Babies as “punishment”
Senator Obama courts the parent vote by comparing babies to STDs:
Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “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.”
You can’t make this stuff up, folks.
But what else would you expect from a man who opposed the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and lead the charge to deny basic medical care to babies who survive botched abortions?
Obama may speak pretty words, but make no mistake about it: He is firmly in the back pocket of Murder, Inc.
(You can read more on Obama’s controversial statement here)
March 31st, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I don’t see the problem. He doesn’t want his kids to have kids out of wedlock, and he doesn’t want them to get STDs. How is that objectionable?
March 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Blackadder-
I think the problem is Obama viewing babies as a “punishment.” It’s fine to say, “My desire is that my children wait until marriage to have their own children.” It is quite another thing to say that children produced out of wedlock are a “punishment.” A punishment from God? What in the heck does he mean by that? Children should never be considered a punishment.
I just think this kind of rhetoric is dehumanizing, and typical of Obama when it comes to these matters.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Well, strictly speaking STDs aren’t punishment either, as it’s not like God created AIDS and other STDs as a way of smiting the wicked. It seems to me that Obama’s meaning here is both plain and unobjectionable.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Your point about STDs is a fair one, but I still think Obama’s comments are deeply troubling given his overall record on abortion.
You don’t think it is the least bit odd that he characterized both babies and STDs as punishments? I think it speaks volumes about his worldview, but perhaps others will view the matter much like you do.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I think you’re reading too much into the statement.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Blackadder-
Perhaps, but I viewing the statement in a broader context.
If you said it, that’s one thing. I would cut you some slack (even though I would still find the statement troubling). But Obama has a history of radical proabortion views, and those views are relevant in considering how thie statement should be interpreted.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I do not think it is an over reaction to be alarmed by this statement. I mean, babies can never be punishment. It is possible that you could refer to teen pregnancy as a difficult responsibilty.
But saying that a girl is “punished” with a baby because she had pre-marital sex is like saying she had nothing to do with the act in the first place, as if it is just an accident or a mistake on her part. However, if a girl gets pregnant it is because she had sex and this is her fault; thus the child is not her punishment but her responsibility (unless, of course it is in the case of rape.)