Obama doesn't want kids "punished" with babies

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: lupi
-snip-
Woo hoo. Been callled republican, democrat, pro-choice, pro-life, and rush blogger (even though his show doesn't come on till hours after I posted this and the radio station the carries him doesn't have enough power to reach me even if I wanted to listen to him), all in the same thread. Guess that means I'm on the right path.

Odd. The time stamp on your post is 12:35 PM. Rush comes on at 12:00 PM.

If you say you didn't get it from him, fine. But his show had been for 35 minutes over here before your post was made.

Fern

Shows how much I listen to the show.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: Robor
[...]You're the idiot that started this topic as a slam against Obama. In the end the worst thing you can say is he used the term 'punish' when 'burden' would have been better wording. If you're too stupid to understand that a pregnancy and child could be a burden on a woman/couple then there's no helping you.

/thread

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Condoms are, say, 99.9% effective. That seems generous enough.
That gives you 1000 to 1 odds. If you have sex with a condom, you're playing those odds.

If sex education promotes condom use, and condoms aren't 100% effective in preventing STDs or pregnancy, then using a condom is playing the odds, and for that reason sex education is promoting kids to play the odds. Worse, it's passing it off as responsible behavior.

Where am I backpedaling or contradicting myself?

Reality check. Sex happens. Your point is moot. No amount of indoctrination and teaching is going to change that. What's the best way to counteract pregnancy in teenagers when facing reality? Why yes, it would be protecting them to the best we can through a realistic means, hence contraception.

Sex involves a choice. It doesn't just happen.

I have to go to class now. I'll see you guys later.

Your post is irrelevant but thanks for trying to convolute the argument.

If a person chooses to have sex, that means it didn't just happen. A pretty clear refutation of your assertion that "Sex happens." Sex doesn't just happen. I don't see how that's convoluting the argument.

Edit: I guess I'll indulge your argument that hasn't worked on any of the other posters who have refuted you multiple times.

Thanks.

So what if sex is a choice? You haven't proven anything other than it can be a voluntary act. Like many things in life that involve choices, you are not restricted by a black and white situation. Your choice can be augmented by many different factors. If someone chooses not to have sex because of their morals and values or because they just can't get any, more power to them. If people choose to have sex (your answer would be that they have to live with the consequences), they should be able to choose a method to minimize those consequences if the methods are available.

I don't say that contraceptives should be made illegal. Only that minors not be encouraged by society to use them, for the simple reason that sex between minors, safe or unsafe, is not worth the risk.

The seat belt example that's been explained by Vic is a great example. You choose (since you seem to enjoy putting a heavy emphasis on this word) to take a risk by driving. You try to minimize those risks by wearing a seatbelt, buying a car with good crash ratings, buying a car with airbags, buying a car with ABS, etc. Your argument would be that people must drive and the choice is worth the risk. All you've done there is instill your own personal values to a choice, a choice that your values has no bearing on when being made by another person. Your basic premise is that you have moral superiority which has been proven throughout time to be a false premise.

It's not my personal values that drive me (no pun intended) to say that driving is worth the risk. Anyone in the country would agree that it's a worthwhile risk because it serves a practical purpose. Driving under the influence of alchohol is not a worthwhile risk. Smoking, to some people, is worthwhile, while to others it is not. This isn't a matter of morality. It seems reasonably simple to say that some risks are wisely taken, and others are not. Sex between minors seems to be clearly not worth the risk.

Frankly, I'm surprised you contend with me here. Given the nature of the OP, I thought we'd agree that underage sex is not a worthwhile risk.

You're misinterpreting the phrase sex happens. Whether it's a choice or not, the reality is that it does in fact happen.

Your argument stems on the idea that encouraging the avoidance of sex between minors will actually have a strong and determinable result. The problem is that's the program that is currently implemented. I'd gander that a large population of parents also push for their kids to not have sex, but ultimately, it occurs. Kids choosing for it to occur is irrelevant because it does. So, now that we're faced with the reality of the situation, what do we do? We don't try to prohibit sex because prohibiting something as natural as sex will never work. Instead, you encourage them to avoid it but if in the case they choose to have sex, they should be safe about it. Basically, there's no avoiding the wisdom of being safe.

You argue that by encouraging safe sex you are also condoning it. That's not a logical argument. Those two are not mutually exclusive. No one here is arguing that people should encourage sex between minors but to withhold knowledge of contraceptives and their use is not only counterproductive and dangerous, but has already been shown to produce no results.

Like I said, you're making a value judgment. Obviously scare tactics don't work on teenagers. Prohibiting a teenager and scaring them into not doing something generally only works on those who were not going to have sex to begin with. There are obviously those teenagers out there that feel that it's worth the risk. No amount of preaching about the risks involved is going to change that. That's what people mean when they say that we have to face reality. Reality shows that given a choice, people will make the choice that's close to their value judgment, not yours, not mine, not anyone else's.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: lupi
Wow you one bright doorknob. You came up with that one all yourself?

Of course there is a difference, but this is about people choosing to have sex without any of the preventive means and then the resultant baby or STD (so nice to see STD and baby grouped into the same category BTW) "punishes them".

What are you talking about? Why don't you take a step back from the thread, re-read what's actually been said, and then start commenting again. I think you are completely lost in your thoughts.

Obama's statement was to encourage sex education because the lack of that education could lead to unsafe sex and the punishment of a baby and/or STD. I'm sorry you can't handle the diction that was used but it has the same effect as the word burden. The punishment is not the baby or the STD but the effect of having either of those two. Whatever the case, this'll be my only response to you as you are clearly incapable of holding a rational conversation.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Having sex doesn't mean having unprotected sex, we're talking about two different things here that you seem to be deliberately trying to conflate as the same issue.

Wow you one bright doorknob. You came up with that one all yourself?

Of course there is a difference, but this is about people choosing to have sex without any of the preventive means and then the resultant baby or STD (so nice to see STD and baby grouped into the same category BTW) "punishes them".

No, it's not. You're the idiot that started this topic as a slam against Obama. In the end the worst thing you can say is he used the term 'punish' when 'burden' would have been better wording. If you're too stupid to understand that a pregnancy and child could be a burden on a woman/couple then there's no helping you.

No that would be you as stupid since I seem to recall using a similar phrase near the beginning of this thread.

Then WTF was your point of starting this thread?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Condoms are, say, 99.9% effective. That seems generous enough.
That gives you 1000 to 1 odds. If you have sex with a condom, you're playing those odds.

If sex education promotes condom use, and condoms aren't 100% effective in preventing STDs or pregnancy, then using a condom is playing the odds, and for that reason sex education is promoting kids to play the odds. Worse, it's passing it off as responsible behavior.

Where am I backpedaling or contradicting myself?

Reality check. Sex happens. Your point is moot. No amount of indoctrination and teaching is going to change that. What's the best way to counteract pregnancy in teenagers when facing reality? Why yes, it would be protecting them to the best we can through a realistic means, hence contraception.

Sex involves a choice. It doesn't just happen.

I have to go to class now. I'll see you guys later.

Your post is irrelevant but thanks for trying to convolute the argument.

If a person chooses to have sex, that means it didn't just happen. A pretty clear refutation of your assertion that "Sex happens." Sex doesn't just happen. I don't see how that's convoluting the argument.

Edit: I guess I'll indulge your argument that hasn't worked on any of the other posters who have refuted you multiple times.

Thanks.

So what if sex is a choice? You haven't proven anything other than it can be a voluntary act. Like many things in life that involve choices, you are not restricted by a black and white situation. Your choice can be augmented by many different factors. If someone chooses not to have sex because of their morals and values or because they just can't get any, more power to them. If people choose to have sex (your answer would be that they have to live with the consequences), they should be able to choose a method to minimize those consequences if the methods are available.

I don't say that contraceptives should be made illegal. Only that minors not be encouraged by society to use them, for the simple reason that sex between minors, safe or unsafe, is not worth the risk.

The seat belt example that's been explained by Vic is a great example. You choose (since you seem to enjoy putting a heavy emphasis on this word) to take a risk by driving. You try to minimize those risks by wearing a seatbelt, buying a car with good crash ratings, buying a car with airbags, buying a car with ABS, etc. Your argument would be that people must drive and the choice is worth the risk. All you've done there is instill your own personal values to a choice, a choice that your values has no bearing on when being made by another person. Your basic premise is that you have moral superiority which has been proven throughout time to be a false premise.

It's not my personal values that drive me (no pun intended) to say that driving is worth the risk. Anyone in the country would agree that it's a worthwhile risk because it serves a practical purpose. Driving under the influence of alchohol is not a worthwhile risk. Smoking, to some people, is worthwhile, while to others it is not. This isn't a matter of morality. It seems reasonably simple to say that some risks are wisely taken, and others are not. Sex between minors seems to be clearly not worth the risk.

Frankly, I'm surprised you contend with me here. Given the nature of the OP, I thought we'd agree that underage sex is not a worthwhile risk.

You're misinterpreting the phrase sex happens. Whether it's a choice or not, the reality is that it does in fact happen.

I don't think I'm misinterpreting anything. If sex involves a choice, then sex happens because we choose to engage in it. If another person asks me to have sex with them, I can tell them yes or no. I don't have to engage. That seems to me a pretty basic premise.

I concede that sex is very tempting to indulge in, especially for teenage boys. But it's not a foregone conclusion. And lots of bad things are tempting, but must be avoided, like stealing or lying.

Your argument stems on the idea that encouraging the avoidance of sex between minors will actually have a strong and determinable result.

I'm glad you point this out. My argument stems on the idea that encouraging the avoidance of sex between minors is the right thing to do, not that it will produce the desired result. Results don't dictate whether the policy is correct. Just because we tell our kids not to steal won't necessarily keep them from stealing. But that doesn't mean we should teach them how to steal and not get caught.

The problem is that's the program that is currently implemented. I'd gander that a large population of parents also push for their kids to not have sex, but ultimately, it occurs. Kids choosing for it to occur is irrelevant because it does. So, now that we're faced with the reality of the situation, what do we do? We don't try to prohibit sex because prohibiting something as natural as sex will never work. Instead, you encourage them to avoid it but if in the case they choose to have sex, they should be safe about it. Basically, there's no avoiding the wisdom of being safe.

I'll answer this paragraph as part of the answer to the next paragraph.

You argue that by encouraging safe sex you are also condoning it. That's not a logical argument. Those two are not mutually exclusive. No one here is arguing that people should encourage sex between minors but to withhold knowledge of contraceptives and their use is not only counterproductive and dangerous, but has already been shown to produce no results.

Safe sex is still sex, and sex isn't safe. For this reason, you'd be encouraging kids to put themselves at unnecessary risk. If used perfectly, condoms have a 2 to 3 percent failure rate. It follows that if you encourage perfect condom use to kids, you're encouraging kids to play 50 to 1 odds against getting pregnant, at best. And again, that's if used perfectly. Typical condom use incurs much worse odds with a 10 to 15 percent failure rate, or odds of 10 to 1 or worse.

I can't see the wisdom in bemoaning the rate of teenage pregnancies while simultaneously promoting ways in which kids can put themselves at risk of just such an ill.

If you can't handle a pregnancy, don't have sex, because sex with or without contraceptives leads to pregnancy. That's what parents should tell their kids, and for that reason that's what sex ed should teach.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't think I'm misinterpreting anything. If sex involves a choice, then sex happens because we choose to engage in it. If another person asks me to have sex with them, I can tell them yes or no. I don't have to engage. That seems to me a pretty basic premise.

I concede that sex is very tempting to indulge in, especially for teenage boys. But it's not a foregone conclusion. And lots of bad things are tempting, but must be avoided, like stealing or lying.

We're basically going to go back and forth about this forever. You believe that people should make the "right" choice. I'm viewing this as a situation that even if it's a choice, the choice is often that having sex is the right choice. Your "right" does not mean the same as another person's "right."

Your argument stems on the idea that encouraging the avoidance of sex between minors will actually have a strong and determinable result.

I'm glad you point this out. My argument stems on the idea that encouraging the avoidance of sex between minors is the right thing to do, not that it will produce the desired result. Results don't dictate whether the policy is correct. Just because we tell our kids not to steal won't necessarily keep them from stealing. But that doesn't mean we should teach them how to steal and not get caught.

Hence why Obama said that we should encourage our children to not have sex as minors but he realizes that in reality, that does not always turn out the way you would hope it to be. If someone does make the choice to have sex, they should be safe about it. Whether they made the "right" choice is neither here nor there because the choice has already been made so now we're discussing what options there are if the choice is made.

The problem is that's the program that is currently implemented. I'd gander that a large population of parents also push for their kids to not have sex, but ultimately, it occurs. Kids choosing for it to occur is irrelevant because it does. So, now that we're faced with the reality of the situation, what do we do? We don't try to prohibit sex because prohibiting something as natural as sex will never work. Instead, you encourage them to avoid it but if in the case they choose to have sex, they should be safe about it. Basically, there's no avoiding the wisdom of being safe.

I'll answer this paragraph as part of the answer to the next paragraph.

You argue that by encouraging safe sex you are also condoning it. That's not a logical argument. Those two are not mutually exclusive. No one here is arguing that people should encourage sex between minors but to withhold knowledge of contraceptives and their use is not only counterproductive and dangerous, but has already been shown to produce no results.

Safe sex is still sex, and sex isn't safe. For this reason, you'd be encouraging kids to put themselves at unnecessary risk. If used perfectly, condoms have a 2 to 3 percent failure rate. It follows that if you encourage perfect condom use to kids, you're encouraging kids to play 50 to 1 odds against getting pregnant, at best. And again, that's if used perfectly. Typical condom use incurs much worse odds with a 10 to 15 percent failure rate, or odds of 10 to 1 or worse.

I can't see the wisdom in bemoaning the rate of teenage pregnancies while simultaneously promoting ways in which kids can put themselves at risk of just such an ill.

If you can't handle a pregnancy, don't have sex, because sex with or without contraceptives leads to pregnancy. That's what parents should tell their kids, and for that reason that's what sex ed should teach.

[/quote]

You're basically playing a zero sum game. If you have sex, you have to face the consequences of getting pregnant. What people are trying to encourage is that if you do make that choice, to have sex, that you should minimize the damage that may be caused, whether it be receiving or giving an STD or getting pregnant.

You also cannot compare this to something like driving or murder. There's no natural and instinctual push for driving and murder. You're debating something that has been ingrained into our very being for survival. Sexual drive, self-preservation, etc are all things that are basically unstoppable forces. There's a reason why some priests have a tendency to get a little wired over a long period of time of abstinence.

Furthermore, you can liken this to viewing pornography and cursing. Although the consequences are nowhere near as drastic as having sex, those are also things that if people did the "right" thing, would probably avoid. Even if you made having sex between minors illegal, there would still be sex between minors. What's the best way to minimize the damage from something that, even with all the morals and values of this world pushing against it, happens? That would be to make it as safe as reasonably possible.

Basically, we're never going to resolve this because we have differing opinions on the method to address a problem. You are of the belief that if you push moral values hard enough that people will eventually stop doing something. I'm of the belief that even with all these checks in place, something like sex will never be hindered and the best secondary way to minimize the subsequent effects of it is to educate young people about contraceptives.

 

[StageLeft]

Great. Just awesome thread. I read the first 15 responses and even by the end the OP still had not said wtf he's talking about. What do you mean punish? What in heck is this thread about? I won't read anymore. I am surprised a mod let you keep it, no links, no meaningful commentary in first post, etc.

I am pissy because people keep calling me on the phone, sorry

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't think I'm misinterpreting anything. If sex involves a choice, then sex happens because we choose to engage in it. If another person asks me to have sex with them, I can tell them yes or no. I don't have to engage. That seems to me a pretty basic premise.

I concede that sex is very tempting to indulge in, especially for teenage boys. But it's not a foregone conclusion. And lots of bad things are tempting, but must be avoided, like stealing or lying.

We're basically going to go back and forth about this forever. You believe that people should make the "right" choice. I'm viewing this as a situation that even if it's a choice, the choice is often that having sex is the right choice. Your "right" does not mean the same as another person's "right."

Your argument stems on the idea that encouraging the avoidance of sex between minors will actually have a strong and determinable result.

I'm glad you point this out. My argument stems on the idea that encouraging the avoidance of sex between minors is the right thing to do, not that it will produce the desired result. Results don't dictate whether the policy is correct. Just because we tell our kids not to steal won't necessarily keep them from stealing. But that doesn't mean we should teach them how to steal and not get caught.

Hence why Obama said that we should encourage our children to not have sex as minors but he realizes that in reality, that does not always turn out the way you would hope it to be. If someone does make the choice to have sex, they should be safe about it. Whether they made the "right" choice is neither here nor there because the choice has already been made so now we're discussing what options there are if the choice is made.

The problem is that's the program that is currently implemented. I'd gander that a large population of parents also push for their kids to not have sex, but ultimately, it occurs. Kids choosing for it to occur is irrelevant because it does. So, now that we're faced with the reality of the situation, what do we do? We don't try to prohibit sex because prohibiting something as natural as sex will never work. Instead, you encourage them to avoid it but if in the case they choose to have sex, they should be safe about it. Basically, there's no avoiding the wisdom of being safe.

I'll answer this paragraph as part of the answer to the next paragraph.

You argue that by encouraging safe sex you are also condoning it. That's not a logical argument. Those two are not mutually exclusive. No one here is arguing that people should encourage sex between minors but to withhold knowledge of contraceptives and their use is not only counterproductive and dangerous, but has already been shown to produce no results.

Safe sex is still sex, and sex isn't safe. For this reason, you'd be encouraging kids to put themselves at unnecessary risk. If used perfectly, condoms have a 2 to 3 percent failure rate. It follows that if you encourage perfect condom use to kids, you're encouraging kids to play 50 to 1 odds against getting pregnant, at best. And again, that's if used perfectly. Typical condom use incurs much worse odds with a 10 to 15 percent failure rate, or odds of 10 to 1 or worse.

I can't see the wisdom in bemoaning the rate of teenage pregnancies while simultaneously promoting ways in which kids can put themselves at risk of just such an ill.

If you can't handle a pregnancy, don't have sex, because sex with or without contraceptives leads to pregnancy. That's what parents should tell their kids, and for that reason that's what sex ed should teach.

You're basically playing a zero sum game. If you have sex, you have to face the consequences of getting pregnant. What people are trying to encourage is that if you do make that choice, to have sex, that you should minimize the damage that may be caused, whether it be receiving or giving an STD or getting pregnant.

You also cannot compare this to something like driving or murder. There's no natural and instinctual push for driving and murder. You're debating something that has been ingrained into our very being for survival. Sexual drive, self-preservation, etc are all things that are basically unstoppable forces. There's a reason why some priests have a tendency to get a little wired over a long period of time of abstinence.

Furthermore, you can liken this to viewing pornography and cursing. Although the consequences are nowhere near as drastic as having sex, those are also things that if people did the "right" thing, would probably avoid. Even if you made having sex between minors illegal, there would still be sex between minors. What's the best way to minimize the damage from something that, even with all the morals and values of this world pushing against it, happens? That would be to make it as safe as reasonably possible.

Basically, we're never going to resolve this because we have differing opinions on the method to address a problem. You are of the belief that if you push moral values hard enough that people will eventually stop doing something. I'm of the belief that even with all these checks in place, something like sex will never be hindered and the best secondary way to minimize the subsequent effects of it is to educate young people about contraceptives.

On my right not being the same as another's right: There are objective rights. No one thinks rape or murder is right. If I believe rape is right, I'm wrong. And no one can reasonably argue that underrage sex is a good thing.

I still don't see how sex is unavoidable. If one has a choice, one can choose to avoid. How is this refutable?

I don't want to make sex between minors illegal. I want to stop telling kids that having sex with contraceptives is safe, or even less risky.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
The punishment is not the baby or the STD but the effect of having either of those two.

But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby


Seems pretty clear what my problem with the statement is now as it did when I first heard it.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
On my right not being the same as another's right: There are objective rights. No one thinks rape or murder is right. If I believe rape is right, I'm wrong. And no one can reasonably argue that underrage sex is a good thing.

I still don't see how sex is unavoidable. If one has a choice, one can choose to avoid. How is this refutable?

I don't want to make sex between minors illegal. I want to stop telling kids that having sex with contraceptives is safe, or even less risky.

See how you had to change your wording to get it through? Obviously no one of the current times can argue that underage sex is a good thing, but it becomes subjective when you label it as right or wrong. I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of underage kids who are engaging in sexual behavior who think it's very right.

Regarding your second paragraph, if contraceptives don't make sexual activities less risky than what's the point of using them? We're not talking about encouraging kids to have sex because we have ways to prevent pregnancy. You're implying that by teaching kids that practicing safe sex is wise that it means we're condoning them to have sex. I don't believe they're mutually exclusive, you happen to believe they are, just a difference of opinion.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: lupi
Having a baby is punishment?

I guess we should ignore personal responsibilty, parental guidance, and perhaps a little human morality while we are at it.

All things I would like to see in my leader.

Yeah--it's religious mystic wacko cavemen forcing their religion on you by preventing you (or the woman you got pregnant) from having an abortion when you desperately want it. It's not merely a punishment; it's a violation of individual rights. Those who want to make abortion illegal want to return to the Stone Age.

"Keep your filthy, evil anti-human-life-on-this-earth-and-happiness religion off my body!" The religious mystic wackos who oppose legal abortion are the real anti-lifers.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: lupi
Having a baby is punishment?

You bet it is if you're not mature enough to deal with it.

I guess we should ignore personal responsibilty, parental guidance, and perhaps a little human morality while we are at it.

Yeah... Right! You're demanding full adult personal responsibility from girls whose only adult characteristic is being old enough to become pregnant. You want to saddle these children with the life long responsibilities of raising more children, and you want to burden the children of those children with parents too immature for the job.

Your simple minded blather about "personal responsibilty" and "parental guidance" is a great place to start, BEFORE a pregnancy, but it's total bullshit when it comes to dealing with real problems of real lives once a girl is actually pregnant.

All things I would like to see in my leader.

Dealing with reality, instead of punishing kids and spewing ooga booga religious drivel, is EXACTLY what I'd like to see in a real leader.

So instead of "punishing" the people that made the baby, he'll punish the rest of America by making them pay to raise the child or pay for the abortion?

Hi Socialist.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Dari
Having a child before you become an adult robs you of your education; which robs you of having a good-paying job with nice benefits; which robs your child of growing up in a healthy environment...and the cycle continues.

It isn't cheap raising children and it's even worse when you don't have the mental capacity to take care of another human being. In the end, it robs you and the child of a good life, unless you have people to support you. It is punishment in every sense of the word.

Then shut your damn legs. This is all about personal responsibility. Don't have sex if you're not ready for the consequences. It's that simple. If you want to have sex and risk having a baby, then it is you that are risking your "prosperous future". News flash but many people have children and are successful. Even single moms.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Dari
Having a child before you become an adult robs you of your education; which robs you of having a good-paying job with nice benefits; which robs your child of growing up in a healthy environment...and the cycle continues.

It isn't cheap raising children and it's even worse when you don't have the mental capacity to take care of another human being. In the end, it robs you and the child of a good life, unless you have people to support you. It is punishment in every sense of the word.

Then shut your damn legs. This is all about personal responsibility. Don't have sex if you're not ready for the consequences. It's that simple. If you want to have sex and risk having a baby, then it is you that are risking your "prosperous future". News flash but many people have children and are successful. Even single moms.

You probably should have read the quote in its context or the rest of this thread before posting. Obama was arguing for an end to abstinence based education, and a return to real sex ed in order to prevent these pregnancies from ever happening.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Dari
Having a child before you become an adult robs you of your education; which robs you of having a good-paying job with nice benefits; which robs your child of growing up in a healthy environment...and the cycle continues.

It isn't cheap raising children and it's even worse when you don't have the mental capacity to take care of another human being. In the end, it robs you and the child of a good life, unless you have people to support you. It is punishment in every sense of the word.

Then shut your damn legs. This is all about personal responsibility. Don't have sex if you're not ready for the consequences. It's that simple. If you want to have sex and risk having a baby, then it is you that are risking your "prosperous future". News flash but many people have children and are successful. Even single moms.

You probably should have read the quote in its context or the rest of this thread before posting. Obama was arguing for an end to abstinence based education, and a return to real sex ed in order to prevent these pregnancies from ever happening.

Actually his point is pretty in context to what was said as has been also said by several posters in this thread.

 

[Jhhnn]

Then shut your damn legs. This is all about personal responsibility. Don't have sex if you're not ready for the consequences. It's that simple. If you want to have sex and risk having a baby, then it is you that are risking your "prosperous future". News flash but many people have children and are successful. Even single moms.

In other words, it's important for some who gamble in the reproductive lottery to be losers, right? But that's not "punishment", at all, even though you express it in those terms, but something else entirely which hasn't been defined, right?

How can we preach against sin w/o suffering sinners to use as examples? Who'd listen, and who'd voluntarily fill the coffers of our tax-exempt enterprise, the enterprise of salvation?

How can we increase the % of losers so as to further our social agenda? Mis-education and ignorance, AKA "abstinence only" sex-ed programs are currently the tools of choice, combined with restrictions on abortions, too...

That way, we'll have more suffering sinners, justly so, even though what they're going thru isn't punishment for what we've already defined as bad behavior, even though they and many more obviously deserve punishment, honest...

This thread fairly reeks of smug self-righteousness, brought out by attempts to cut into the cycle of willful faith-based ignorance.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: Robor
[...]You're the idiot that started this topic as a slam against Obama. In the end the worst thing you can say is he used the term 'punish' when 'burden' would have been better wording. If you're too stupid to understand that a pregnancy and child could be a burden on a woman/couple then there's no helping you.

/thread

yeah.... how did this thread get to be so long anyway?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Dari
Having a child before you become an adult robs you of your education; which robs you of having a good-paying job with nice benefits; which robs your child of growing up in a healthy environment...and the cycle continues.

It isn't cheap raising children and it's even worse when you don't have the mental capacity to take care of another human being. In the end, it robs you and the child of a good life, unless you have people to support you. It is punishment in every sense of the word.

Then shut your damn legs. This is all about personal responsibility. Don't have sex if you're not ready for the consequences. It's that simple. If you want to have sex and risk having a baby, then it is you that are risking your "prosperous future". News flash but many people have children and are successful. Even single moms.

Yes, and no one is more world-renown for possessing large amounts of personal responsibility than 14-year-old girls, right?

I know when I used to see my son at age 2 head towards a busy street, I would just let him go and say "Well, he shouldn't be walking if he's not ready for the consequences!"