<p>Obama’s Father’s Day speech on Sunday provided another glaring example of his carelessness with words. Obama stated: “But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize responsibility does not end at conception”. What on earth did he mean? Is he suggesting that fatherhood starts at conception? That begs the question of whether Barack Obama believes that a child is started at conception. Apparently so.</p>
<p>Given Obama’s staunchly pro-choice voting record, which includes voting every time for allowing an abortion at the moment of birth, and his repeated statements over the years that it is the “woman’s right to choose”, (not the man’s) this most recent pronouncement is simply stunning. </p>
<p>If the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood are created at conception (so says Barack Obama) then he has a whole boatload of verbal back-pedaling to do. He must either acknowledge that he “misspoke”, yet again, or acknowledge that a child is created at conception for which both parents are responsible. I don’t know if the media will pick up on this but I am sure many thinking people already have.</p>
<p>One could argue that I am taking this statement out of context–however, it IS what he said. There is no parsing of the terms “fatherhood” and “conception” in the same sentence, as the context is already there. “Just words”?</p>
<p>“If the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood are created at conception (so says Barack Obama) then he has a whole boatload of verbal back-pedaling to do. He must either acknowledge that he “misspoke”, yet again, or acknowledge that a child is created at conception for which both parents are responsible.”</p>
<p>I can see a boatload of possibilities other than these two. A fetus is created at conception (or a fertilized egg). Whether it is a child is precisely what is at issue in the abortion debate, and I heard nothing in his speech that suggested that he ceded this turf.</p>
<p>Obama means that fathers should not abandon the baby after having sex with women. Growing up with a single parent is hard for both the parent and the kid. Unprotected sex has its consequences, and responsible men should make mature decisions. The point really isn’t whether the baby’s “life” begins at conception or at birth. It’s that once a woman is pregnant, the father should be committed to standing by the mother and the child. Whether or not the baby is already alive, the mother’s pregnancy is a difficult time for HER, and she and the child need to be supported even before the child is born. This is a case of looking for pro choice vs. pro life implications in a speech that is irrelevant to the abortion debate.</p>
<p>“Why does every sentence have to be analyzed to death for its pro-choice vs. pro-life ‘implications’?”</p>
<p>Good question. We already know where the candidates stand on this issue. This is an example of the problem of people at the extremes on the abortion issue (as with other issues): they don’t think that people at the other end “really” believe what they say they do. Thus, in the viewpoint of the extreme pro-life person, Obama really believes that life begins at conception, but, along with other pro-choicers, has some ulterior motive for supporing choice. (So, to mciver, Obama’s “inconsistency” is a clue that shows that he has this ulterior motive.) The extreme pro-choicers, on the other hand, don’t believe that the pro-lifers really care about the unborn children, but are rather trying to control women. This is part of what makes this issue so hard to discuss.</p>
<p>The basic message is: if you impregnate, you’re on the hook (you bear responsibility) if that child is born.</p>
<p>Amazingly enough, this is consistent with law. The law cannot force a man to do all the things good fathers do, but the law can force a man to at least provide financial support for that child.</p>
<p>I’m going to take a wild stab here: mciver, you are anti-choice and not an Obama supporter. Am I right?</p>
<p>It may not have been most felicitously phrased, but Obama’s meaning is crystal clear:</p>
<p>
and:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In his actual speech, he is even more emphatic: “Any fool can have a child. It doesn’t make you a father.” I’d link to the Youtube video, but it’s against the TOS. you can watch it on the Sunday June 15 post on Andrew Sullivan’s blog.</p>
<p>No, I’m not seeing any inconsistency here. A pregnancy begins at conception, doesn’t it? What happens after that should be the responsibility of both responsible parties. I don’t have a problem with even the phrasing. It means exactly what he means it to say, I believe.</p>
<p>My post is directed to whether Obama’s message on Sunday is inconsistent with his prior “pro-choice” position. A basic tenet of the pro-choice constituency, which he represents, is that a fetus is not a “person” and therefore is not constitutionally protected by law. Obama agreed with the “non-person” argument while teaching con law and repeatedly made his preference on the issue known to his students.</p>
<p>Now he has revised the rhetoric to define “fatherhood” and all it entails as progressing from conception on. The implications are many, one of which is to concede that a fetus at conception is a “person” entitled to protection and care by the father. If that is the case, it is also entitled to protection under law since it is a child of a parent. What else could he mean? No one has answered the question I posed, you are only speculating that his statement could mean something other than what he actually stated. </p>
<p>Whether or not he chooses his words carefully and takes a position inconsistent with his earlier stance is something that all should assess when choosing a candidate. FYI, I have the same problem with McCain.</p>
<p>No. If a conception ends in abortion, then there is no responsibility of fatherhood for the man to assume. But his speech nowhere mentions abortion, and the context makes it clear that he is assuming that conception leads to birth. </p>
<p>I think you are trying to parse his words to become a discussion of abortion when he wants it, on Father’s day, to be about fatherhood.</p>
<p>ANd yes, it is consistent. One more time–all children start with pregnancies–a pregnancy means the necessity of commitment for the man if a child is born. The discussion does not in any way conflict with a pro-choice position.</p>
<p>He used the word conception deliberately to address those men who don’t wait for their kid to be born before disappearing–he’s espousing a belief that they need to make the decision to stick around from the start of the process, from pregnancy to birth to upbringing. I am not seeing how this is inconsistent with a pro-choice position–he’s not saying they’re responsible for the fetus before birth; he’s saying they’re responsible for that child after birth, so don’t disappear after conception.</p>
<p>Because it’s a stupid question coming from a straw man argument. Really.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And several people have told you that Obama’s message on Sunday is NOT inconsistent with a pro-choice position. You want to see an inconsistency that doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>Consolation, this poster has posted before; easy to do a search of previous posts. Interestingly, nearly all activity as been in the cafe, posts on which are not added to one’s post tally.</p>
<p>What is a ■■■■■? A person who in your opinion is not allowed to start a thread?</p>
<p>I am pointing out the inconsistency of Obama’s Father’s Day statement with his past assertions that only the woman has the right to determine the value and future of her fetus. Now he is saying that fathers bear responsibility from conception forward. He didn’t say, as Garland suggests, “IF” the baby is eventually born, or “IF” the woman chooses to have the baby. He is saying that fathers have the responsibility from the sex act (conception) forward, which I totally agree with. That is inconsistent with all of his past positions on the issue from law school professor to voting on SCHIP and the Partial Birth Abortion Act. He has never ever said before that anyone other than the woman can have an interest in protecting or caring for the unborn child, fetus or whatever you want to call it. He used the term “father” and that is a significant term and we all know the plain meaning of the word "father. A father is a father to a child.</p>
<p>This is not a post about the pro’s and con’s of abortion, so everyone calm down. It is a post about whether once again Obama has said something that is inconsistent with many prior policy and policy positions. Why don’t you at least blame his speechwriters for the inconsistency instead of trying to twist and wiggle out of what he actually said?</p>
<p>I’m guessing that not only is this ■■■■■! against a woman’s right to choose, but is also so rabidly Anti-Obama, that he can’t even momentarily divorce his hatred of the man from the ability to logically parse his words. Why else would one choose to twist words that virtually anyone else can clearly see have virtue and relevance, and claim instead that they indict the speaker as just “another glaring example of his carelessness with words.”:eek:</p>
<p>So in the educational interest of the thread’s OP and resident ■■■■■, here’s a cultural explanation: In some sub-cultures, where manhood has as much to do with one’s sexual vitality (ie., ability to impregnate), as it has to do with physical strength, or unwillingness to back down from confrontation, bragging rights accrue from just the act of impregnating a woman (or multiple women). There is no mandate to take financial responsibility for the result of having done so, whether that entails paying for an abortion, or providing monetary support for a living child one has fathered. Furthermore, there is often no mandate that he take part in a child’s upbringing. He does not have to provide a stable home, or moral guidance, or emotional support. He only need drop the seed, point to the offspring, and proudly say, “I did that”. This is what Obama’s speech addresses. It’s got nothing to do with the issue of abortion, and everything to do with a destructive, and self-defeating cultural mindset.</p>
<p>“The implications are many, one of which is to concede that a fetus at conception is a “person” entitled to protection and care by the father.”</p>
<p>This is what I was talking about–the idea that Obama’s statement is some kind of Freudian slip indicating that he “really” thinks a fetus is a person at conception. Of course, I have no idea what Obama really thinks, but this isn’t a concession of any kind.</p>
<p>It’s not inconsistent. Your continued braying that it is doesn’t make it so. </p>
<p>I’m not the only one who has told you it’s not inconsistent. If you want to believe it is, go right ahead, but kindly don’t insist that others agree with you. They don’t. </p>
<p>You’ve got a straw man argument. Other posters see that. Tant pis for you!</p>