you still want to give them the values and morals to make good descisions....



I know it's tons of fun to make shit up or spin it but you're only doing yourself a disservice by arguing that he said something he CLEARLY did NOT say.  

I believe he's speaking that as PARENTS we have an obligation to educate our children.  

of course you'll take it as whatever negative you can spin against Obama because you don't like him.  

again....where is a discussin about the ISSUE he is talking about?  PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN FROM DISEASE AND UNWANTED PREGNANCY!


----------



## editec (Sep 11, 2008)

I know exactly what *O* meant.

He's right.

I had a baby once.

He was a total slacker, a complete parasite AND a damned crybaby, too.

Ungrateful bastard didn't say a single world to me for nearly two years. 

And that, despite the fact that I was waiting on him hand and foot, even wiping its ass for him the whole time.

If I_ really_ hated somebody, I'd foist a baby on them.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Get you a school bus and hit the road with your traveling STD rodeo for all I care--just get your ass out of public schools.



Once again, Republicans resorting to name calling and insults, I am surprised I actually know any reasonable Republicans.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> I am glad you are clapping for yourself, because nobody else is.  I disagree with your opinion but I see that I have no choice but no accept it.  Do not let the deaths of children who could have been saved weigh on your conscience too much.



wrong---a lot of people believe the same way she does. Do you want to send your child over to Allies house for sex ed---if no --why not ?


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> I am glad you are clapping for yourself, because nobody else is.  I disagree with your opinion but I see that I have no choice but no accept it.  Do not let the deaths of children who could have been saved weigh on your conscience too much.



The deaths of children who could have been saved?
WTF are you talking about? Do you know?


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> wrong---a lot of people believe the same way she does. Do you want to send your child over to Allies house for sex ed---if no --why not ?



I would rather have a certified teacher in our public school system teach them.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> The deaths of children who could have been saved?
> WTF are you talking about? Do you know?



Yes, I do.  The deaths of the children young adults with AIDS and other STD's.  Attend a Relay for Life for a change.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

Children with Aids get it from their parents. If children have STDs, then you damn sure better start teaching them to avoid sex, and looking into their family life, because somewhere someone's sexually abusing a kid, nitwit.

But you go ahead and keep promoting child sex. I'm sure that will reduce the pain.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> I would rather have a certified teacher in our public school system teach them.



The problem is that parents around the country disagree as to how it should be taught and who it should be taught by. Doesn't teaching the children at home solve the problem ?


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 11, 2008)

Silence said:


> are you seriously so fucking retarded that you don't see the difference between a right winger saying AIDS is GOD's punishment on gays and someone saying he doesn't want his children punished with an STD because he's kept them ignorant?


pun&#65533;ish &#65533;&#65533; (pnsh) KEY &#65533;

VERB: 
pun&#65533;ished , pun&#65533;ish&#65533;ing , pun&#65533;ish&#65533;es 
VERB: 
tr. 

1. To subject to a penalty for an offense, sin, or fault. 
2. To inflict a penalty for (an offense). 
3. To handle roughly; hurt: My boots were punished by our long trek through the desert. 

Punish seems to be a word with moral context. 

Unless Little O meant his children would become worn out from having children. Does Obama find his children punishing on him?


Oh and BTW - regardless of whatever it is Mr. Articulate MEANT to say, it isn't his job to tell MY children about birth control. Yet, he seems determined to deprive me of my essential liberty to raise my family my way. Oh sure, I can homeschool or send them to a private school but that cuts into the public trough and progressives" hate having my--I mean--their money taken away so I get a measly deduction on my income tax but my property taxes go unamended even though I opt-out of public services.

Let's make a deal: you keep your condoms and I'll keep my money and my family.

Deal?


----------



## -Cp (Sep 11, 2008)

Shogun said:


> post the video
> 
> [youtube]GbZJYWjkAPo[/youtube]



OH... didn't know how to do that....


----------



## Silence (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> wrong---a lot of people believe the same way she does. Do you want to send your child over to Allies house for sex ed---if no --why not ?



I wouldn't send my child over to Allies house to learn how to take out the trash.  

She sounds like an uneducated dumbfuck most of the time quite honestly.

To say "i'll teach my kids that sex results in pregnancy" or whatever she said..while factually not inaccurate a baby is the LEAST of the problem at this point.  

Obama has said that he wants to prevent UNWANTED pregnancy in order to reduce the number of abortions... and yet you still hear people bitching and complaining.  sorry you can't have it both ways... you're either for education to prevent the pregnancy to begin with and if they don't then you can say well you were told the consequences OR you're for just letting them go out and fuck recklessly and abort their unwanted pregnancy.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

Dillo said:
*The problem is that parents around the country disagree as to how it should be taught and who it should be taught by. Doesn't teaching the children at home solve the problem *
Why yes, yes it would.

But you won't stop this train...the train that says if a child comes from a dysfunctional home, we must accept that dysfunction, and pretend it's normal. Pretend it's normal for little girls to get pregnant; pretend it's normal for them to get abortions. Pretend it's normal for high school kids to spread STDs, and make sure you tell them, there's no right or wrong to having sex. Everyone can have it anyway they want it..and there don't have to be any consequences. We'll HELP you have sex, in fact. And we won't tell.

You guys sound like sex offenders, I swear.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> Once again, Republicans resorting to name calling and insults, I am surprised I actually know any reasonable Republicans.



I'm surprised that you think you slipped that insult by everyone.
grow a spine


----------



## -Cp (Sep 11, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Way to twist the argument.  Anyone with half a brain gets it though.  A woman having a baby at 17 means that she is going to sacrifice so much of life that would normally be available to her in the time between graduation from high school and eventually marrying, settling down and having a family.  That's what Obama meant but his words are deliberately twisted by the propagandists.



Either way - both your argument AND his are moronic..

How is it - in ANY WAY a "punishment" to have a baby - at ANY age?


----------



## Silence (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Children with Aids get it from their parents. If children have STDs, then you damn sure better start teaching them to avoid sex, and looking into their family life, because somewhere someone's sexually abusing a kid, nitwit.
> 
> But you go ahead and keep promoting child sex. I'm sure that will reduce the pain.



Allie, seriously NEVER reproduce and if you have, give them up NOW for adoption... you are too stupid to parent a child.

we're not talking about 9 and 10 year olds here!  the term CHILDREN refers to people under the age of 18 in case you're to fundamentally retarded to know that.  

I've been talking to my daughter about sex since she was 8 and started asked questions... she also took sex ed in 5th grade.  she said it was lame cuz they didn't even really talk about anything other than periods and puberty and what happens to your body as you develop.  



> How is it - in ANY WAY a "punishment" to have a baby - at ANY age?



so you think it's a-ok for a 12 year old to have a baby just like it would be for a 22 year old?  cuz you know...what's wrong with having a baby at ANY AGE?  

baby's are hard work...a lifetime of committment and responsibility.  They require around the clock care and financial support for at a minimum of 18 years.  They are draining emotionally, physically and financially.  A TRUE parent gives up their own life the moment they bring a child into this world, sacraficing everything for them, from new clothes to trips to sometimes even eating dinner themselves.  

NOW, if the person is READY to be a parent then a child, even with all that, is a blessing.  A joy to behold and a miracle unlike any other... 

however, IF the person is NOT ready for all that comes with having a child, it is a punishment for making the mistake of having unprotected sex.  

and newsflash dummy, children also gets AIDS through blood transfusion and other forms of bodily fluid contact.  but I'm sure you like the ignorant lil cave you live in so just ignore the facts.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Silence said:


> I wouldn't send my child over to Allies house to learn how to take out the trash.
> 
> She sounds like an uneducated dumbfuck most of the time quite honestly.
> 
> ...



What is it about TEACHING YOU OWN KIDS that you and Obama don't understand ???
What gives you OR Obama the right to teach MY kid a damn thing about sex ?


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 11, 2008)

Why do libs feel the need to take away the right of good people to teach their children sex ed?

I knwo, I know, they'll pull out the old "Some parents don't teach sex ed or use the fundie myths" argument.

First, you don't get to set the standard about what constitutes adequate sex ed in a private home even--and especially--if based on religious principle. You people remember the thing we call the Bill of Rights?

Second, you don't have the right to survey families to see if they meet the standard you have no right to set.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Silence said:


> Allie, seriously NEVER reproduce and if you have, give them up NOW for adoption... you are too stupid to parent a child.
> 
> we're not talking about 9 and 10 year olds here!  the term CHILDREN refers to people under the age of 18 in case you're to fundamentally retarded to know that.
> 
> ...



I taught mine---you teach yours----you got a problem with that ?


----------



## Modbert (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> What is it about TEACHING YOU OWN KIDS that you and Obama don't understand ???
> What gives you OR Obama the right to teach MY kid a damn thing about sex ?



For the record, I'm just wondering what gives some people on here (not saying you Dillo) or the GOP the right to say who can and can't have a marriage in this country instead of just civil unions.


----------



## Silence (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> What is it about TEACHING YOU OWN KIDS that you and Obama don't understand ???
> What gives you OR Obama the right to teach MY kid a damn thing about sex ?



OPT OUT OF THE CLASS FOR YOUR KID YOU DUMB FUCK!  what is it about your sexual hang up that you think it's wrong for OTHER parents to want sex education taught in school?  

No one is saying your child MUST attend these classes... and obama said CLEARLY "I WILL TEACH THEM" FIRST MORALS..et al... now you can ignore what he said all you want but that's what he said and he clearly said YOU SHOULD TEACH THEM HOW TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS... YOU as in the PARENT! 

is this another wedge issue dillo?  

Sex education has a place in our schools because kids need to be taught how to protect themselves...if YOU think you're doing a fine job then don't let your kid take the class...it's not fucking rocket science


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

Silence said:


> Allie, seriously NEVER reproduce and if you have, give them up NOW for adoption... you are too stupid to parent a child.
> 
> we're not talking about 9 and 10 year olds here!  the term CHILDREN refers to people under the age of 18 in case you're to fundamentally retarded to know that.
> 
> ...



There you have it, a "pro-choice" libtard telling the rest of the world when and how they should have children.

Tell me again how it's those of us who value and love children who are trying to force anything on anyone.

"Not being ready" is not a reason to kill a wife, a husband, or a child.

I was under the impression that in the US we test our blood for AIDS these days, and blood-transmitted aids via transfusions was a thing of the past.

I have 4 children, and one grandchild. All beautiful, intelligent kids.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> The problem is that parents around the country disagree as to how it should be taught and who it should be taught by. Doesn't teaching the children at home solve the problem ?


If you don't want your kids taught sex education at school, make a phone call and tell the school.

Why is this so difficult for you?


----------



## Silence (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> There you have it, a "pro-choice" libtard telling the rest of the world when and how they should have children.
> 
> Tell me again how it's those of us who value and love children who are trying to force anything on anyone.
> 
> ...



not ready is why they take precaution... so it doesn't happen in the first place..... 

and now you've jumped from abortion to killing wives and husbands?  you guys really are retarded.  

tainted blood still gets through allie, nothing is 100% fool proof... it doesn't happen often but it does happen.  

as for your kids congrats..I'm gonna guess it has more to do with outside influence than it does you just based on the interactions we've had on this board...


----------



## Ravi (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> What is it about TEACHING YOU OWN KIDS that you and Obama don't understand ???
> What gives you OR Obama the right to teach MY kid a damn thing about sex ?


None whatsoever. So opt out.

Though, with your hysterical fear, it might be better for your kids.

I tell mine to avoid the kids that don't take sex ed like the plague.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Silence said:


> OPT OUT OF THE CLASS FOR YOUR KID YOU DUMB FUCK!  what is it about your sexual hang up that you think it's wrong for OTHER parents to want sex education taught in school?
> 
> No one is saying your child MUST attend these classes... and obama said CLEARLY "I WILL TEACH THEM" FIRST MORALS..et al... now you can ignore what he said all you want but that's what he said and he clearly said YOU SHOULD TEACH THEM HOW TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS... YOU as in the PARENT!
> 
> ...



no--sex education was put in schools because parents were to afraid to do it and liberals wanted it to be taught in a particular way.
If a school taught abstinence, liberals would flip out.
I'll make you a deal-----if all schools teach is abstinence I'm all for it. If all schools tell the parents to teach the importance of teaching their children about sex, I'm all for it.
WTF wedge issue ?  You don't even know what you're talking about.


----------



## del (Sep 11, 2008)

-Cp said:


> Either way - both your argument AND his are moronic..
> 
> How is it - in ANY WAY a "punishment" to have a baby - at ANY age?



well, unless you consider limited educational and economic prospects punishment, or the increased probability of being a single parent household punishment- practically none.

i'm not an Obama supporter, and I've enjoyed busting stones about the whole lipstick thing, i have to ask you-

are you this stupid in real life? you think teen pregnancy is a good thing? you think gov Palin is just thrilled about this? 

get a grip


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Ravi said:


> None whatsoever. So opt out.
> 
> Though, with your hysterical fear, it might be better for your kids.
> 
> I tell mine to avoid the kids that don't take sex ed like the plague.



fine--have your kids opt out of religous classes in school.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

Ravi said:


> If you don't want your kids taught sex education at school, make a phone call and tell the school.
> 
> Why is this so difficult for you?



Sex ed is one thing. I have no problem with my 11 year old girl having a class where the form and function of her body is taught, and my 14 year old being taught how babies are made.

As far as teaching children where and how to obtain and use contraceptives, the "truth" about abortion, and homosexuality...all with a "it's okay" attitude,  screw that. Teach it to your own kids. It doesn't belong in the classroom any more than Hail Mary belongs in the classroom. If you want it, send your kids to a private school that specializes in teaching your children the nitty gritty about every form of sex there is, and gives instructions for each and every sex act.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Ravi said:


> None whatsoever. So opt out.
> 
> Though, with your hysterical fear, it might be better for your kids.
> 
> I tell mine to avoid the kids that don't take sex ed like the plague.



it's a public school--why should anything go on there that my child should have to "opt out" of ?



> I tell mine to avoid the kids that don't take sex ed like the plague.



EXACTLY--you don't want your kids "contaminated".  Best of luck  !!


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 11, 2008)

tell me this...how can the same people who want to ban abortions...put this bumpersticker on their suv's.

"if you cant feed 'em dont breed em"

abortion has existed since women figured out how to do it.  herbs were used for centuries....back street abortions....etc...you wont stop abortion even by outlawing them....you will just make health care a lot harder for women.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Sex ed is one thing. I have no problem with my 11 year old girl having a class where the form and function of her body is taught, and my 14 year old being taught how babies are made.
> 
> As far as teaching children where and how to obtain and use contraceptives, the "truth" about abortion, and homosexuality...all with a "it's okay" attitude,  screw that. Teach it to your own kids. It doesn't belong in the classroom any more than Hail Mary belongs in the classroom. If you want it, send your kids to a private school that specializes in teaching your children the nitty gritty about every form of sex there is, and gives instructions for each and every sex act.



this attitude is why i quit teaching sex education in public schools.  LISTEN UP  YOU IDIOTS...ITS NOT ABOUT HERPES ANYMORE.   kids die from having unsafe sex...from not knowing the difference....hell adults hardly know what consists of "safe sex".....they just tell kids...no sex...well that aint working.
I would rather teach kids the truth than tell them lies...sorry.  a lot of the problem is the parents dont have the skills needed to discuss sexuality.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

If they die from having unsafe sex, we must assume that sex is unsafe and therefore STOP TEACHING THEM IT'S OK.

Like I said, I don't care about teaching the mechanics. I don't even care about the county clinics providing contraceptives. But I do mind the way it's promoted and marketed in the classroom.

And that's what it is. Promotion and marketing. You tell kids that their folks might not like it, but it's natural and not wrong..they're going to jump at that. You tell kids they might die...but you have ways around it...they're going to jump at that.

You tell kids this is the way it works, and let their parents decide how to deal with the rest of it.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> If they die from having unsafe sex, we must assume that sex is unsafe and therefore STOP TEACHING THEM IT'S OK.
> 
> Like I said, I don't care about teaching the mechanics. I don't even care about the county clinics providing contraceptives. But I do mind the way it's promoted and marketed in the classroom.
> 
> ...



Sex ed isn't saying, 'here kids go crazy', it is teaching young adults about AIDS and birth control.  The truth is, they will do it if you tell them about it or not.  I would rather take precautions to stop the spread of STD's, lets say by giving classes to 16 year old's in high school.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

You stop STDs by not having sex. Pretty much puts the kabosh to it. 

The rest is just window dressing for permissive behavior, and removal of consequence.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> You stop STDs by not having sex. Pretty much puts the kabosh to it.
> 
> The rest is just window dressing for permissive behavior, and removal of consequence.



Every child does something behind their parent's back.  When your child is out of the house, in their 20's, they are in a situatino where others may be telling them it is ok.  Ignorance is bliss, but if you stay ignorant enough you get hurt.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

All kids play with matches. We don't need a class to teach them how to make bombs safely.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> All kids play with matches. We don't need a class to teach them how to make bombs safely.



That is a ridiculus comparision.  So we should not bother telling our kids the stove is hot with the hope they will not burn their hands?


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> Every child does something behind their parent's back.  When your child is out of the house, in their 20's, they are in a situatino where others may be telling them it is ok.  Ignorance is bliss, but if you stay ignorant enough you get hurt.



MY child is not YOUR responsibilty.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

Sigh.

It's like talking to a goat.

No, you tell them the stove will hurt them. You don't tell them the stove is hot, wink, wink, but they can play with it, wink, wink, if they use a dishtowel over their hand.

You tell them not to play with matches, or they'll hurt themselves. You don't explain why fire burns, then teach them ways to avoid being burned while playing with matches, and give them the equipment they need to play.

Children shouldn't have sex. Period. If they do, it's #1, ILLEGAL,  #2, dangerous, and #3, they aren't psychologically ready for it.

So explain to me why we teach them HOW to have sex, and tell them it's okay? 

Have abortions gone down? Why no, we have more abortions than ever. 
And out-of-wedlock births sky rocketed with the onset of sex education. Explain to me how, then, anyone can argue that sex ed helps?


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> this attitude is why i quit teaching sex education in public schools.  LISTEN UP  YOU IDIOTS...ITS NOT ABOUT HERPES ANYMORE.   kids die from having unsafe sex...from not knowing the difference....hell adults hardly know what consists of "safe sex".....they just tell kids...no sex...well that aint working.
> I would rather teach kids the truth than tell them lies...sorry.  a lot of the problem is the parents dont have the skills needed to discuss sexuality.



Then make sex education mandatory for PARENTS !


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Sigh.
> 
> It's like talking to a goat.
> 
> ...



Are you that sheltered that you believe kids do not do it anyway?  What if you child needs to cook?  Do they just not do it because of the possibility of getting hurt?  Talking to a goat... I admire your command of the english language.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

Once again. Slowly for the peanut gallery...

Just because they do it doesn't mean we put the stamp of approval on it.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> Are you that sheltered that you believe kids do not do it anyway?  What if you child needs to cook?  Do they just not do it because of the possibility of getting hurt?  Talking to a goat... I admire your command of the english language.



oh boy--I love this one---all kids fuck.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

So we should tell them how to do it efficiently.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Once again. Slowly for the peanut gallery...
> 
> Just because they do it doesn't mean we put the stamp of approval on it.



You are right, we should not.  We should preach abstinance as a first choice, but what if they are in their 20's and looking for some fun because their friends talk about it?  Just answer me that.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

And protect the pigs who are screwing them.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

And teach them that babies are expendable.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> You are right, we should not.  We should preach abstinance as a first choice, but what if they are in their 20's and looking for some fun because their friends talk about it?  Just answer me that.



Then if they're stupid enough to buck what they've been taught and get knocked up, they'll have the joy of a baby to mature them.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> And teach them that babies are expendable.



Do not even say that sarcastically.  Get off this forum and spend some time with your 11 and 14 year old.  I like spending time with my parents.


----------



## del (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> oh boy--I love this one---all kids fuck.



well, yeah, except the really ugly ones
and that changes on prom night


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Then if they're stupid enough to buck what they've been taught and get knocked up, they'll have the joy of a baby to mature them.



You are sick.  I am sorry, but I don't want to hear any more from you about this.  Think of the child, being raised in a broken home...imagine what kind of generation that will cause.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 11, 2008)

-Cp said:


> YouTube - Obama - I don't want my daughters "punished with a baby"



Another example of his less-than-stellar candid speaking ability. Like the guns and religion, and the lipstick comment. 

I guess his exasperation gets the upper hand sometimes, but hey we're all human. I really don't believe he meant that babies are a bad thing. Most parents that truly think babies are a bad thing are pretty easy to spot, least in my limited experience.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> fine--have your kids opt out of religous classes in school.


I would, if it was constitutional to teach religion in school...and I bet you would, too, if you didn't agree with the theology.

So, why do you have a problem opting out of sex ed?


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> Another example of his less-than-stellar candid speaking ability. Like the guns and religion, and the lipstick comment.
> 
> I guess his exasperation gets the upper hand sometimes, but hey we're all human. I really don't believe he meant that babies are a bad thing. Most parents that truly think babies are a bad thing are pretty easy to spot, least in my limited experience.



He meant he didn't want to have his daughters 'cursed' with an uxpected surprise.  But 'blessed' with a childwhen they are ready.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Sex ed is one thing. I have no problem with my 11 year old girl having a class where the form and function of her body is taught, and my 14 year old being taught how babies are made.
> 
> As far as teaching children where and how to obtain and use contraceptives, the "truth" about abortion, and homosexuality...all with a "it's okay" attitude,  screw that. Teach it to your own kids. It doesn't belong in the classroom any more than Hail Mary belongs in the classroom. If you want it, send your kids to a private school that specializes in teaching your children the nitty gritty about every form of sex there is, and gives instructions for each and every sex act.


Again, if you don't want them to learn it at school, let the school know. There is no school in the country that would force sex ed on your kid.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> it's a public school--why should anything go on there that my child should have to "opt out" of ?
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY--you don't want your kids "contaminated".  Best of luck  !!


I don't agree with everything the public schools teach, either. If your goal is to stop teaching science in school, go for it.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> Another example of his less-than-stellar candid speaking ability. Like the guns and religion, and the lipstick comment.
> 
> I guess his exasperation gets the upper hand sometimes, but hey we're all human. I really don't believe he meant that babies are a bad thing. Most parents that truly think babies are a bad thing are pretty easy to spot, least in my limited experience.



Well---I suggest that all those who were outraged over Bush's speaking ability  take a good look at Obama blunders cause you're going to hear them all over again. You may want to find a different favorite thing about him.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Well---I suggest that all those who were outraged over Bush's speaking ability  take a good look at Obama blunders cause you're going to hear them all over again. You may want to find a different favorite thing about him.



What is your favorite thing about McCAin?


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> What is your favorite thing about McCAin?



that he picked Palin. period.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> that he picked Palin. period.



That is one of the reasons I do not like McCain.  Most of Palin's speech was bashing Obama saying that all the does is bash McCain, the rest is not even about her policies.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> That is one of the reasons I do not like McCain.  Most of Palin's speech was bashing Obama saying that all the does is bash McCain, the rest is not even about her policies.



ahh  you hate women huh ?


----------



## del (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> What is your favorite thing about McCAin?



his hair
what's yours?


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Have abortions gone down? Why no, we have more abortions than ever.



I don't think that is right, but if it is I would be interested to see a link. 

My understanding is that education and general improvement in socioeconomic status has reduced abortion steadily since the 1970's. One advantage of an Obama presidency is that he believes that improving the economy will enable more women currently in poverty to choose life, ie reduce abortion.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> ahh  you hate women huh ?



Not at all.  If I did, I would start with 'It's not even because she is a woman.'  I just do not like her personality, she speaks so well, but a lot of it is not true.  She has the power to speak her thoughts but she is using it instead to degrade others.  That is why...


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

del said:


> his hair
> what's yours?



Well put.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> Not at all.  If I did, I would start with 'It's not even because she is a woman.'  I just do not like her personality, she speaks so well, but a lot of it is not true.  She has the power to speak her thoughts but she is using it instead to degrade others.  That is why...



I'm afraid that for now she is told what to say and where to say it. Let's sneak her into Washington before they realize what happened.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Well---I suggest that all those who were outraged over Bush's speaking ability  take a good look at Obama blunders cause you're going to hear them all over again. You may want to find a different favorite thing about him.




I suspect it (a person's feeling of trust in a candidate or familiarity with their general ideology or just simply "liking them")  boils down a to a few things like whether they speak in a familiar way, and you're right - Obama may be as bad at Obamisms as Bush has been at Bushisms. 

They've all said stupid things - Hillary had the bobby kennedy comment, McCain the seven houses thing, Palin has a new stupid thing most days. 

I noticed McCain would say things like Amurcan and nucular on the campaign trail - he didn't used to say stuff like that and I wonder if he picked it up to appeal to a different slice of the electorate. Obama does it to, sounding more educated on some occasions, and more (dare I say it) black on others. 

There's a hell of a lot of 'nonissues' in campaigning, but we can try.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> I suspect it (a person's feeling of trust in a candidate or familiarity with their general ideology or just simply "liking them")  boils down a to a few things like whether they speak in a familiar way, and you're right - Obama may be as bad at Obamisms as Bush has been at Bushisms.
> 
> They've all said stupid things - Hillary had the bobby kennedy comment, McCain the seven houses thing, Palin has a new stupid thing most days.
> 
> ...



agreed--slips of the tongue are sometimes just slips of the tongue.
If we are going to be that hypercritical, no one has a chance.


----------



## jillian (Sep 11, 2008)

Ravi said:


> It was a dumb thing for him to say.
> 
> I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it to mean babies are punishment. Obviously, he's got two of his own.



Well, it wasn't smart from a political perspective, but it was straightforward. I think he was addressing the type of thing that I always say which is, although there are some who walk it as they talk it, many on the right aren't pro life or they'd give services to the single moms who struggle or assist with adoption services or at least daycare so mom can work or go to school. Rather, they want the harlots "punished"... That's why all the talk about "responsibility" when the males who got them that way aren't held to the same standard.

And if they were really pro life, they'd be concerned about existing life and not potential life. Instead, many are just pro birth.

So I figure given that I'm not a seer, that it's not difficult to understand that's how it works. And that's what Obama was referring to. Hence, a young woman who makes a mistake shouldn't be "punished" for her sins. Whether or not she has the child, at least in the early months, should be the sole province of the woman.

But let's focus on this instead of the fact that there's a woman who wants to get into the white house who thinks the planet is supposed to end in holy fire and then wants to make the world go BOOM by starting a war with Russia.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

jillian said:


> Well, it wasn't smart from a political perspective, but it was straightforward. I think he was addressing the type of thing that I always say which is, although there are some who walk it as they talk it, many on the right aren't pro life or they'd give services to the single moms who struggle or assist with adoption services or at least daycare so mom can work or go to school. Rather, they want the harlots "punished"... That's why all the talk about "responsibility" when the males who got them that way aren't held to the same standard.
> 
> And if they were really pro life, they'd be concerned about existing life and not potential life. Instead, many are just pro birth.
> 
> ...





> That's why all the talk about "responsibility" when the males who got them that way aren't held to the same standard.



sorry but men pay out the ass-----you ended up with a vagina---there's nothing I can do about that--sorry you dont like it .


----------



## Ravi (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> sorry but men pay out the ass-----you ended up with a vagina---there's nothing I can do about that--sorry you dont like it .


Except for those women that give birth to a child and pay child support. Rare, probably, but they exist. 

Child support is based on need, quit pretending it isn't.

That said, I think you fragile creatures deserve an out, I'm just not sure how it would be implemented.

And honestly, the only ones crying here are men and Babble.

And why do you always avoid my questions, wuss?


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Except for those women that give birth to a child and pay child support. Rare, probably, but they exist.
> 
> Child support is based on need, quit pretending it isn't.
> 
> ...



I didn't know you had asked me one----red flag it or something.


----------



## jillian (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> sorry but men pay out the ass-----you ended up with a vagina---there's nothing I can do about that--sorry you dont like it .



given what i've read of yours, perhaps there's a reason you had to pay for it.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

jillian said:


> given what i've read of yours, perhaps there's a reason you had to pay for it.



I'm not talking about myself----Im' defending the poor men in the world who can't speak for themselves because they've been so pussy whipped for years.










  I can't even say that with a straight face but it sounded good


----------



## jillian (Sep 11, 2008)

heh....


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

jillian said:


> heh....



I knew that would get ya !!  Now explain to me again why abortion is a just a wedge issue and divisive politics ?


----------



## Ninja (Sep 11, 2008)

jillian said:


> Rather, they want the harlots "punished"...



Punished... HA!

Yeah, some woman sitting on her ass, stuffing her face with boxes of Russell Stover, and ordering crap off of QVC while her MEAL TICKET works his ass off to support her fat ass and the future snot-nosed brat she's carrying in her womb is punishment alright... For the guy!


----------



## jillian (Sep 11, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Punished... HA!
> 
> Yeah, some woman sitting on her ass, stuffing her face with boxes of Russell Stover, and ordering crap off of QVC while her MEAL TICKET works his ass of to support her fat ass and future snot-nosed brat is punishment alright... For the guy!



You might want to consider the person you're talking to ... no one's ever paid for anything for me that I didn't earn. And I worked until 3 days past my due date and went back to work 5 weeks after a C-Section because I wouldn't have had a practice if I didn't. I did those things BY CHOICE... and I had EVERY right to decide I didn't want to do those things if I chose not to assuming I chose early enough.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 11, 2008)

jillian said:


> You might want to consider the person you're talking to ... no one's ever paid for anything for me that I didn't earn. And I worked until 3 days past my due date and went back to work 5 weeks after a C-Section because I wouldn't have had a practice if I didn't. I did those things BY CHOICE... and I had EVERY right to decide I didn't want to do those things if I chose not to assuming I chose early enough.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

jillian said:


> You might want to consider the person you're talking to ... no one's ever paid for anything for me that I didn't earn. And I worked until 3 days past my due date and went back to work 5 weeks after a C-Section because I wouldn't have had a practice if I didn't. I did those things BY CHOICE... and I had EVERY right to decide I didn't want to do those things if I chose not to assuming I chose early enough.



Did you have a talk with you husband about aborting or was it a pretty clear cut deal ?


----------



## jillian (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Did you have a talk with you husband about aborting or was it a pretty clear cut deal ?



I didn't abort so I don't understand your question.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

jillian said:


> I didn't abort so I don't understand your question.



 I was wondering if you even gave it a thought and shared that with your husband ?


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 11, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Yeah, some woman sitting on her ass, stuffing her face with boxes of Russell Stover, and ordering crap off of QVC while her MEAL TICKET works his ass off to support her fat ass and the future snot-nosed brat she's carrying in her womb is punishment alright... For the guy!



You're married to Allie??  Who'd a thought!


----------



## Ninja (Sep 11, 2008)

jillian said:


> I didn't abort so I don't understand your question.



Think it through.

Given the shrillness of your response (BTW "shrill" isn't sexist anymore - at least that's what your liberal buddies told us after Palin SmearFest '08 - which was a huge backfire ) one would have thought my post was meant to apply to you personally. Clearly the only way it would is if you'd ever considered aborting. I can tell how much you love your son from what you've posted about him - he really sounds like a cool little guy - so I REALLY doubt this is the case. 

Hence, post not applicable to Jillian and shrill response unwarranted


----------



## jillian (Sep 11, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Think it through.
> 
> Given the shrillness of your response (BTW "shrill" isn't sexist anymore - at least that's what your liberal buddies told us after Palin SmearFest '08 - which was a huge backfire ) one would have thought I was attacking you personally. Clearly the only way it would is if you'd ever considered aborting. I can tell how much you love your son from what you've posted about him - he really sounds like a cool little guy - so I REALLY doubt this is the case.
> 
> Hence, post not applicable to Jillian and shrill response unwarranted



heh... ok... you got me. 

but to be fair, stuff like that gores my ox because the reason my son's a cool little guy is because I chose to have him... chose when, chose the circumstances, had a marriage, a co-op, the financial, emotional and familial resources to care for him.

But nobody TOLD me what to do and I wouldn't have had to beg a judge for an abortion based on medical necessity should that have been the case. And I believe in amnios for a reason.

But each of us has to make those determinations for ourselves was my point, even if "shrilly" stated.

But I still love ya, brat!


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 11, 2008)

jillian said:


> heh... ok... you got me.
> 
> but to be fair, stuff like that gores my ox because the reason my son's a cool little guy is because I chose to have him... chose when, chose the circumstances, had a marriage, a co-op, the financial, emotional and familial resources to care for him.
> 
> ...



Your Husband!-------Did you discuss this with your husband ?


----------



## jillian (Sep 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Your Husband!-------Did you discuss this with your husband ?



Nothing to discuss... my son was planned. Wasn't an issue. Had it been an issue we would have discussed it without government legislating that we HAD to discuss it. I was also married and we had a real relationship.

But that was MY circumstances and government needs to stay out of the decision.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 11, 2008)

''Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you're just what they're looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.''

- George Carlin


----------



## Ninja (Sep 11, 2008)

Nothing worse than a posted who either (1) recites conventional piety or (2) posts witty quotes he didn't think up himself.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 12, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> And what makes you think a baby at 27 doesn't require sacrifice.
> 
> Alas, Mr. Articulate, ain't. There is a tremendous gulf between the words "punish" and "sacrifice". We punish bad things, we sacrifice for good things. No one could ever sacrifice for a bad thing.



I didn't say a baby at 27 didn't require sacrifice.  But since you've brought it up, yes, it does require a sacrifice.  But a woman having a baby at 27 has at least had some carefree times, maybe been to university, perhaps as travelled, advanced herself in her career, whatever it was she wanted to do.  And she's ready to give up some of her previous freedoms to become a mother and to care for her baby.  

Obama obviously meant "punish" in the sense of being forced to have a baby at 17 and then forced to decide whether or not to give up the baby.  17 isn't 27.  If the state forces a 17 year old to bring a pregnancy to term, possibly against her will, then that's the state punishing her.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 12, 2008)

-Cp said:


> Either way - both your argument AND his are moronic..
> 
> How is it - in ANY WAY a "punishment" to have a baby - at ANY age?



I've addressed this, just working through the thread.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> I didn't say a baby at 27 didn't require sacrifice.  But since you've brought it up, yes, it does require a sacrifice.  But a woman having a baby at 27 has at least had some carefree times, maybe been to university, perhaps as travelled, advanced herself in her career, whatever it was she wanted to do.  And she's ready to give up some of her previous freedoms to become a mother and to care for her baby.
> 
> Obama obviously meant "punish" in the sense of being forced to have a baby at 17 and then forced to decide whether or not to give up the baby.  17 isn't 27.  If the state forces a 17 year old to bring a pregnancy to term, possibly against her will, then that's the state punishing her.


the state didnt force her to create that baby


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 12, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> the state didnt force her to create that baby



True, but that's a separate issue from the state forcing her to bring the baby to term.  If the state doesn't force her to create the foetus then why should the state step in and tell her, having created the foetus, she should allow the foetus to develop to the point where she has to go into labour and then give birth to the baby?  What right over her body does the state have to dictate to her that she will not seek a termination?


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 12, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> the state didnt force her to create that baby



And?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> True, but that's a separate issue from the state forcing her to bring the baby to term.  If the state doesn't force her to create the foetus then why should the state step in and tell her, having created the foetus, she should allow the foetus to develop to the point where she has to go into labour and then give birth to the baby?  What right over her body does the state have to dictate to her that she will not seek a termination?


kinda the same way the state will force you to feed a baby once it is born
otherwise known as neglect if you dont


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 12, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> kinda the same way the state will force you to feed a baby once it is born
> otherwise known as neglect if you dont



Yeah, because then it is a human being - living an breathing. Almost 99.9 percent of abortions occur within the first trimester when the foetus is just that, a foetus...


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Yeah, because then it is a human being - living an breathing. Almost 99.9 percent of abortions occur within the first trimester when the foetus is just that, a foetus...


its a human being in the womb as well
just at an earlier stage of development


----------



## MichaelCollins (Sep 12, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> its a human being in the womb as well
> just at an earlier stage of development




I just cant understand how you are so passionate for life ...when it comes to abortion...but then you are happy to drop bombs on Iraqi civilians.

Could it be that you dont really care about unborn babies...and you just agree with any extreme right wing opinion?

Just a theory.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 12, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> True, but that's a separate issue from the state forcing her to bring the baby to term.  If the state doesn't force her to create the foetus then why should the state step in and tell her, having created the foetus, she should allow the foetus to develop to the point where she has to go into labour and then give birth to the baby?  What right over her body does the state have to dictate to her that she will not seek a termination?



The same right that the State has to tell you you can not kill your neighbor cause he irritates you or keeps you up at night. The same right that State has to tell you you can not kill another living person simply because it is inconvenient that they exist. Hell the State can arrest you for harming a dog, but hey murdering an unborn child is just fine.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 12, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> kinda the same way the state will force you to feed a baby once it is born
> otherwise known as neglect if you dont



Not the same case.  Once the child is born then yes, it should be cared for and any lack of care is rightly sorted out with an indictment.  The state says, you've chosen to have the child, you make sure you look after it.

But that's different from the state forcing the mother to bring the pregnancy to full term.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 12, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The same right that the State has to tell you you can not kill your neighbor cause he irritates you or keeps you up at night. The same right that State has to tell you you can not kill another living person simply because it is inconvenient that they exist. Hell the State can arrest you for harming a dog, but hey murdering an unborn child is just fine.



No Rock, the state says, "you can't do this".  But when the state says, "you must do this" and the "this" is being forced to bring a pregnancy to full term, that's the state overstepping its authority.  The state has every right to tell someone not to kill, it has no right to force a woman to bring a pregnancy to full term.  The state is overbearing the will of that woman.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> No Rock, the state says, "you can't do this". But when the state says, "you must do this" and the "this" is being forced to bring a pregnancy to full term, that's the state overstepping its authority. The state has every right to tell someone not to kill, it has no right to force a woman to bring a pregnancy to full term. The state is overbearing the will of that woman.


no, its the same
the state says no, you cant kill the child within
you chose to create it.


----------



## MichaelCollins (Sep 12, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> no, its the same
> the state says no, you cant kill the child within
> you chose to create it.





I just cant equate your passionate drive to save unborn life.....with your zeal for dropping bombs on those already born?

Its a bizarre paradox....dont you agree?


----------



## Ravi (Sep 12, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Did you have a talk with you husband about aborting or was it a pretty clear cut deal ?


Did you have a talk with your husband about committing suicide or was it a pretty clear cut deal?


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 12, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> no, its the same
> the state says no, you cant kill the child within
> you chose to create it.



My point is that the state has no moral authority to do that.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> My point is that the state has no moral authority to do that.


then it has no moral authorioty to stop anyone from killing anyone


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2008)

MichaelCollins said:


> I just cant equate your passionate drive to save unborn life.....with your zeal for dropping bombs on those already born?
> 
> Its a bizarre paradox....dont you agree?


you might have a point, if babies were targeted, but they are, so your posts prove what an ignorant asshole you are


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 12, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> then it has no moral authorioty to stop anyone from killing anyone



I think it does.  There has been a prohibition on murder for centuries, I think it's entirely probable that the earliest criminal codes prohibited murder.  Murder is still the number one case in the law calendar.  The insistence that one human won't murder (as opposed to kill) another human being is fairly old.  The state has had this ability to prohibit for thousands of years of human history.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> I think it does.  There has been a prohibition on murder for centuries, I think it's entirely probable that the earliest criminal codes prohibited murder.  Murder is still the number one case in the law calendar.  The insistence that one human won't murder (as opposed to kill) another human being is fairly old.  The state has had this ability to prohibit for thousands of years of human history.


so, why cant it also protect those humans least able to protect themselves, those in the womb


----------



## Haro (Sep 12, 2008)

MichaelCollins said:


> I just cant understand how you are so passionate for life ...when it comes to abortion...but then you are happy to drop bombs on Iraqi civilians.
> 
> Could it be that you dont really care about unborn babies...and you just agree with any extreme right wing opinion?
> 
> Just a theory.



How are the laws for abortion in the england with no religion?  I do not feel it is right the the US defied NATO legislature in the indiscriminate bombings.  The second part may be right for some, you can't generalize like that.


----------



## Haro (Sep 12, 2008)

MichaelCollins said:


> I just cant equate your passionate drive to save unborn life.....with your zeal for dropping bombs on those already born?
> 
> Its a bizarre paradox....dont you agree?



Most people do not know what is going on in Iraq and most Republicans who supported Bush (all of them for at least 5-6 years because most are just part of the machine) do not want to think about it because they supported those actions.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 12, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> so, why cant it also protect those humans least able to protect themselves, those in the womb



Perhaps it's been considered a personal and private matter and not a matter that the state should be involved in.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Perhaps it's been considered a personal and private matter and not a matter that the state should be involved in.


then couldn't other things also be ruled that way, things even you might not like to accept?
the point being that we are talking about a law that has and can still be changed
this is not some inalienable right


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 12, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> then couldn't other things also be ruled that way, things even you might not like to accept?
> the point being that we are talking about a law that has and can still be changed
> this is not some inalienable right



Yes they could.  When it comes down to it the law of a society is a reflection of the democratic will of that society, so yes, it's entirely possible it could be changed.  However, the change has to be considered, well in a democracy it does.  There are many competing arguments on what laws should be passed (I'm only going to refer to criminal laws for the moment) and there has to be much debate and consideration on why laws should be enacted and changed.  And the debate will be conducted on grounds that are deep in the value system and philosophies of a society, which is as it should be.


----------



## MichaelCollins (Sep 12, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> you might have a point, if babies were targeted, but they are, so your posts prove what an ignorant asshole you are



Walk into a public place..wearing a blind fold DC... and then open fire quite randomnly...

Are you a murderer if you kill a baby or child or woman or man?...or can you say... I am not a terrorist because i didnt target anyone?


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 12, 2008)

And your intent was indeed to do a criminal act or to have a chance to kill someone

That is not the case of innocents in war. we are not targeting innocent civilians...

The men and women in the US military, my military brothers and sisters, have more honor in one cell of their bodies than 400,000,000 of you would have, Collins... they are not terrorists.. personally I hope you get a chance to tell that to one's face.... I'll have the money set aside to be able to send you some black roses at your hospital bed


----------



## jillian (Sep 12, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> And?



And... it's the whole puritan ethic thing... nothing at all to do with life...everything to do with "sin" and "contrition".

Ask him how he feels about food stamp programs to keep the kid from starving to death after they're born. Suddenly "life" won't matter as much as "responsibility".


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 12, 2008)

jillian said:


> And... it's the whole puritan ethic thing... nothing at all to do with life...everything to do with "sin" and "contrition".
> 
> Ask him how he feels about food stamp programs to keep the kid from starving to death after they're born. Suddenly "life" won't matter as much as "responsibility".



Did not know kids were directly given food stamps.. rather it was based on whether the parents actually had the personal responsibility to provide for their own families... but nice try


----------



## jillian (Sep 12, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Did not know kids were directly given food stamps.. rather it was based on whether the parents actually had the personal responsibility to provide for their own families... but nice try



Sorry if comprehension's not your thing


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 12, 2008)

This is another classic case where one needs an interpreter to decipher the meaning of the plain English used by those the left seeks to place in high office. 

Hussien's words were unambiguous.  He seeks to eliminate the responsibility women have for their sexual decisions, by nullifying the reproductive ramifications of those decisions. 

The problem is that the rights that woman have with regard to sex is based upon the awesome responsibility they realize as a result of their sexual decisions; the path on which Hussien and the left is encouraging here can only lead to undermining that right. 

"Be Careful what you wish for ladies.


----------



## jillian (Sep 12, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> This is another classic case where one needs an interpreter to decipher the meaning of the plain English used by those the left seeks to place in high office.
> 
> Hussien's words were unambiguous.  He seeks to eliminate the responsibility women have for their sexual decisions, by nullifying the reproductive ramifications of those decisions.
> 
> ...



What a ridiculous post. Keep your whole sin/punishment thing in your church and impose it on people who agree with you.

I am really grateful that you proved my point, though.

Has nothing to do with life... has to do with sin and punishment ... for the harlots.

"nullifying the reproductive responsibility for those decisions"??????? 

make your own decisions.... you sure aren't grounded enough to make mine.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 12, 2008)

jillian said:


> What a ridiculous post. Keep your whole sin/punishment thing in your church and impose it on people who agree with you.



Would you please find where I spoke of "sin/punishment?"  I can see you're eager to turn this into an argument over religious doctrine.  Sadly (for you) I don't play that game...  

So you've been directly challenged to show where in the position to whic you're responding here, that I advanced the concept of 'sin/punishment'...  Your failure (which is a 100% certainty) will be your default concession that the entirety of you're position is founded on the typical false premise of an adleminded leftist, discrediting you and bringing shame to your Mother and Father for not doing a better job of educating you.



> I am really grateful that you proved my point, though.



I eviscerated your point, refuting it in its entirety.  But IF you can show where I, in fact, made your point, I'll be more than happy to discuss it...  Naturally, your failure to show from the position to which you're responding here that I, in fact, proved your point will be your default concession that your position is IN FACT: A LIE, advanced for no other purpose than to DECEIVE THIS BOARD.



> Has nothing to do with life... has to do with sin and punishment ... for the harlots.



Would you please find where I spoke of "sin/punishment?"  I can see you're eager to turn this into an argument over religious doctrine.  Sadly (for you) I don't play that game...  

So you've been directly challenged to show where in the position to whic you're responding here, that I advanced the concept of 'sin/punishment'...  Your failure (which is a 100% certainty) will be your default concession that the entirety of you're position is founded on the typical false premise of an adleminded leftist, discrediting you and bringing shame to your Mother and Father for not doing a better job of educating you.



> "nullifying the reproductive responsibility for those decisions"???????
> 
> make your own decisions.... you sure aren't grounded enough to make mine.




You've a right to decide when, where and with WHOM you engage in sexual intercourse...  meaning you have a right to CHOOSE.  Your choice is a simple one: 

A-To engage in sexual intercourse 
B-To NOT engage in sexual intercourse.

Our culture gives the female TOTAL AUTHORITY IN THIS DECISION... That authority rests on the awesome responsibility she bears in reproduction.  Should a man force himself into a woman, violating her right to decide who enters her body, our culture will come down on them with both feet and upon the facts proving their offense, we will recognize that they have forfeited their own rights by having ursurped those of the woman and in many cases execute them, stripping them of their very lives...  the best they can hope for is prlonged periods of incarceration; 15,20-30 years in prison and a lifetime of being identifed for their usurpation of the right of a woman to choose her reproductive fate.

What you and the idiocracy are trying to do; what Hussein is speaking to here, is the desire to strip women of the responsibility for their CHOICE.  He is saying that just because a young female makes a choice to engage in intercourse, she shouldn't be punished by bearing the responsibility for that choice...  and in so doing he is saying that the life conceived through that choice is not entitled to it's right to live and pursue the fulfullment of that life.

Now the position that the choice to engage in the biological function which is designed by nature to conceive a human being, should not be one to which a woman is held accountable means the women are no longer the bearers of the awesome responsibility of rearing a child...  thus the act of rape will be reasonably recognized in short order (a generation or two at the most), as nothing more than assault...  men will no longer face capital punishment for violating a woman's right to choose, because she is not bearing any real responsibility in the act of intercourse.  

Secondly, the position, at BEST Discounts the very foundation of the United States... the right of the individual to their life and to pursue the fulfillment of that life.  It does so by the overt denial of the life of the conceived human being which is set for termination on no other consideration than that life is an inconvenience.  Thus the culture no longer accepts the premise that human life itself is precious; it no longer respects the principle of inalienable human rights endowed by their Creator: Nature's God; rights which exist on the ultimate authority of that Creator, thus that culture no longer recognizes the premise that the only valid function of government is to protect the means of the INDIVIDUAL to exercise those rights...

Now I ask you sis...  The cruxt of my argument is that human rights rest on nothing but the responsibility which is inherent in them...  If the viability of your human right to choose when, where and with whom you allow to intercouse with your body DOES NOT REST UPON THE RESPONSIBILITY TO BEAR THE PRODUCT OF THAT DECISION... then what precisely do you feel human rights are, how do they work?  What makes a human right, a human right?


Best of luck with that list sis...  Your failure to provide a well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound response, through which you support your position will, of course, be your default concession that you truly have no earthly idea about the scope and breadth of this issue, the principles involved or the certain ramifications which must come should the culture respond in favor of your implied goals.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 12, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> This is another classic case where one needs an interpreter to decipher the meaning of the plain English used by those the left seeks to place in high office.
> 
> Hussien's words were unambiguous.  He seeks to eliminate the responsibility women have for their sexual decisions, by nullifying the reproductive ramifications of those decisions.
> 
> ...



Talking about needing an interpreter .....

Exactly what do you mean here?


----------

