Poll: Obama increases lead over Clinton

Gallup says Obama leads Hillary by 10% nationally. Maybe the voters are getting caught up in the same wrap-it-up trend as the superdelegates.

Meanwhile, alas, Obama is going to get in trouble for this remark regarding his opposition to abstinence-only education:

Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.

I boldfaced the part that’s being, and will continue to be, gleefully taken out of context by “outraged” conservates. In reality, as the context makes obvious, Obama’s not talking about abortion at all, nor is he saying that teenage parents ought not love their babies. He’s merely acknowledging an obvious reality that everyone understands (teen pregnancy is a bad thing), and proposing something that he believes would help reduce teen pregnancy (“comprehensive” sex education that includes information about birth control and protection). His comment is entirely defensible, and indeed, 100% correct in my view. But it was also clumsily worded, and will make great fodder for some anti-abortion 527 group. (The linked blogger, Mike Allen, asks whether “this comment opened the door to trouble, or are conservatives twisting an innocent observation?” Um, both?)

73 Responses to “Poll: Obama increases lead over Clinton”

  1. texasyank says:

    If the Dems shut up about “100 years war,” fine.

  2. gahrie says:

    Brendan:

    While I agree that there is scant evidence in this quote to attack Obama for his stance on abortion, his position is pretty clear, and to some extreme. For instance he opposes laws that would protect the life of a baby botrn accidentally during abortion.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200801/COM20080109b.html

  3. 4-7 says:

    Is punished here being used as the responsibility that might ordinarily come in a world where actions have personal consequences ?

    I would have to agree then that there is little context in this country for such a sentiment.

    I wish I lived in a world where the fact of pro-life advocacy at least commanded some respect from the other side. The forecast of condemnable opposition in this thread, a pre-emptive and over enthusiastic defense of Obama, is unsettling for an editor who ordinarily appears to have sharper discretion and a more open mind. Can it be that Obama’s charm is even more potent than Beetle-mania ?

    I wonder where Obama would stand as to the punishment inflicted on the world of a born-alive infant. Surely he would not abstain from such a discussion. Perhaps it would be punishment to let a vegative woman continue to receive fluids and love when she might have expressed to her husband in an unwritten commitment that she would rather die ? Surely Obama would regret abstaining from taking action on her behalf as a grave mistake in his Senate career – for how wrong to use the limited province of the federal government (a vanguard of liberal policymaking) to interfere in such matters.

    Obama loves children, after all. He would never see children as punishment. Unless they were an inconvenient truth.

    Compassion doesn’t end at birth, after all. If you’re going to stop killing them in the womb, you better provide a baby bond for them at baptism. Speaking of which, has any liberal proposed such a compromise bill ? Hmm.

    Anyway, liberal, heal thyself. Your roots lost water long ago. You say stupid things like “punishment” because there is little life left in your party. You are just a walking corpse – screaming you have found the fountain of youth in the hopes a few edible brains might come hither.

    Ah, Monday.

  4. Marty West says:

    What’s “Beetle-mania?”

  5. 4-7 says:

    Charm limited in its potency to overwhelming the mind of young teenagers. Did I spell it wrong ? I’m not big into music.

  6. 4-7 says:

    As for abstinence-focused education, deride it not, hippie-liberal baby boomers. Your varied attempts at splitting-the-baby (oooh, multi-layered symbolism!) since the sexual revolution have given us little success to breathe in. You condemn a method and standard of conduct that is 100% effective while telling ignorant and selfish teenagers that there is a way to hide from God in the garden of Eden with a latex balloon. Of course, the fig leaf didn’t work either. Truth, being truth, the promise of no-consequences is usually serpent borne. Speaking of ancient gardens, how’s Africa ?

  7. Marty West says:

    Not big into music? Being able to spell the name of the biggest band in the history of music should just be commonplace.

    That coupled with your thoughts on abstinence just shows that you are really really out of touch.

  8. gahrie says:

    I have a 5 month pregnant 8th grader in one of my classes today. She hasn’t even received sex education from school yet.

    Fighting over sex education is meaningless in today’s society. Our kids get their education into sex and sexual behavior from popular culture today. And the message is just do it. Do it early, do it often, do it with as many people as possible. And that is simply not healthy, physically or emotionally.

  9. Brendan Loy says:

    Gahrie, you just eloquently made the case for the importance of sex education! How on earth does the fact that children are bombarded with unhealthy messages about sex make the sex-education debate “meaningless”? It makes it incredibly important! It’s precisely because of the need to try and at least partially counteract those harmful messages that sex education is so crucial! The Religious Right’s head-in-the-sand approach is the worst possible way to deal with the issue, for precisely the reasons you say.

  10. 4-7 says:

    Who says “abstinence only” education is a head in the sand, don’t talk about sex approach. The problem is that Freud and Kinsey are effectively in control of the nation’s moral center by default (because the nation has none or is afraid to have one) and therefore they are getting the sexual education gahrie refers to.

    Sex divorced from responsibility is fundamentally an act of disrespect and objectivism, and our kids on a subconscious level hate us for not having the spine to teach them to live a moral, balanced, and disciplined life until adulthood and lasting commitment to another person, so they go out and debase themselves with drugs, sex, self-hatred and destructive behaviors.

    The liberal’s approach to sex is like the liberal’s approach to poverty. After 40 years of throwing MORE sex, and MORE money at the problem, respectively, they still think the answer is more sex and more money, angry at suggestions that its the very more that’s making the problem worse.

    Maybe another 40 years, and will have it nipped in the bud. Of course, traditional values sits in a box of personal effects in the storage locker of this mental institution we’ve built, but no one has the sense to go open it. We’re still waiting to see if Pandora had anything work keeping, but her horrors are bottomless.

  11. 4-7 says:

    After 40 years of failing the next generation, you would think our failures would be educating. Instead, we are like survivors of a razed Sodom, wondering with the prophets unsuccessful entreaties still ringing in the hills if our offense at God was poor hospitality.

    Let’s keep trying, though. Maybe they’ll “get it” if we start earlier.

  12. yea says:

    this is a non-issue. few of the people who will take this remark out of context were going to vote for obama anyway.

  13. Mad Max, Esquire says:

    Gahrie –

    I know plenty of soccer moms who dress their 13-year-olds like whores and then berate their daughters for not being more popular. You would be shocked by how many parents direct their girls away from math and science because they would be seen as “nerdy.”

    Popular culture sucks. But the fact is many parents today are sending their daughters mixed messages by spending $2,000 to go to Hannah Montana concerts and buying shorts with “Sweetie” on the ass for their girls and then complaining about “popular culture” when the kid gets knocked up.

    My kids don’t have designer clothes. They don’t have cell phones. They don’t like it, but tough shit. I only wish more parents weren’t part of this “mob mentality” that leads to kids getting into trouble.

  14. 4-7 says:

    One more thing before I actually try to get some work done today. I notice Obama is all for giving the kids “information” to make sure they make informed decisions. It’s funny to see how pro-choicers treat informed consent when it comes to laws that require providing information about the health risks of abortion and the development status of the fetus.

    My mind is strong, but not beyond ruse,

    so when untruth prevails, forgive what I choose,

    Alternatives weighing, madness on one hand,

    I opt for the other: a head full of sand.

    Well, best I could do.

  15. Becky says:

    I think Obama’s choice of words was incredibly poor but it’s predictable and unfortunate that conservatives will use them to obfuscate a relevant and pressing public health issue. Nearly one quarter of teenage girls have an STD in this country while in other countries where teens are having just as much sex, the rates of infection are lower. Clearly, our sex education is woefully inadequate and our teens are paying the price with their health. While it’s perfectly acceptable for schools to teach that abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed way of avoiding the consequences of sexual behavior, it’s unacceptable for the conversation to end there. Human nature yields to temptation and to build public policy on the assumption of angelic behavior is shortsighted and guarantees failure.

  16. 4-7 says:

    Again, because public policy that built around human nature and failure as the rule rather than the exception has done so well in the last few generations.

    I feel like I am reading comments on a blog from the late 60s. Were blogs around back then ?

    Puff puff, pass. . .

  17. 4-7 says:

    I don’t think abstience only advocates want a focus on abstinence solely for its “public health” safekeeping function, but because the focus on abstinence as a moral and civic duty by a confident legislative body and enforcing public will actually reform the ungoverned minds and hearts raised by idiotic parentry that find themselves at the wrong end of statistics.

  18. 4-7 says:

    but maybe the banana and condum will catch on eventually. Who knows. 10000 years of human tradition and natural life-changing consequences, versus 30 years of rubbers and funny you-tube bound sex ed videos at Zoos, I mean, I guess I can give the latter a little bit more time. Sorry for being unfair. Ice Cream social at planned parenthood anyone ?

  19. 4-7 says:

    Oh, and are the “harmful messages” that supposedly necessitate obama’s type of sex education some kind of radioatic pulsewave from space that our ozone can’t deflect ? Again, maybe some attempt at cultural spine-based reformation about how unfulfilling the promise of free sex has been for the nation might actually affect whether the kids see the harmful messages that influence their minds. Of course, I don’t think sex would sell so much if the public, including modern parents, didn’t buy it. How much you want to bet that the parents who want schools teaching their kids about “safe” sex are the ones with addictions to Carrie Bradshaw commentary and Maxim magazine ?

    Maybe we just need to re-define what “safe” means. I mean, a kid can go home with a stranger in a van with a puppy and be “safe”, but the long term mental consequences are anything but safe. But I guess if instead of a van with a puppy its a letter-jacket wearing stud with a strawberry-phospate, we can chalk the long term mental consequences up to the fact that he wasn’t “the one.” Ahh, safety.

  20. Marty West says:

    4-7 needs to get laid big time. I bet if you were getting some on a consistent basis you wouldn’t whine this much…Jesus.

  21. Aaron says:

    The part I like is that last paragraph, where unless I’m mistaken he compares teen sex to child abduction. Of course, half the time a can’t follow his inane ramblings, so it’s possible I misunderstood.

    If nothing else, 4-7 demonstrates how overrated bi-partisanship is. The irony is that, compared to a lot of liberals, I’m a bit of a squish when it comes to abortion rights. But I’m not interested in bi-partisan compromise with a political coalition that contains 4-7s.

  22. 4-7 says:

    Marty dearest, recall that a lot of anxious hearts have taken the meds you would prescribe, and they have found their long term condition ill-improved.

    If I weren’t so convinced about how far liberal ideas were from truth towards serving the human condition in an adequate way, I might blush at the accusations of insanity. But surely it is the insane who would fail to recognize sanity. So one of us is right and one is wrong. That’s the way it always has been, with abortion at least. History will lament in beffuddlement why we did not at least exert some effort at erring on the side of caution.

    The snozzberries taste like snozzberries.

  23. Marty West says:

    I haven’t “prescribed any meds”, I said you need to get laid.

    You really do. It might release some of that frustration you probably feel on a daily basis. I got some last night and I feel great. Try it!

  24. Angrier and Angrier says:

    The terminology Obama used was stupid. However, it shouldn’t change the fact that most studies show that abstinence-only education DOES NOT WORK. Abstinence is not a bad message to have as part of a sex education program. I also think that if a teen isn’t educated enough to have a baby, they are equally uneducated about the consequences of an abortion. Frankly, I’m tired of the feminist hysterics about having a baby (it’s punishment!). It is one year out of a girl’s life (if she gives the baby up for adoption) versus a lifetime of guilt if the girl has an abortion. Life has consequences. Being a woman shouldn’t veto those consequences. I think teens should be given ample information and all the options to consider.

  25. 4-7 says:

    Marty, you only compliment me by going to such extremes. The inference is growing that in these little contests you are inevitably grinding a personal axe of guilt and shame. So I leave it at that. If you must barb, barb wittily.

    Yours ever and always, Four.

    P.S. I think I talked about abstinence focused education, not abstinence only. Abstinence focused would be where lip service and social condemnation is given to teenage and unsafe sex and social approval, encouragement, reinforcement, etc. is given to the old way. Of course, that’s too parental, isn’t it. Well anyway. stop talking ! I’ve got to get some work done.

  26. dcl says:

    “[…] while telling ignorant and selfish teenagers that there is a way to hide from God in the garden of Eden with a latex balloon.[…]”

    WTF!?!?!?!?! I really don’t get the irrational drivel…

    People (not just kids) need to learn to understand and take ownership of their decisions and choices. They need to understand the options, they need to understand their consequences.

    When it comes to the question of sex, they need to understand the emotional and hormonal factors at play. In the case of sex education, before they reach puberty is the time to start talking about the hormonal and emotional changes that will happen. Also, the physical, health, and emotional aspects of sexual activity. They certainly need to understand the value and importance of abstinence. They need to be given the tools to understand why that is a good decision. And understanding the alternatives and the attendant risks is important in that discussion. Just don’t do it is a wholly inadequate course of argument in the case of sex where every single evolutionary impulse is telling you to do it – regardless of your understanding of it. I’m sorry but “the bible says it’s wrong” just is not going to cut it. But given enough information, I think most kids are functionally capable of making good decisions that they will take responsibility for. But you can’t treat them like idiots to get that result. I’m afraid you will need to deal with reality instead of babbling about some farcically bizarre twisting of some 4000+ year old near eastern mythology.

  27. Sandy Underpants says:

    4-7 is for progress, so long as no liberals are involved in the progress. Buddy, you had 6 years of conservative led congress, senate and presidency and that has led us to a Democratic led congress, senate and presidency. I think that says all you need to know about how good the leadership of your side did while they had absolute power. It’s time somebody that actually thinks lead the country.

  28. 4-7 says:

    If kids are so evolutionarily inclined to break out in sex, I wonder what stops them from doing it in classrooms, on buses, etc. It couldn’t be the fear of social consequences and punishment. I guess they just weigh their options, think about the health and develoment issues involved if they distract themselves from school and their budding careers, and make an informed choice. Or it could be that kids see condoms and contraception, as adults see them, a gateway to consequence-free sex. Good luck “teaching” a 12 year old to appreciate the nuance between “if you’re absolutely positiviely going to do it, please use this,” and “it’s ok to do it, as long as you use this.” Have you seen our test scores ?

  29. Marty West says:

    4-7 is so pathetic.

  30. Brendan Loy says:

    Isn’t it possible, just possible, 4-7, that you’re letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, or at least the less-bad?

    Let’s try a thought experiment here, and see how intellectually honest and frank each of us can be, in acknowledging the practical shortcomings of our respective positions. I’ll start.

    I will concede that some young people will react in the way you describe, seeing “condoms and contraception as gateway to consequence-free sex.” I’ll further concede that some of those young people will behave this way only because of the “comprehensive” sex education that Obama favors — i.e., if they didn’t have comprehensive sex education, if they were only taught about abstinence, they wouldn’t have sex at all, but because they learned about dirty nasty condoms and the evil beknighted Pill from that heathen liberal Obama, they will feel liberated and will become sexually active. We can argue about numbers and percentages, but I’ll concede that this is true of some young people.

    Now: will you concede that some young people who are predisposed to have sex anyway, under either sex-education regime, will have unprotected sex — no condom, no Pill, no nothing — because of the abstinence-only education you advocate? I.e., just as I acknowledge that my plan will cause some teens to have sex when they otherwuse wouldn’t have, will you acknowledge that your plan will cause some sexually active teens to have “unsafe” sex when they otherwise would have had “safer” sex? Will you concede that the lack of knowledge you are promoting does in fact have real costs?

    If we can both concede these points, then we can boil this debate down to what it really is: a question of priorities. You prioritize keeping as many teenagers as possible pure and virginal, while deprioritizing the battle to prevent teen pregnancy and STDs among those who aren’t going to be pure and virginal. I, on the other hand, prioritize the battle against STDs and teen pregnancy, and am willing to see a few kids (and I do think it’s only a few) become sexually active who otherwise wouldn’t have, because I think it’s well worth it.

    Now, in doing this sort of priority-weighing exercise, obviously the numbers and percentages matter. However, I don’t know what the real numbers are, so I’m going to pull some out of my ass, for the sake of our thought experiment. Suppose, arguendo, that the following (admittedly rather ridiculous) numbers were correct:

    • Under an abstinence-only regime, 50% of teens will in fact abstain. Of the other 50%, only half will use protection. As a result, 50% of all teens are sexually active, and 25% of all teens are having “unsafe” sex.

    • Under a comprehensive sex education regime, 25% of teens will nevertheless abstain. Of the other 75%, nine out of 10 will use protection. As a result, 75% of all teens are sexually active, but less than 8% of all teens are having “unsafe” sex.

    Now, I emphasize that I made those numbers up, and in fact, I strongly suspect that the real numbers show a less drastic impact on both sides of the coin (i.e., sex education’s actual impact is more on the margins than my fake numbers suggest). However, for the sake of argument, suppose those numbers are correct. Which scenario is better? Your world, where only 50% of teens are “doin’ it” but fully 25% of ’em are “unprotected,” or my world, where a whoppnig 75% of teens are “doin’ it” but only 8% of ’em are “unprotected”?

    I, myself, prefer the second scenario. I wish the 75% was lower, but I’m damn glad the 8% isn’t higher. You, presumably, prefer the first scenario. But what do you say to the 17% of teens (under these phony numbers) who are more at risk for STDs and pregnancy — long-term, irreversible consequences of their bad youthful choices — because you weren’t willing to give them information? Personally, I can sleep a lot better at night knowing that I gave someone the information they needed to make a good choice, and they made a bad one anyway, than knowing that I didn’t present them with the full range of choices, and so faced with a choice between doing the perfect thing or the worst possible thing, they chose the worst possible thing, when in fact there was a middle ground that I never told them about.

    It’s a tough issue. But I don’t think you’re really fully grappling with the real-world consequences of the solution you’re advocating. And especially given your views on popular culture, it seems awfully odd that you’d think sex education at school, with condoms etc., is the thing that’s tipping a whole lot of teens over into the “let’s just have sex” crowd. If anything, the prevalence of harmful sexual messages in pop culture strongly suggests that comprehensive sex education is better, since pop culture means we’ve already lost the war with a LOT of kids, and we’re more likely to have an impact catering to the ones who are going to be sexually active no matter what we do instead of catering to the ones who are on the fence as to whether to become sexually active.

  31. Brendan Loy says:

    P.S. Re: “long-term, irreversible consequences of their bad youthful choices” … I recognize that youthful sex that doesn’t produce STDs or pregnancy can nevertheless sometimes lead to long-term, irreversible psychological consequences. Sometimes. It can also lead to nostalgia, John Mellencamp songs, and the like… and occasionally, it even leads to happy marriages. Most often, I think, it produces interesting memories and, at worst, minor regrets that people get over as they grow up. Now, don’t you dare tell my daughter I said any of that. :) I’m not advocating teen sex here. But what I’m saying is, it’s not like there is some epidemic of walking-wounded men and women who have never recovered from the trauma of having had consensual, protected sex with their girlfriend/boyfriend their sophomore year in high school, “before they were ready.” Most people get over that s**t pretty quickly. If there’s no STD and no baby, there are still consequences, important ones, but they’re usually — usually — not NEARLY as severe or permanent. Emotional scars usually heal.

    Oh, and the emotional scars that don’t heal? More often than not, they involve non-consensual sex, of one form or another. And I would argue that a comprehensive sex education scheme that promotes an open dialogue about sex is much more likely to help people stay out of, and if necessary recover from, those sorts of predicaments, than an abstinence-only scheme, which has the impact of basically shutting down honest discourse about what kids are experiencing vis a vis sex. How are you supposed to teach kids boundaries if you insist that their only option is to stay off the court altogether? How are you supposed to tell high-school girls to follow the “buddy system” when they go to their first college party if you aren’t being forthright about the culture of sex, alcohol, etc.? How are you supposed to tell them, “look, if you’re going to get into a potentially sexually charged situation, be sure it’s with someone you trust and who respects you and who won’t take advantage of you?” if your message is “NO SEX EVER EVER EVER”?

    And furthermore, if your message if “NO SEX EVER EVER EVER,” how are you going to prevent the victims of sexual misconduct from feeling all sorts of shame about it? Like you said: young people don’t appreciate nuance. So good luck “teaching” a 12 year old to appreciate the nuance between “sex is bad, you shouldn’t do it,” and “if you were getting a little bit hot-and-heavy with him, but you had no intention of sleeping with him, and then he raped you, it’s not your fault and you have nothing to be ashamed of.” Have you seen our test scores ?

  32. Marty West says:

    “Sometimes. It can also lead to nostalgia, John Mellencamp songs, and the like… ”

    This is ourrrrrrr countryyyyyyyyyy!

  33. 4-7 says:

    I’m tired. I was just mad at the heat directed at “some 527 anti-abortion group” and Obama not being a good candidate as revealed by his continued slipping into idiotic statements. I appreciate your candor and thought. I hope the culture can be reformed and I think society has every reason to question how beneficial its permissive and/or indifferent attitude about the proper function of sex has been. I think kids are intelligent enough for a full and frank discussion of the realities, but the problem is that full and frank in the liberal’s agenda usually excludes, marginalizes, derides or gives only lip service to the alternative position. Cf. Intelligent Design; anti-global warming perspectives.

    I’m tired.

  34. 4-7 says:

    the federal government needs to get out of the education business, anyway. Still tired.

  35. Gardner says:

    Brendan,

    You have a very good, thought provoking response. And I would agree with it, assuming your numbers are correct.

    Ultimately I think this is the parents job to teach the kids and to be allowed to use their belief system. I’m assuming that this is in a public school setting. Would you allow parents to opt their kids out of these “teaching” even if the whole hartedly disagree?

  36. dcl says:

    “proper function of sex” Q the biologists and anthropologists please… Or the short version – to make more… whatevers. Thus perpetuating the species etc. etc.

    Brendan, I agree. Though I think you are being far to easy on the abstinence only folks.

    4-7, animals have a vast number of different rituals regarding mating and sex. Generally in humans, one of them is that it is a private activity, hence there is not a lot of sex on the bus, but this doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen… Also in the math stairwell apparently… It is not abb normal for a sexually mature animal to want to have sex. Telling someone they are bad for that desire, yeah, that’s a real good way to get those emotional scars you were talking about before.

  37. 4-7 says:

    yeah, cause that’s exactly what I said – you are bad for having desires. Maybe I just said we should have a context for expecting that they act on their desires in a mature, human way, i.e., by waiting until true adulthood to make adult decisions. Sex divorced from the institution of the family and commitment thereto is a destructive lie. It’s amazing that there does not appear to be a direct correlation between experience and the observation of this fact.

  38. David K. says:

    4-7, if we judged political fitness based on a few misstatments George W. Bush would be a White House janitor not the President. All the candidates have said things that are bound to be taken to far by the opposition, but in this case, like in many others its a bigger deal than it probably should be because different groups are more sensitive to different things (please note that I am strongly Pro-Life).

  39. David K. says:

    Brendan and dcl,

    I’ll gladly trade you abstinence only education if you will limit abortions to rape and/or the mothers health. As a bonus I’ll even give in to allowing schools to make condoms available to students. Once convenience abortions are off the table and the full consequences of pregnancy are spelled out I think a broader based sex education program is fine, but as long as the supposed easy out of abortion exists, (I say supposed because the consequences of the decision are described as being incredibly negative in the long run by many mothers who have chosen that route) its much harder to show kids that there can be serious consequences.

  40. Scientizzle says:

    “Alternative positions” such as intelligent design deserve exclusion, marginalization, and derision. What the hell does that have to do with teaching kids about the practical measures that can reduce disease transmission and unwanted pregnancy?

    Isn’t it of worthy note that the “liberal position” is more effective at preventing unwanted preganacy and therefore preventing the abortions that keep 4-7 up at night?

  41. 4-7 says:

    Of course, like gahrie noted, Obama didn’t stand up for born-alive infants when he had the chance. He comes from the wrong cloth to be the voice of moderation and conciliation.

    Bush has opposed the funding of massive destroying of human embryos so that we can live better off. He may be an idiot when it comes to prose, but at least he is on the side of life like you and me. Obama is just on the side of pleasantness. And that’s a tough order to provide through the mechanism of coercive government.

  42. David K. says:

    It is not abb normal for a sexually mature animal to want to have sex. Telling someone they are bad for that desire

    And yet we restrain ourselves from acting out on our primal desires (not just sexual) all the time, thats kinda whats supposed to make us different than the birds and the bees. Believe it or not dcl, there are more than just Bible based reasons why people are opposed to expanded sex education in our schools. You want to avoid a puritanical society, which is fine, but I want to avoid a society ala Brave New World. Surpisingly enough I’m not advocating for puritanism anymore than you, i presume, are advocating for sexual promiscuity as a citizens duty (well i suppose you may want that for yourself in some contexts ;-))

  43. David K. says:

    4-7, if you honestly believe that those who favor contraception and abortion do so while also holding the belief that embryos and such are equivalent to human beings, and that they therefor are in favor of brutal murder of actual people, then yes, what you are saying makes sense. If on the other hand like me you believe that the primary reason they can support things like abortion is because they do NOT believe that ebryos and such are NOT soulful/human beings, then there is no moral problem with what they are doing, its kinda the reason abortion is such a tricky issue. I believe they are wrong of course from a number of different perspectives, but knowing Brendan, dcl, and others who think like them as I do, if they really were such brutal sociopaths I would not in any way associate with them. I am sure that if we could somehow demonstrate and prove that such things are indeed living people and not just pre-people many if not most would change positions. I assure you however that treating them in such a way does you no favors and will win you few if any converts in the discussion.

    There are many good strong arguments to be made for the pro-life case, precedent from other similar legal decisions involving knowing/not knowing if something is a person or not (the hunting example is a great one), the ambiguity and arbitrary nature of the line drawn by pro-abortionists, the consequences of the current attitude towards abortion, etc. but calling them manical life hating killers? Yeah not so much.

  44. 4-7 says:

    Scientizzle.

    How was I making Intelligent Design relevant to the abstience discussion ? Answer – I wasn’t. I was using it as an example of instances where external ideas are shunned because the would-be biased moderators of an invited discussion don’t want “full and frank” discussion to put their agenda at risk. Some people are so threatened by the risk that real full and frank discussion about an issue will result in a fundamental change of course. Modern secularists don’t want abstinence to be championed because it puts ideals of modern sexual freedom and the supposed rights and privileges it entails (abortion, gay marriage, divorce, contraception) and the bastardization of the constitution to permit liberal enabling of those rights and privileges, all at major risk. That must be prevented at all costs. The people who run the liberal show know that if they ever lose the order they built with FDR, Earl Warren, and William Brennan, to name a few, they might never get it back, and the last hope of worldwide socialism will be destroyed because a free superpower will perpetually exist. The same holds for would be debaters of evolution and global warming. Authentic open-ended debate about the possibility of intelligent design to the universe (be it pre-universe aliens, robots, gods, or God) puts at risk the continued growth of science and secular man as God and religion, which permits any practice that can be performed in a petrie dish, operating table, or Berkely quad. Authentic open-ended debate of man-made global warming puts at risk the agenda of the socialists who want to use global warming to shoehorn the transfer of property and wealth to the government.

    For people who are such purported advocates of speech, discussion, and tolerance, you rarely see secularists and liberals exhibit the slightest willingness to engage the other side where it lives. Liberalism is deathly afraid of truth and it defines the terms of the conversation to avoid its discovery, whether or not it might benefit or detract from its ideals. It’s just too damn risky. Truth.

  45. 4-7 says:

    David,

    I do not think that pro-choicers are life-hating killers, but I do think they are at least incredibly stupid to a degree of wanton recklessness. The fact that someone can look at a “fetus” even at 8 weeks and think it proper to permit laws generally permitting its destruction is sickening. No, they don’t think it is the same thing as killing a cooing baby, but that’s just it, they should the same as the nose on their face, and the fact that they can’t (and think people who can are mindless woman-hating zombies) makes me not want to trust them with a cotton ball.

  46. 4-7 says:

    And where did Obama stand on born-alive infants? Simple question, Barack. He’s a coward. His presidency will be one of the worst in history. And they thought Bush was bad.

  47. David K. says:

    And where did Obama stand on born-alive infants? Simple question, Barack. He’s a coward. His presidency will be one of the worst in history. And they thought Bush was bad.

    What are you even talking about? Do you have proof or evidence that Obama things we should be offing babies or something? How is he a coward? Provide some evidence, some arguments, something beyond “he sucks”. I can list numerous reasons WHY I think the Bush presidency has been bad, I could even list reasons why i thought it would be bad, but your not making the same arguments here.

  48. David K. says:

    And where did Obama stand on born-alive infants? Simple question, Barack. He’s a coward. His presidency will be one of the worst in history. And they thought Bush was bad.

    What are you even talking about? Do you have proof or evidence that Obama things we should be offing babies or something? How is he a coward? Provide some evidence, some arguments, something beyond “he sucks”. I can list numerous reasons WHY I think the Bush presidency has been bad, I could even list reasons why i thought it would be bad, but your not making the same arguments here.

  49. David K. says:

    Also, as to the “it looks human” argument, so what? Are you saying that someone born without arms or legs or with a disfiguration is somehow not human? Are you saying that a monkey or an ape, either prenatal or postbirth should be granted the same rights because it LOOKS the same? Again, disagree fine, but your not making convincing arguments to anyone who doesn’t allready disagree with you, hell i DO agree with you and i’m STILL not convinced by your arguments.

  50. Sandy Underpants says:

    “Intelligent Design” doesn’t belong in science class because it’s make-believe and there isn’t any debate about it. Now go do a rain-dance, it’s dry here in LA.

  51. zz says:

    We need about 100,000 Americans to go before a judge and publicly declare

    that their middle names are their legal names for all public purposes.

    And they should also declare themselves as supporters of the Hussein

    for Imam–whoops I mean president coalition. Hussein will be the

    first Muslim president. Free Burkhas for everybody! Hussein’s first

    act will be to replace the flag with the red crescent. Hussein has

    always hated that other flag with every fiber of his being. Which is

    why he won’t pledge to it and won’t wear a flag lapel pin. But Hussein

    will proudly salute a flag representative of a non European religion!

    When Hussein takes office every child will be required to attend a

    Madras just as Hussein did when he was a child. It is so good to be

    able to use a candidate’s middle name and talk about his formative

    years and his education. Because if you couldn’t that would mean

    that the candidate is ashamed of what he was and what he has become.

    Welcome to a pork free world with no ham or pizza. You must not offer a pork chop

    to Hussein. You must not put pork grease on your hands or your money

    and certainly not hallowed ground. No pork anywhere!

    Alice Jones, tinfoil hat wearing saucer nut recently came out of the closet and

    revealed that she is a radical Muslim and a supporter of Hussein for

    for president.

    —coming to you from under the straight talk express.

    ****Hussein ’08 !!!*****

  52. Scientizzle says:

    4-7, if you believe that ID is in any way useful to “authentic open-ended debate” then you are ignorant–just ignorant–of biology. There’s nothing else to it. Science does not deal in magic. Biologists aren’t afraid of ID shifting the earth from under our feet because its a formulation devoid of substance, decidedly lacking in any evidence or utility. Therefore, “teaching the controversy” is a waste of everyone’s time.

    As to the rest of your ramblings…you bore me with your anti-intellectualism conspiracy theories.

  53. 4-7 says:

    You all are too smart for me. And I deserve to be fired for how much time I spend on this site blogging my anti-intellectualism conspiracy theories.

    I think I will go away now.

    “4-7” is dead.

    Now it is time for barbeque.

  54. David K. says:

    Only in the right wing can Obama be both a muslim extremist AND a black power christian extremeist. Where is Jew-bama for the Abrahamic Trifecta?!?

  55. Marty West says:

    Maybe instead of bbq you should try having sex with a woman (or a guy..who knows?!?). It really does wonders. I sense a lot of pent-up sexual frustration in your posts.

  56. gahrie says:

    David K:

    If you are truly interested in finding out about Obama’s record on abortion and “born alive” babies, I refer you to the link I posted above. I don’t blame you for not knowing the truth already, since Obama is clearly not interested in promoting it.

  57. gahrie says:

    Brendan:

    My points about arguements over sex education being meaningless are these:

    1) By the time most students receive meaningful sex education, the ones who are going to be promiscious have already started.

    2) There is quite literally nothing a teacher can say in a classroom setting that is going to influence a kid’s sexual behavior a tenth as much as the music they listen to and the movies and TV they watch.

  58. Brendan Loy says:

    Again, sounds like a powerful argument for teaching kids about birth control, protection, etc. If kids are already promiscuous and there’s “quite literally nothing” a teacher can do to make them stop, might as well encourage them to practice safer sex.

    Of course, that argument won’t fly with doctrinaire Catholics and others who believe birth control is fundamentally immoral, but that’s not the argument I’ve been hearing — instead, I’ve been hearing that “comprehensive” sex education is bad because it will “encourage” kids to have sex. And my point is that, if your points #1 and #2 are correct, gahrie, then the kids don’t need encouraging, but they certainly do need information about protection.

  59. gahrie says:

    Brendan:

    They won’t listen.

  60. Brendan Loy says:

    Maybe not, gahrie, but what is the justification for not at least giving them the information? After all, if “they won’t listen,” there’s no reason to protect them from information to preserve their morality. So why not give them the relevant information, even if you fatalistically believe “they won’t listen”? If it convinces even 1% of them to continue their present behavior but in a slightly “safer” way, isn’t that better than nothing?

  61. Brendan Loy says:

    P.S. I don’t accept, on its face, the argument that all teenagers “won’t listen” if you tell them they can continue doing something they’re already doing, but do it in a way that they won’t get pregnant and won’t get STDs (or are considerably less likely to do either, at least). Hasn’t condom use increased considerably in the the post-AIDS years after various awareness campaigns? Is that just a bizarre coincidence? Your extreme fatalism is silly and stupid.

  62. David K. says:

    gahrie, do you have a source for that speech other than that website? It doesn’t cite any source and for something this serious I’d like some substantiating evidence.

  63. gahrie says:

    Brendan:

    I don’t really have any problem with sex education…of any sort. My only point is that argueing about it is meaningless, and the classes are wasted time, because the kids who are going to have sex are already having it, and aren’t going to pay attention anyway.

    Check your numbers again on STDs. There are a record number of teenage girls with STDs right now, and teenage pregnancies are still huge problem. Both are a result of teenage girls having unprotected sex with multiple partners.

  64. gahrie says:

    David K:

    It’s matter of record that while in the Illinois Senate in 2002 Obama voted against a “Born alive” bill, and stated on the statehouse floor that his reason for doing so was to preserve the right to an abortion. The next year he was chairman of the committee it was submitted to and refused to report it out, even though the 2003 version had language that explicitly stated the bill would have no impact on the right to an abortion.

  65. Gardner says:

    David,

    See page 84 of the pdf document linked below for the text of Obama’s speech. I think this is the speech referred to. Obama begins on Page 85.

    http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf

  66. David K. says:

    gahrie, i’m not saying the votes didn’t happen, i just wanted to see a more authoritative source of the speech than some random website.

    Gardner, thank you for the link

  67. David K. says:

    Now having read the entirety of what Obama said its clear that the link posted before was somewhat disingenuous. Yes he said those things, but he did so as they were potential problems brought up during the discussion of the bill. While I disagree strongly with the democratic stance on abortion, i can’t find any great fault with him doing his job as the head of the judiciary committee in reporting reasons the bill might not pass constitutional muster.

  68. jalypso says:

    Zero Tolerance sucks cause it not based

    on reality.The real world is not

    perfect and fair so why force children

    into something that not real.I believe

    in discpline but a HUman grows and

    developes with discovery.As that person

    continue they can offer the world

    something unique and different!!!

    Not a double standard that drum

    a robotic Zero tolerane into a

    crazy communism.I Know you lawyers

    don’t need me to explain how the

    law is unequal.Yeah Zero Nero!!

    Women have sex with students at

    will and the punishment is almost

    nothing!!What?I heard more uproar

    about black coaches giving pops in

    1987……. on white butts

  69. jalypso says:

    If you teach your children what right you

    done all thats expected.Unless you

    set double standard before them.Double

    standard makes it hard for a person

    to build upon that.Always have some

    structure to lean on is good because

    life is full of twist and turn and

    sometime you gonna get burn.Question

    is when will you ever learn!!I don’t

    know cause im not perfect but Im

    learning!!!Commom sence!!!

  70. jalypso says:

    How many illegals we got comin in and out

    of this U.S..Its going to get worst and all

    unaccounted for so prepare yourselves!!!

    Every year Americans go to Baja mexico,

    Tiajana Mexico, All in South America

    Drunk as a sailor having sex all over

    the world.Sex since the start is like

    food your not going to curve that.The

    real sad part is we are going to use

    the problem as a type of solution.

    This shoot every girl with some

    experimental money maken bullshit

    say Governor Slick Rick Perry.Who

    cares about side effects.That how

    we got into this mess.Nobody wanna

    say it just play crazy.Money Makin

    HgH,Steriods,biochemical warfare,

    and a long Goddame long list of

    shit that watchdogs don’t bark!!!They

    blame the people for this

    sad bad situation!!!!Food all

    messed up!! F.D.A taken back to

    reconstuction period along with everything

    esle!!!Prisioner Are allowed to develope

    sexual demonism and get on the street only

    to continue what prison allowed.This mastery of Rape and power play allowed

    is a misstake the people return to

    the street wrost some of them!!!

  71. zed says:

    We need about 100,000 Americans to go before a judge and publicly declare

    that their middle names are their legal names for all public purposes.

    And they should also declare themselves as supporters of the Hussein

    for Imam–whoops I mean president coalition. Hussein will be the

    first Muslim president. Free Burkhas for everybody! Hussein’s first

    act will be to replace the flag with the red crescent. Hussein has

    always hated that other flag with every fiber of his being. Which is

    why he won’t pledge to it and won’t wear a flag lapel pin. But Hussein

    will proudly salute a flag representative of a non European religion!

    When Hussein takes office every child will be required to attend a

    Madras just as Hussein did when he was a child. It is so good to be

    able to use a candidate’s middle name and talk about his formative

    years and his education. Because if you couldn’t that would mean

    that the candidate is ashamed of what he was and what he has become.

    Welcome to a pork free world with no ham or pizza. You must not offer a pork chop

    to Hussein. You must not put pork grease on your hands or your money

    and certainly not hallowed ground. No pork anywhere!

    Alice Jones, tinfoil hat wearing saucer nut recently came out of the closet and

    revealed that she is a radical Muslim and a supporter of Hussein for

    for president. Alice, who had prevously grown famous for taking Klan money

    for bringing up black people exclusively in conjuction with disease, violence,

    and/or poverty, surprised everyone by endorsing a black candidate for president.

    —coming to you from under the straight talk express.

    ****Hussein ’08 !!!*****

  72. David K. says:

    Zed, we’ve heard your paranoid rantings in other threads, your now a spammer, give it up.