From the president of the United States today:
As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
Forgive us, Lord, for 39 years of innocent blood on our hands. Forgive us for sacrificing our sons and daughters on the altar of convenience, modernity and "social justice." Forgive our perversity for suggesting that killing is kind, just, fair, honorable and noble.
Amen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKind of ironic when you look at his background. His mother was a liberal Atheist, who got pregnant while an 18 year old college student. The father was a 26 year old married foreign exchange student who had little interest in raising this kid.
If that were to occur today, what are the odds that Obama would be born vs aborted?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters." Well, as long as he's against intrusion into private health and family matters. Child obesity is OK now? Don't tell Michelle.
I'd say more, but my CAPTCHA "lunatic fringe" reminded my not to let the Dennis Rodman of politics goad me into fouling him in return for his uncalled foul.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf he doesn't want to intrude in family matters he should start by getting rid of Obama care. What a hypocrite.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThose 50 million aborted human lives are what we need now to grow the economy. Obama is such a tool.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't quite understand this point, but, as written, it seems like a rather callous view of life. People shouldn't be valued by their impact on GDP.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately, Obama is no different from NRO contributor Stuttaford on this issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've seen this argument before, but it is based on a false assumption. Let's say abortion was illegal and those 50 million pregnancies resulted in 50 million babies. That does not mean there would be an addition 50 million people in the U.S. Most women have a total number of children they are interested in having, and going by census numbers, it looks like that number is 2-3. A woman who has an abortion may still go on to have 2-3 children, but it seems to me that if a woman is faced with an unplanned pregnancy decides to go ahead with it, that baby will be one of those 2-3 kids she originally planned on having. Basically, she would be swapping a later pregnancy and baby for an earlier one. Of course, this doesn't take into account women who have abortions when they are faced with an unplanned pregnancy later in life, but I suspect the number of women having abortions in their late 30s and early 40s is dwarfed by those having them in their teens and 20s.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour point is based on a lot of supposition with no supporting evidence. In the early 90s the statistic was that young women who had abortions were likely to get pregnant again within a year of their abortion. (it's been a long time since nursing school, but I think that the statistic was 60%). Women are more likely to have a healthy baby between the ages 16 and 27 than they are in their 30s and 40s. This is because a woman carries all of the eggs she'll ever produce, fully matured, by the time she is 8 months in utero. In other words a baby girl, not yet born, is carrying the genes for all of her perspective future offspring. Those eggs are exposed to everything that girl is exposed to throughout her lifetime. If she smokes or drinks to excess, if she works at a job where she's exposed to transient radiation or chemical off gases, even if her parents inundate the yard she plays in with pesticides every summer, her eggs are exposed to all of this. Therefore, as she gets older the genetic material in those eggs has aged and it's been exposed to much more over time.
A younger woman who has a child and enjoys raising it is more likely to have more children, especially if she has her child with a responsible, caring young man.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePresident Obama...celebrating the "historic" and "fundamental right" of a mother to choose to kill her child. May God have mercy on us all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRoe v. Wade, which makes abortion for the sake of convenience a Constitutional right, is not about women's health or reproductive freedom. It is about providing women who make bad choices with the right to eliminate the consequences of their bad choices without consideration to the other lives involved. Roe v. Wade doesn't "ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." Roe v. Wade ensures that our sons have no say about whether or not their children will be allowed to live.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf men had the same rights, the would not be involuntarily made to support children born out of wedlock.
I am NOT arguing for legal abortion or that men should not support their offspring. But IF you are going to give the mother total authority about whether the child will be born, the father's liability should be limited to 1he cost of the abortion.
I find the idea that a man might be in the position where his offering the expectant mother of his child $40k to abort it so that he won't have to pay support for 18 years repugnant. But that is a possibility today!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou make a great point. If the woman decides the child lives, the father is required by law to support that child whether or not he wants it. Even if the woman deceived him and got pregnant on purpose, hoping to persuade the man to marry her, he has no standing to deny financial responsibility for the child. On the other hand, if the woman decides the child dies, the father has no legal right to intervene to save the child, even if he offers to raise the child on his own, with no financial assistance from the mother. What the President said today is offensive given the fact that Roe v. Wade diminishes the role of fatherhood and restricts men to the sidelines of what should be one of the most momentous events in their lives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan't agree with that at all. It is obviously wrong that the man has no say in keeping the child alive. But it would also obviously be wrong for him to choose abortion, just as it is wrong for the woman to choose it. So if the woman doesn't abort, she has made the only moral choice. The man who impregnated her is then morally and financially responsible for the child. If he has intercourse with a woman who has "tricked" him, he has chosen his partner poorly, but his obligations to the innocent child remain the same. Caveat emptor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI fear my comments were clumsily phrased since you drew this conclusion.
I meant to say that IF abortion was morally acceptable as many seem to feel, then forcing the person excluded from the the decision to bear the cost of it was morally wrong. My example was intended to show the moral hazard involved in this where paying to have the unborn child executed might be considered.
I agree with you. At least I think I do. Since I think abortion is NOT morally acceptable, then both individuals are responsible for protecting the one party who had NO say in the choices made. The child.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, I'm sorry to have misunderstood, and I agree with your point. I guess I was responding to a combination of your point and Jenna's. I suspect we are all on the same page.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf a man doesn't want to support a child he has the option of keeping his pants zipped.
He volunteers for those 18 years of child support when he chooses to drop his drawers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou make the choice to potentially be responsible for the upbringing of a baby when you have sex. Young adults old enough to engage in sexual intercourse are usually aware of the rudiments of conception unless they are intellectually impaired. The sad thing is that historically in order to protect young men and women from out of wedlock pregnancy, venereal disease, and emotional pain caring parents raised their children to grow up to be responsible adults and wait until marriage to have sex. It may seem old fashioned to anyone growing up now, but it was what was expected of adults only 50 years ago.
I have to admit that my generation is among those assuming that promiscuity was a rite of passage to adulthood, but I've discovered as I've gotten older that this was just a cheap trick played on us by liberal baby-boomers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd what about our unborn daughters?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSounds like our President is laying the groundwork for federal legislation imposing foetal sex quotas on abortionists. That's what he means, isn't it? That female babies shouldn't be disproportionally aborted, as they are in India?
How very humane of him. A true egalitarian humanist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse