<p>Nope. I said a pregnancy occurs at that time, which they are both responsible for making happen (biology, right?). If a child is born, then they are both responsible for that. No contradiction here.</p>
<p>“A PREGNANCY begins at conception…what happens after that SHOULD BE
the RESPONSIBILITY of BOTH RESPONSIBLE PARTIES”…(Garland, Post #8)</p>
<p>I think we need Bill Clinton on this thread to parse that statement to interpret “after that” to mean “nine months after conception”.</p>
<p>I really don’t get your point here. We’re talking about pregnancy, right? guys can’t share it, can they? It would be nice if they brought women ice cream , or whatever they crave, but we can’t exactly legislate that, but otherwise, they can’t really take part until the birth. So I said they’re responsible for what comes later, assuming that this is the birth, should one occur. I’m not seeing the contradiction. You’re the one busy playing with words. I’m being pretty plain.</p>
<p>but I think that’s what you’re interested in, not the actual issues, but specious non-arguments, so we plainly have different motivations, and this then becomes a waste of time for all involved.</p>
<p>This is not a specious discussion. A man is running for President of the U.S.
He is speaking on a very important topic: Fatherhood from conception to birth and well beyond that. The man, like myself, is a lawyer. As a candidate and a lawyer he is responsible for every word he says and he knows that every word has a meaning. Obama himself has said that. Words, just words?</p>
<p>Now he gives a dissertation on a very weighty topic and makes a confoundingly oblique statement which on the face of it makes no sense: fatherhood [doesn’t “end”? at] conception. What the heck is that supposed to mean?</p>
<p>The media like him and most of his supporters hang off his every word. He has been hailed as a great orator and compared to JFK, Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln etc etc. Some actually do believe that the day he accepted the nomination the ocean actually DID stop rising! Perhaps it did, I haven’t had a chance to check.</p>
<p>However, for a “great orator” and a Harvard-trained lawyer he really threw a wrench in it when he suggested that the rights and responsibilities of men come into play at CONCEPTION and beyond. You yourself have just stated that men are totally useless during a pregnancy. You’re entitled to your opinion, but I don’t think the average American voter agrees with you. And I am fairly certain now after thinking about this that Obama deliberately put that language in his speech to deflect criticism of his extreme pro-choice record and attract more mainstream voters. You may disagree with that analysis as well, but time will tell whether the subtle language change will continue in this vein or work in his favor.</p>
<p>I tried to point this out several times already. This isn’t about pro-choice/pro-life so much as Obama’s attempting to moderate his stance in a way that is exceedingly subtle but in the final analysis may totally backfire as disingenuous and calculated to score political points. Do I think all politicians do this–of course! I just chose this topic because I love the subtleties of language and I have seen Obama repeatedly get himself in trouble because of poor choices of words. He’s running for president, for Pete’s sake!</p>
<p>I think fatherhood begins the moment the mother decides to have the baby - whether that’s conception or a bit later.</p>
<p>
Nope, said they can’t in reality share the pregnancy, and we can’t legislate them to be helpful if they choose not to be. </p>
<p>But, nine months gives a guy, if he should choose, a lot of time to make himself scarce. And Obama, clearly and concisely, is exhorting them not to. Couldn’t be any plainer.</p>
<p>Well said mciver. I hope to goodness someone brings up the fact to the conservative blacks that approximately 1500 abortions are carried out DAILY by African American women. No amount of police brutality cases, unjust sentencing issues, racial discrimination cases, black on black crime or the race hustler cause de jour is comparable to that tragedy in our community. The other issues in their proper context need to be addressed as well, but what issue is paramount to the convenient disposal of so much human potential? </p>
<p>There is nothing spurious about calling to accountability, using their own words mind you, where any potential political figure stands on that issue, particularly one who claims to adhere to family values, and a Judeo-Christian morality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, ok. Maybe if you’re Sarah Conner or somebody carrying on the progeny that’s going to save the world in some movie, but most real life women would vehemently resent any man deferring his support until after birth or until the woman feels like having the child. That logic is soooo rediculous! That rationale actually has me chuckling to myself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why can’t you and madville see what is so obvious to everyone else? The sermon had nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with the insidious tendency of some AfAm males to shirk responsibility for the children whom they’ve sired. Context is everything. Words don’t occur in a vacuum. It was Father’s day. He was in an AfAm church, speaking of the responsibilities of fatherhood on Father’s Day, and the need for strong black families. You can be sure that everyone in that church understood exactly what he was saying. And madville, as a black person yourself, who should be well aware of this problem within aspects of our community, I’m surprised that you would be so willing to support mcivers specious criticism of Obama’s sermon. Serious examination and criticism of Obama’s stand on abortion is one thing. This sermon is another thing altogether. Again, context is all! I’ll repeat what I wrote earlier:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not trying to speak for the OP but the point was bropught up how BO brought up the point that fatherhood and all the other responsibilities that fatherhood generally means, starts at conception. I agree with that statement and the context in which it was made. The problem is he sates responsibility starts from a point in which in other circles isn’t represented by his voting record, some organizations that endorse him, etc. </p>
<p>I believe he said what he meant, and meant what he said. However, if he is asked to give clarification, I anticipate he will spin it just as in his associations with Jeremiah Wright, Michelle’s “never been more proud” quote, and his departure from his church. There are differences from the real Obama’s and the politically expedient ones, and sometimes “the abundance of the heart, the mouth does speak.”</p>
<p>Madville, I think you are willfully misunderstanding me. The minute the woman decides that the pregnancy is going to term, that’s also when the father is on the hook for whatever support - financial and/or emotional that the woman needs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With that type of empowerment, and that type of atttiude being expressed by some women, is there any wonder why so many AA males or any male for that matter, choose to not marry the woman? A large percentage of AA “families” are those in which there is a man living there for some time, but not committed in the moral and or legal sense. When there isn’t any mutual sacrifice, commitment and compromise should there be any surprise when the guy bails?</p>
<p>Uh, Madville - the woman has the baby. That’s kind of a “sacrifice”, a “commitment” and there’s really no “compromise” about it. What are you whining about? If you’re a man, and you don’t want to have to share that “sacrifice” and “commitment”, don’t take “step one.”</p>
<p>I think the advice given some time ago in this thread was apt: Don’t feed the ■■■■■. I will take that advice now and suggest others do too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The last time I checked, it took TWO to tango. Uh, Kluge, bearing children, that’s what in part women do. The fact that they are uniquely designed to do so, shouldn’t give them complete autonomy in the decsion making process, post conception and post partum. Having been through several pregnancies with my spouse(s) I can say that’s it’s not meant to go through alone. What if the man wants the child, is willing to support it or simply wants the child to live, and put up for adoption? Do they have a right to “whine” then? With such a mindset, is there any wonder the foundation of the family is under unprecendented duress?</p>
<p>I haven’t read through all of the thread, but I just wanted to say that Senator Obama’s comments about “fatherhood doesn’t end at conception” make more sense in context:</p>
<p>“We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child – it’s the courage to raise one.”</p>
<p>His point, as I took it, was that too many men think the fact that they have working sex organs, pursue women, and impregnate women is what defines their masculinity. Obama is rightly saying that no, what makes you a man is the courage to raise that child once it is born – not merely your ability/desire to conceive it.</p>
<p>Of course what Obama actually said was sensible. Only in the tinfoil hat wearing universe of single-issue obsessors was there anything that could even arguably be distorted into an “inconsistency.”</p>