<p>I guess he should have voted “present.” Then we could be here complaining about that instead.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not just the Obama crowd as much as I’ve noticed it being a human characteristic. Take an opposing view in many such emotionally charged issues like politics, religion, race, abortion, college admissions,(lol) etc and attempt to bring up valid issues to a partisan group and just watch the discussion disintegrate. The responses become more subjective, personal attacks levied, name calling, straw men, endless personal anecdotes. </p>
<p>The best that one could hope for is that in such a discussion or debate, that the issues have an opportunity to be clearly expressed, and for those who will allow themselves to base their mindset and hopefully subsequent actions, will do so based on the reasonable information presented before them. </p>
<p>Subjectivity, theories and emotion are key components in presenting an argument, but it should not overshadow facts as we know them or understand them to be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, this made me laugh! “Thin-skinned aggressiveness” seems to be, IMHO, the province of people like our OP, and, perhaps, the person quoted above. Sheeeesh!!!</p>
<p>There will always be people who look at the world through the wrong end of the telescope. Looking at a field of clover, all they will see is a dead bee - and by God, demand an explanation! The hijacking of a straightforward speech on the responsibility of men (young men, mostly) to their families into a micro-dissection of a gotcha bill designed to intimidate doctors and provide future opportunities for cheap shots at principled politicians is the sad by-product of that kind of tunnel vision.</p>
<p><a href=“Just%20don’t%20let%20anyone%20bring%20up%20that%20delicate%20operation%20performed%20on%20baby%20boys%20%20or%20we’ll%20be%20invaded%20by%20those%20■■■■■■%20-%20remember?%20%20You%20can’t%20even%20write%20the%20C-word%20without%20them%20descending%20en%20masse.”>I</a> *</p>
<p>I can’t believe this is even being discussed/dissected.</p>
<p>Any dolt can see he was referring to the earliest time a man can shrug off his fathering responsibilities. That would be, um, conception. Later times would be every day of the pregnancy, childbirth, and any time during the child’s life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can understand your point, but given the position of many pro-choice advocates, how can one be expected to bear responsibility, much less using the term “fathering” (after all can one “father” a fetus or clump of cells?), in a situation where he really has no say or control in the outcome? Seems like wanting it both ways. I certainly would resent having to take responsibility for anything I didn’t have a voice in its outcome.</p>
<p>You could say there are two messages here: don’t have sex without an expectation that you “might” become a father, and if you find that you are a father, accept your responsibilibies.</p>
<p>Can’t say as I know what AFIKA means. Sorry.
And I am not sure how I missed that this was not Obama’s campaign headquarters…you don’t say. Where is that posted?</p>
<p>It was not, moreover, my intention to get “my research done,” as suggested, perhaps tongue in cheek, or even with a forked tongue-n-cheek; rather, like most gabbers who post here, I thought simply to engage in a polite conversation on such issues as entertained and vexed me at the moment. It wasn’t a death match.</p>
<p>As for being “churlish”, well, that’s sounds like a rather “churlish” accusation to me, but who knows --suffice to say, it is not an accusation I would make if I abhorred churlishness as much as is to be presumed. </p>
<p>A bit taken aback as a current Obama supporter I can only reference ‘them fighting words’ above to a very fun guy that once suggested the benefit of having true friends is, simply:
your true friends will stab you from the front. </p>
<p>Shot ‘em all and let god sort ‘em out, sure, but et tu?</p>
<p>As for the OP, I agree with those that say that this as an over parsing of words that no thinker or orator would likely survive. </p>
<p>Obama’s speech on fatherhood was not only poignant, but refreshing, direct and to the point. It took backbone to say it on such an occasion as this and will carry a greater weight since he, rather than the usual suspects, said it.</p>
<p>madville:</p>
<p>Wouldn’t your criticism be better directed as those who are anti-abortion and are opposed to all forms of contraception? I don’t see the contradictions between being pro-choice and accepting responsibility for being a father.</p>
<p>AFAIK: As far as I know.</p>
<p>CC is not the Obama campaign’s headquarters. You want your query addressed by the Obama campaign, address your query to the Obama campaign. You post on CC, you get responses from CC posters, none of whom are surrogates for Obama or his staff. We post our own opinions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I like how you fixed that MM. Only that’s not what BO said, and getting back to the genesis of the OP’s thread, one can genuinely question what he really meant. BO’s rhetoric states a man should begin that responsibility from conception. The reality says legally the father has few real options. It would be nice if BO’s “change” meant getting away from the rhetorical(which has been the way of business as usual in Washington), and getting real. Somehow, I’m skeptical of any real change.</p>
<p>
.</p>
<p>The fact was, everyone had presented their research and conclusions. they didn’t satisfy you. Hence the above reaction.</p>
<p>Characterize as you will.</p>
<p>Not intending to make anyone mad, but what on earth makes you think that I wanted my question addressed by the Obama campaign? </p>
<p>Perhaps it is when I said:
This, of course, was a reference to those quoted in the article --spokespeople from Planned Parenthood-- not cc posters, as seems clear.</p>
<p>I certainly know where I am posting, and that all responses are opinions…even if often, even too often, snarky opinions.</p>
<p>But even that is fine.</p>
<p>Garland,</p>
<p>I was only refering to two comments I presumed were directed at my posts:</p>
<p>1) “those who are eager to pounce”
2) “What annoys me is people who just ignore any kind of explanation or nuance and just plow ahead with the same broad statements.”</p>
<p>I suppose I should just have ignored them and saved myself the hot-blooded reactions.</p>
<p>In any case, sorry to offend.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>yes. of course. pregnant women are routinely called ‘mom’ and their husbands or boyfriends are called ‘dad’.</p>
<p>in fact, owners of pets are routinely called ‘mom’ and ‘dad’.</p>
<p>this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with whether the ‘clump of cells’ or pet is a person.</p>
<p>The point that I raised in the OP was that Obama’s speech on “fatherhood” where he introduced the idea of fathers being involved from the point of conception forward is totally at odds, I.e., inconsistent, with his pro-choice rhetoric of the past, his “brutal” voting record (another poster’s words, not mine), his “I don’t know when life begins” stance, and most definitely, his affiliation with NARAL and Planned Parenthood, who both endorsed him in exchange for his lockstep chanting of the feminist mantra that “ONLY the woman has the right to choose”. </p>
<p>I challenge any person on this thread to find me a link where NARAL or PP endorses OBAMA’s idea, plainly laid out in that speech, that fathers have ANY rights with respect to the future of a developing fetus. Obama’s “conception” remark CLEARLY indicates that he feels that is the case. Obama’s rhetoric has changed, clearly. Was it intentional, calculated to soften his voting record and move his pro-choice credentials centerward? My question to you all was what did it mean, politically, was it a slip of the tongue or politically motivated, or would he have to backpedal and eventually retract that little hidden gem in an otherwise decently delivered speech to soothe the radical pro-choicers. And don’t think his remark went unnoticed by NARAL.</p>
<p>Instead of attempting to answer the question we have dozens of snarky, defensive posts, name calling and people hurling the charge that I and others are somehow “attacking” Obama for pointing out that he said precisely what he said. Good grief, people, get a grip. Is your world that fragile?</p>
<p>And BTW, you weren’t supposed to feed the ■■■■■. I’ve gained ten pound of fat just reading this stuff! Obama is THE most solidly pro-abortion member of the Senate. In my opinion his speech last Sunday heralded a sea-change in his political strategy to attract conservative blacks, churchgoers, old people and others who might be repelled by his extreme liberal voting record. I was
wondering if anyone else felt the same. That was the point of the post. Not being a regular poster or reader of CC I had no idea that I would be landing in a hornet’s nest of intolerant, immature and frankly, unclassy bloggers.</p>
<p>^^^ Your questions remind me of the classical question to ask an innocent man:</p>
<p>“Did you shoot the victim in the chest or in the head?” </p>
<p>The answer is no.</p>
<p>Obama’s remark in no way suggests that he thinks that fathers “have ANY rights with respect to the future of a developing fetus”.</p>
<p>Then why does he tell them to hang around after the enchanted evening has ended?</p>
<p>To take care of the child who is born, as has been said over and over again in this thread. It’s just not that complicated.</p>
<p>Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. You believe that although Obama SAID that “fatherhood” does not end at conception, he really BELIEVES that fatherhood begins IF and when a woman carries a baby to term, not a minute before. </p>
<p>Put another way, if the baby mama can prove he’s the man who owes the child support, then “fatherhood” kicks in? But not a moment before the birth??? Not exactly the expansive definition of “fatherhood” that the media has been celebrating these past few days…</p>
<p>By the way, Garland, you seem to have contradicted yourself. If you will re-read your post #8 of a couple of days ago, back then you said both parties had responsibility prior to the birth birth. Now you are saying the man’s responsibility kicks in only after the birth.</p>
<p>You are in good company, even Barack Obama gets it mixed up!</p>