Redstate

Obama's exact quote wasn't what the Headline stated...That's a problem...Obama's words are enough to keep him out of the White House without taking what he said in two different sentences (even if uttered concurrently) and combining them to make a new statement.

Texas Proud and Texas Loud

Texas Proud and Texas Loud

as a "punishment."

And keep in mind that this is the same guy who fought against legislation that would have provided basic medical care to children who survived a botched abortion.

This statement of his isn't anything new. Barack Obama is a radical proabort. He is nothing less than a monster. I don't give a crap how pretty he sounds.
__________________________________________________

The blogger formerly known as "Alexham"

we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As William Jefferson Clinton might say 'there is no there there' but I don't see this statement rising to the level you apparently do.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

While his choice of words is poor, he's not saying babies are a punishment, he's saying teen pregnancy is.

"punished with a baby"

"he's not saying babies are a punishment"

You're parsing for him because you are viewing the comment through the lens of your own reasonable worldview. Obama's isn't so reasonable.

absentee

A resonable person would think he would be more adept at word choice.

and as someone once said "words matter".

I have to go with Feddie here.

Put this in the context of the pro-abortion Senator who favors essentially stabbing infants to death with scissors.

Put this in the context of the pro-choice culture that sees pregnancy as an inconvenient medical state to be overcome, sort of like STDs.

Put this in the context of a liberal cultural mindset that values the needs of self over the sanctity of life.

In Obama's mind, unwanted pregnancy is no different than the clap. And the baby nothing more than a growth to be excised by some surgeon.

Note, also, the conclusion he makes. The baby isn't the punishment for promiscuity, its a punishment for not having "awareness". If you can only give them information, then they won't have to suffer having their boil lanced.

absentee

that we need to stretch for stupidity and vapid thoughts from Obama --- there is plenty of that. For me this didn't, and still doesn't, rise to that level.

I guess we can add you to the list of folks with whom I have to agree to disagree :-)

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

I think its a stretch to parse his words the way that feddie has.

be dead.....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657236/posts

He will be a large part of the problem in getting abortion to be rare.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

If Barack had his way a surprising number of people discussing this issue wouldn't have had the opportunity.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Feddie's making a fair point. What would happen to any Republican who said, as one Republican senator did a few years back (paraphrasing here), "We can love homosexuals without endorsing their lifestyle. We can love kleptomaniacs without endorsing their activities"?

The connection is clear even if "are just like" is absent from the statement.

I agree with your point that Feddie's stretching the statement just a tad. But Barack is running for president.

Just as George Allen was held to an incredibly high standard in 2006, B.O. should be held to an equally high, if not higher, standard if he presumes to be the face and the voice that represent every American.

For my part, I think that it's best that we focus on: (1) B.O.'s lack of military experience, (2) his lack of foreign policy experience, (3) his poor judgment shown by his close association with anti-American clerics like Jeremiah Wrong, and (4) the $300,000 bribe he got from indicted criminal, Tony Rezko.

The stupidity of B.O. is just gravy on top of his ample body of evidence of his poor judgment and naivete.

Proudly supporting John S. McCain for President (McCain/Romney?)

There's enough ammunition out there without resorting to this. Let's keep it "reality based" shall we?

Brian Kilmeade makes his exit, and Chris Wallace calls up to complain.

absentee

When I think of children. I think of diapers, formula, late night feedings, birthdays, graduations, first dates, proms, playing ball, teaching them to drive. I do not think of getting unpleasant rashes that are embarrassing to explain to my GP. That Obama equates the two and expects his audience to follow along is at best very disturbing.

When you put it into context of his voting record on abortion. It begs serious questions about what his thoughts on human life and its sanctity are.

Although I think the Kilmeade comment was in support of yours, not contrary.

absentee

Chances are good I am misinterpreting.

Fan of
http://www.scragged.com

About the audience?

So you support teen pregnancy? While I agree that every child is a blessing, 15 year old Mothers are not.

under what circumstances were babies born in? Why then did God permit teen pregnancies to occur? Because teens made their choices and must face the consequences of their shameful actions.

In any case, teen pregnancies are a done deal, here the focus is on preventative measures, and which method is more effective? Abstinence. Why? Because it works 100% all the time.

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

As a preventative measure, you are correct in abstinence working 100% of the time. But some of us don't feel that teens having sex is magically going to stop just because we tell them to.

To hold themselves longer, there will be a reduction in the activity. Not to mention that they will see the disapproval for it and be more circumspect in their efforts...

...That is, if they are successfully taught how to be ashamed...

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

Like we do with drugs, alcohol, and smoking?

The rates of teens using any of those have been dropping for better than 10 years...

Sounds to me like D.A.R.E. and similar programs actually work.

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

I'm sure they do work. I'm also sure better law enforcement and tougher penalties have helped too. Although illegal drug use has declined, Rx drug abuse has skyrocketed. Alcohol use remains high while binge drinking amongst teens rises.

My point is that going around telling hormone raging teens not to have sex for the next decade is not going to end teenage sex. Sure it will scare straight some teens, but there will always be a percent of the population that will engage in it. Just as there will always be a percent of the teenage population that engaged in alcohol and drugs. I have no problem with teaching abstinence first. But I think it's crazy to teach abstinence only and avoid the basics of sex and birth control.

Nonetheless, this still should be a parent's responsibility. I'd like to see people move away from counting on their school's to teach their kids everything and more toward parent's taking a more active role in instilling some values and self-respect. I still put a lot of the blame in regards to teen pregnancy and STDs in the hands of lazy parenting.

Why does it have to be either/or, not both for sex ed. And parental guidance is a must. Sadly, we don't have a lot of parents stepping up to take responsibility to teach moral sexual behavior or even to teach moral behavior/personal responsibility in the first place.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
A. Lincoln

If abstinence is unreasonable, then what has changed in last 40 years? If you blame the culture and Hollywood, then someone should SAY THAT! And then deal with this elephant in the room.

It is our expectations that have been reduced. Plain and simple. People will rise to the expectations placed on them. And shame should never have gone out of style.

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?

About the increase of Rx drug abuse, I also maintain that total drug use is going down. All in all, a good thing. And the increase in Rx drug abuse is primarily driven by the costs of the drugs. Rx drugs don't cost the kids much, if any (and often don't even cost much to those for whom they are prescribed, Medicaid, insurance, Medicare...)

Anyway, as I mentioned to kowalski farther down, the idea is not "Abstinence only!"
it
"Abstinence First!"

Emphasize abstinence and hold that as the expectation. But do teach how to be safe when it comes time.

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

We have childless couples lining up to adopt infants.

n/t

to be promiscuous?

-exits

is no more a proper extrapolation than the original headline. Please don't do that.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

I really don't consider myself one for cheap shots, but I honestly don't see how, if one believes that he couldn't ever see a child as "anything but a blessing" why it doesn't follow logically that he would encourage his children to start having children as soon as possible.

-exits

The philosophy/theology that gives rise to "babies are always a blessing" also gives rise to "babies ought only be made by married monogamous couples." But in the context of the conversation the rest didn't seem necessary to state, as it was assumed most posters here at RedState would catch that drift.

That is how your statement doesn't follow.

that those two philosophies are compatible.

-exits

but one does not follow from the other.

Doughnuts are always good, but it doesn't follow you should always eat doughnuts.

A good marriage is always a blessing, but it doesn't follow you should keep having good marriages.

Just because something is a blessing doesn't mean you have to have it right now and often.

absentee

Ever since they took away the trans-fats and cut back on the extremely unhealthy filling, I can't eat donuts anymore...

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

Once again I find myself admiring your ability to get to the heart of the matter with brevity.

that was clear by your earlier comment.

I'll try this direction: A baby, since it is a new human life, is a blessing to the entire world. Every new baby is so, because this is a new chance for humanity to strive for perfection anew -- both in the opportunities for others to do loving things for this baby and in the opportunities this baby, once grown, will have to do loving things for others. All of humanity is recapitulated in every human being. Every person is connected to every other person -- no matter the age or race or anything. Even if the child is born as a result of rape, that child is a new human life, completely innocent of itself and completely dependent on others for everything -- a little sponge, waiting to soak up others' love. The parents and anyone involved in that child's life are blessed with a new and significant opportunity to love. If they choose not to they impoverish themselves and, what's worse, negatively affect this utterly innocent baby. No babies means no new opportunities to love. This is why crimes against babies so outrage us preternaturally.

What it comes down to, then, is love. Love is only love when it is deep and exclusive and radically self-giving and radically open to receiving from the other -- though without demanding return. Within humanity this is most perfect in a completely open, unhindered, free, and committed married relationship. The couple share love, share life, share everything -- including themselves -- in every way, such that a healthy household and children result.

If a child results from any other form of relationship the love is incomplete and does not support the sign of complete mutual self-giving that is a child.

Yes, there are merely biological descriptions of how a human being results from human copulation; but we are human beings, not robots and not dogs -- we are made with and for so much more than mere biology.

A child is a blessing always, and the child deserves the fulfillment of what it is a sign of -- love.

If a child is less than perfect should it be destroyed ?

What you are saying is a child born to a single teen parent creates problems that don't exist for a child born to a loving family. Yes that's true, but the mother and father obviously need to learn life lessons.

Promiscuity outside of wedlock carries its own burdens. I would spare any child of mine the agony of baring them. I would not spare them the growth and maturity that come from learning the lesson that all in life is not pleasure and we have responsibilities that go beyond our selves.

We don't live in never never land. We don't stay young forever never having to grow up, or where the biggest challenge is trying to get an incompetent pirate to fall into the sea. Happy thoughts won't let us fly. Teaching children that they can sacrifice the greatest gift a loving god can bestow upon them so they can stay permanent children is wrong. I can think of no greater wrong.

One way or another, the mother and father will be changed by that child. The child will be helped or hurt by their parents. And finally, the child will leave a mark on the world. Yes I would like that it be the best of possibilities for all children, but because the circumstances aren't perfect, it will never diminish the smile on a baby's face, the sound of a child's laughter, the look in their eye when you have done something they think is wonderful. The joy of knowing that you have helped them to the best of your ability is beyond measure or compare. If you think children are a burden, a disease an unfortunate aspect of life, or a job, a task a necessary evil your life will be stunted and warped.

So exitsfunnel the question is not whether I would encourage a daughter to have a child as soon as possible. The question is would I encourage a child of mine to love and care for any child they had.

I used birth control rigorously for six and a half years with the last serious girlfriend I had, and boy, am I glad. Because if I had fathered a child with that witch, I would have shot the three of us by now.

I'm sure she feels exactly the same way about it.

It wasn't the availability of birth control that made me "promiscuous" at 22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29 years old, because I wasn't. I was, and still am, a characterologically monogamous fellow when I'm in a relationship with someone. And I don't get into relationships that aren't monogamous. But I thank my lucky stars every single day that we agreed on using birth control all of that time, and you bet your sweet petutie I'm glad I had the options available and was educated about them, because if I had had to spend the rest of my life with that woman after fathering a child with her, I wouldn't be here today. And I'm very serious about that.

So for everyone out there who wants to rail against teaching people about birth control at an appropriate age, I have to tell you that you're just spitting into the wind. Take your extremist positions on sexuality and go back to the 12th Century.

Sounds like she was a real catch =)

Chalk it up to one of those things you think is a good idea at the time.

Just respectin' the dignity and integrity of the human person as created and ordered at every level. Unfortunate that sexual forays, if not rendered sterile, would have led to (what I assume you meant as) your demise at your own hand. Life and love are so much more beautiful that all that lust and self-centeredness.

I think the fact that 45 million babies have been aborted in the United States since 1973 is one of the most galling moral and legal failures of anything that has transpired in human history.

But we also seem to have this attitude, and I don't know why, that if we're going to say abortion is wrong (and we do) and we're going to try to reverse Roe v. Wade (and we do) that we're also going to make sure that nobody learns about contraception or uses it, particularly in their most irresponsible and fertile years?

Talk about 1+1 making 3!! Please explain to me how this math works, because I've tried every way I can think of, and it just doesn't add up.

And I mention the "demise at my own hand" thing hyperbolically and for effect. But nevertheless, my world wasn't perfect and neither is anyone else's. My view is that we should teach people to be responsible while we also teach them the facts of life.

And all that lust and self-centeredness are you words, pal. The lust part doesn't carry someone through 7 years, trust me. It is, however a very good thing that we didn't wind up married with children. I offer no apologies for saving the world from one of your moralistic diatribes over my divorce.

Kids are impressionable, they are highly impressionable. Ask all the marketing execs who spend big bucks trying to implant brand names, images, and jingles into the heads of kids from youth on.

And schools are an excellent place to introduce ideas to kids. And when schools introduce the false concept that using condoms and pills are a foolproof way to have consequence-free sex, well, it tells them a few things:

a) They wouldn't be telling us this if some of the other kids weren't doing it.

b) They wouldn't be telling us this if they didn't think it was OK

c) Oh boy! If I just use these things, then I'm fine!

So then you get a few things happening: You get kids of both sexes bringing condoms around to use, and they do get the opportunity, and then either

1) The condom breaks and fails

2) The condom is mis-used and fails

3) In the heat of the moment the condom doesn't get used

Or worse, you get some predators who use some of the above logic to pressure a girl who doesn't want to do it, into doing it. Come on, everyone else is doing it. You'll be fine, they said so in school. They couldn't tell us that if it wasn't true, could they?

Remember, we're dealing with the very young, not adults. From the little we know of brain chemistry and development, their brains are still developing, literally. So it seems they are more susceptible than anyone to go along, get along, fit in with the crowd thinking.

This is the kind of thing that is fundamental to conservatism here, Alex. Even if you want to do something good, it will have consequences you do not expect, and probably do not want. That's why social engineering is such a terrible thing. The road to Hell truly is paved with good intentions.

And sex education in schools is nearly as harmful to society as massive welfare payments to single mothers.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

absentee

Very, very well said.

Kids should never ever be told by the state that they can do anything and their "parents will never know in fact its illegal to tell them." The schools will flat out say we don’t care what your parents think we think this is a good thing you do what you want.

This is my biggest issue with any sex Ed program it encourages 'experimentation' supposedly risk free. The message of most programs is do what you want just be 'safe.' The kids are rarely told that NOTHING works 100% (except not having sex), and if they are its not pounded into the hormone filled brain of a teen. Who hears I can have sex risk free and nothing else.

Condoms are the holy grail of sex Ed yet they fail out of the box 2% of the time (according to the box) and real world 1 out of six times. Pills can turn nice girls into psychotic B's yet they are given out like candy at Halloween.

What I would like would be complete info presented without the encouragement and nothing done (i.e. handing out condoms) without the permission of the parents or at the very least informing them. The kids are minors who cant get an aspirin from a school nurse but the school will encourage them to gamble their lives and future health just so a specific social agenda can be pursued.

Neither abortions or contraceptives can be put back in the box but it should be explained that both have consequences and are not “get out of jail free” cards.

As to the good Senator all I can say is Punishment.. really punisment?

I mean in all seriousness "Kids are NEVER told about condom failures"? I remember in high school we got tested on these facts!!! I still remember to this day the answers on that test "Birthcontrol success rate is 98.5%, condom success rate is 89% with spermicide it rises to 94% abstinence is 100% effective." And I went to a PUBLIC SCHOOL! You seem to think schools are throwing condoms at kids and saying "go ahead! i think the bathroom down the hall is free". It simply isn't like that. So seriously stop with this nonsense.

But unfortunately reality is even more nettlesome and complicated than that.

Counseling young primarily Latina girls on the South Side of Chicago, my -ex had several clients over the course of a year, all in the age range we're talking about here, all of them in trouble in one way or another in school.

"Do you have a boyfriend..." (looking down, sheepishly)
"Yes, he's great..."

"Do you have sex with him?"
"No, well, maybe we have some sex..."

Later it turns out that this 15 year old child is actually being coerced into having sex with her boyfriend -- AND HER UNCLE.

This is a 15 year old girl attending a Catholic high school. Bright. Otherwise promising future. Solidly on the road to getting pregnant at 15 years old.

Do you tell her about birth control? You bet you do.

And I'm just scratching the surface because I am retroactively protecting the identities of the people involved. But it happens *all the time* and you sit there as a clinician and try to tell me you're not going to try to get the girl some solid information about birth control.

It's precisely the inverse of what you're saying, and it happens more often than you think. You can pay for the babies being born at any of the hospitals in Chicago.

There are more stories than this one, some of them worse. Unless you understand that for a lot of young girls living in these areas that *not* having a boyfriend once you've reached puberty is a *social stigma* you have no concept of what actually goes on. And you cannot come from the outside and change the culture. The only thing you can do is try to prevent things from becoming disastrous for everyone concerned.

One of the things I learned while I was in Chicago -- and I don't mean to detract from what you've said in your post, Neil, because I know that's the way we'd like to prefer to think about things -- but one of the things I learned in the experience I had with a woman who was getting her Psy.D. can be summed up in the following sentence:

"So, you think it's that bad?"
"No, not really. It can always get worse."
"And it probably will."

Or a psychologist/psychiatrist/counselor/trusted friend or adult, I'd hope you'd do that. And more.
But that's not the debate. The debate is whether teachers should be doing so and taking the "Birds and the bees" discussion away from the parents with or without their consent.

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

You would need to tell her to get our of both relationships... another family member, friend, maybe a out-of-town relative, maybe even the state and a foster family. She cannot stay in those relationships.

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?

I suppose I over-estimated what you meant about your relationship and the depths that it seemed to have pushed you. Sorry. I'll try to read more carefully next time.

I'm not naive about the "facts of life" and "boys will be boys," and etc... And I have no intention of going off on a "moralistic diatribe." My previous comments about lust and self-centeredness notwithstanding (those were also more for effect and general social commentary than a diagnosis of your particular case) I don't know enough about you to dare to attempt any sort of "diagnosis," if that's the right word, for what may have happened good or bad between you and her.

I do maintain, however, that contraception is a symptom of a larger problem, though not the main problem itself. For that matter, i also maintain that it is not the solution to dealing with the larger problem in some sort of war of attrition against the general mindset of lower expectations for ourselves and our fellows.

I imagine, though, that this thread has gone far enough astray that we should probably cut this one short.

I know I'm not going to convince you of anything here and now -- though i would love to because of the hope that is in me for all of us to find the better way -- so I'll stop here and say goodnight.

Kowalski deprived the world of such a showering of blessings!

If she really was so wonderful, why did you get into ANY relationship with her, let alone a monogamous one?

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

And with your nick, I've always wondered whether you were from Baltimore? Edgar Allen Poe and all that.

I'd be happy to discuss the reasons why I got into that relationship privately, as I have with several other people among the editorial board here at Redstate a few times in the past. The only thing that I can say in summary is that:

1) It's very difficult to understand why you fall in love.
2) When you're young and idealistic and in love, that love seems like the most important thing in the world and you'll do anything to defend it, including actively convincing yourself that it's right.
3) She was a uniquely beautiful person in some ways. Troubled, but brilliant in her own right.

Why did Paul McCartney marry Heather Mills? I know that right now, both of them think it was a big mistake. But at the time, it seemed like a good idea.

In the end I'm very bittersweet about not having a child with her. I wanted very much to marry her and start a family. But it wasn't in the cards, and it could never have been, and I in that sense and that sense alone I count myself lucky that I was proactive in terms of using birth control. It would have been a disaster for both of us in the long run if we hadn't.

Nor even directly to Poe (though his poem is responsible for my early interest in the Raven legends and myths). Raven is my spirit totem. The Joker and the Wise. The Warrior and the Poet. The Lazy Hard-worker. The Sunstealer. There's more, but if it's peaked your interest, you'll understand better if you do the research yourself.

As for the relationship stuff, though... Well, it was actually just a rhetorical question meant to make a point. Your counterpoints I understand conceptually, but do not, fortunately have any experiential understanding (my wife and my love not needing defending (though hers has a time or two from my own family))

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

Particularly when the viewpoints being expressed are a matter of clinging to shibboleths about what people can and should do. It's asinine even for Conservatives. I don't want to hear another word about how Conservatives don't use birth control and aren't interested in having their daughters know about it and use it. It's the most blatantly, flatly hypocritical bunch of crap that I've ever heard, and I'm sick of fighting the war.

Abstinence is great, but you'd better believe that my children are going to know about STDs, birth control, ovulation, spermatozoa, and everything else they need to know when they reach the age of asking those questions. I'm not listening to the pinheads, and I'm not about to start demanding everyone else does, either.

This entire discussion is archaically moot from one end to the other. It was moot the moment people learned how to prevent impregnation and use the rhythm method. It was even more moot when they learned to form latex into prophylactic devices. And it's going to become increasingly moot as more advanced contraceptive technologies become available.

Pinheads can sit there and whine and cry that these things shouldn't exist, but they do, and they will continue to. 500 years from now nobody is going to even be worried about 21st century contraceptive technologies -- they're going to be worried about how to stop the second set of wings from growing on the backs of their cyborg groundskeepers, so they don't fly off too quickly.

(okay, one more comment for the night...)

we'll be worrying about 26th century contraceptive techniques while also worrying about how to keep that second set of wings at bay...

And all the while trying to help people realize that contraception still isn't the answer, but an encouragement to a destructive duplicitous lifestyle of self-satisfaction at the expense of oneself and another...

And if contraception is used in a setting where there isn't even enjoyment, that's even more pitiable.

Today I'm on my way to Staples to pick up a new hard disk drive for my computer and over the radio comes an advertisement about how more girls need to be encouraged to study math and science. And the CEO of AT&T and the head of the world's largest software company are telling people that teaching math and science is the most important thing in the whole wide world to maintaining America's economic competitiveness.

So what are you going to tell those 12 and 13 and 14 year old girls?

"Study science, but don't study human reproductive biology because it might put bad ideas in your heads."

"Make sure that when you read about chemistry and go on to study endocrinology you don't look at anything involving reproductive hormones?"

"Please, for God's sake, don't ever, ever think that when you take that AP Biology course to get into a good college, anything in there about sexual reproduction applies to you."

"And don't look at those condoms on the shelf at the local Circle-K. You'll go blind."

Give me a break, folks. The cat is out of the bag. Deal.

I would have thought that your long tenure here would have helped you realize that most Conservatives do not preach "Abstinence only! Abstinence only!"

It's "Abstinence FIRST!"
Bit of a difference there.

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

I'm just waiting for your parrot BrowneyeKos to mimic you in the very near future.

Donate $$$ VoteNader.org

At the time of the birth of Jesus Mary was a young teenager. At this instance a young teenager giving birth is the greatest joy and gift for the world.

If the rules are transparent and clear, and if the state has no author­ity to license businesses or restrict exports and imports, there will be no opportunities to pay bribes in those areas. Mart Laar

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

absentee

She was unwed.

Mary's situation is really the only way for Jesus to have come into this world. God is so awesome. I'd go into this futher but I dread the threadjacking accusation.

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Pregnancy is a medical condition. A teen pregnancy is typically the result of stupidity.

You are trying to say that there is no difference between an accidental teen pregnancy and a planned event between two consenting adults seeking to have a child??

Good luck with that.
Hopefully you will never have a daughter so "blessed".

You are right, of course. My apologies. It does not matter if there is a new human life growing inside her womb. It does not matter if her obviously moronic Christian fundamentalist parents try to force their beliefs onto her that all huamn life, whether as a result of "an accidental teen pregnancy" or "a planned event between two consenting adults seeking to have a child", is a gift and blessing from God. No, all that matters is whether SHE WANTS THE PREGNANCY. That's all. It is all about her desires, her aspirations, and her Constitutional right to have as much sex as she can possibly get without having to worry about the biological consequences thereto. I am humbly chastened by your incisive comment and I apologize for the confusion.

Thanks chemjeff2 for saying what many (or least myself) was thinking!

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?