In answer to a request from a Democrat in western Pennsylvania to "stop these abortions," Obama reportedly said:
"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."
"punished with a baby?" Could it be, perhaps, that part of the reason folks like Obama and his ilk find abortion acceptable is that they're able to say such a thing out loud? Babies are not punishment, nor are they fashion accessories, nor mere inconveniences to be swept away when someone "make[s] a mistake." If Obama thinks it's unfair to "punish" his daughters with a baby for making a mistake (I'm guessing the mistake in Obama's book is in not using protection, as opposed to, I don't know, choosing abstinence), why is it that he feels it's OK to punish the baby with death?
And what does it say for Obama's trust in his daughters (or lack thereof) that he does not believe that he can teach them to refrain from sex in their teens? That he's really concerned about them getting a sexually transmitted disease at age 16?
Beyond that, I'm not aware of any abstinence-only sex ed program anywhere that prevents parents from giving their children whatever information about sex they believe is appropriate. There's no state compulsion preventing you from "giv[ing] them information." Unlike other sex ed programs, which may or may not provide the option for parents to opt out their kids if they disapprove of the curriculum. Funny how the Democrats claim to be pro-choice, except when the choice in question conflicts with the indoctrination or program they want.
Lastly I can't help but be appalled at all of the commenters falling all over themselves congratulating Obama on his great answer to the question. So full of nuance. Sad.
Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com
That's one of the few words that comes close to describing this:
Brave New World Watch [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Guardian:
Plans to allow British scientists to create human-animal embryos are expected to be approved tomorrow by the government's fertility regulator. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority published its long-awaited public consultation on the controversial research yesterday, revealing that a majority of people were "at ease" with scientists creating the hybrid embryos.
Researchers want to create hybrid embryos by merging human cells with animal eggs, in the hope they will be able to extract valuable embryonic stem cells from them. The cells form the basic building blocks of the body and are expected to pave the way for revolutionary therapies for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and even spinal cord injuries.
The consultation papers were released ahead of the authority's final decision on the matter, which will mark the end of almost a year of intense lobbying by scientists and a fervent campaign by organisations opposed to research involving embryonic stem cells.
Using animal eggs will allow researchers to push ahead unhindered by the shortage of human eggs. Under existing laws, the embryos must be destroyed after 14 days when they are no bigger than a pinhead, and cannot be implanted into the womb.
Opponents of the research and some religious groups say the work blurs the distinction between humans and animals, and creates embryos that are destined to be destroyed when stem cells are extracted from them.
How anyone can not grasp that creating hybrid human/animal embryos is stepping over a very clear ethical and moral line is beyond me. That they report that a majority are at ease with such research suggests to me that the folks who were surveyed were not told clearly what's being done.
And the reporting that the embryos must be destroyed and cannot be implanted completely misses the point, which is that experimenting with the essence of human life, for no better purpose than extracting stem cells, particularly when there has been more demonstrated progress and promise from adult stem cells, is nothing less than a horror.
The Corner on National Review Online
This one, with the Hoover Institution's Peter Robinson, is a little more substantive than his appearance on Leno:
The more I hear, the more I like.
As an aside, I should mention that in last week's GOP debate, Rudy Giuliani impressed the heck out of me with his answer on health insurance, namely, that a major part of the problem is the disconnect between the individual and the costs of their health care, thanks to government and employers being intermediaries in how most of us pay for health insurance. He also made the critical point that unlike homeowner's insurance or car insurance, which don't cover routine expenses like oil changes, most health "insurance" policies are required to cover such expenses (mostly due to government mandates), and this drives up the cost of health care for everyone. Although I've been critical of Giuliani, and still don't think he'll win the nomination, I look forward to seeing Rudy and Fred battle it out in the debates, as I think that will be great for substantive discussion of the issues.
The Associated Press demonstrates once again the serious bias on the part of the mainstream media when it comes to abortion, in a story that suggests the existence of a rift among pro-life groups on whether the ban on partial-birth abortion was a victory for pro-life advocates:
Anti-abortion leaders are accusing one of their own, Focus on Family founder James Dobson, of misrepresenting a Supreme Court decision that upheld a ban on late-term abortions.
In a full-page ad in Wednesday's editions of The Gazette newspaper in Colorado Springs, the heads of four anti-abortion groups said Dobson wrongly characterized the court's April ruling as a victory for abortion foes.
The ad said the ruling will actually encourage medical professionals to find "less shocking" methods than late-term abortions, which abortion opponents call "partial-birth abortion." [emphasis mine]
Apart from the evident glee with which the author reports these groups criticizing Dobson, what's striking about the story (though no longer shocking) is the description "late-term abortions" AP uses to describe the banned procedure, and the usual "which abortion opponents call" phrase before the only mention of the accurate description of the procedure. What's remarkable about this is that AP doesn't even bother to be medically accurate and use the medical term intact dilation and extraction, rather substituting a generic and sanitized term that is neither accurate nor descriptive of what actually takes place during the procedure.
I won't describe the procedure graphically here...you can read Wikipedia's description for yourself. Suffice it to say, I think that the procedure is gruesome, and is a particularly abhorrent way to abort a child, though I personally oppose all abortion procedures, not just partial-birth abortion. AP's reporter would clearly prefer that readers who aren't already aware of the realities of this horrific procedure remain ignorant, and instead focus on reported infighting among abortion opponents. Nothing like honest reporting.
Source: My Way News - Abortion Foes Criticize One of Their Own
