See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On March 31st, 2008 at 2:14 pm, terrig said:

   LGM said this:
   

   I know how human bonding works; once a baby is born, we love her/him with all our hearts.

   You mean to tell me if you have kids that once you found out your wife was pregnant you didn’t love that kid right away? We were thrilled to death when we found out I was finally pregnant. I started reading stories to the little pumpkin that evening and playing classical music. I loved that baby so much before she made her appearance. I find it hard to believe in your cold heart that you were not in love with your children before they were born, unless of course you looked at them as subhuman tissue.

2. #102
   On March 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pm, JW2 said:

   lgm – I have to say that your latest comments seem to be in support of my arguments rather than refuting them.

   On March 31st, 2008 at 1:39 pm, lgm said:
   We’ve been interpreting Obama’s few words in different ways, and I’ll continue that: I think he meant a baby as a punishment unprotected sex in the same way a car crash is a punishment for drunk driving — an unintended consequence. Note that he says the punishment is a baby, not an abortion or a pregnancy.

   I would agree with your assessment here of what he is saying, which brings us back to Obama calling a baby a punishment! I want to address your two statements above:

   1. You compare a car crash as punishment for drunk driving to a baby as punishment for unprotected sex… In what way is a car crash ever a good thing? A baby is a beautiful gift from God. If Obama had cleared up his statement by breaking it down into your car crash comparison it would not have saved him from the current scrutiny. It sounds as though you are backing me up, not arguing against me. To equate a baby to HIV or a car crash is terribly sad.

   2. You stress that Obama is not calling pregnancy or abortion the punishment for unprotected sex, rather you want to make it clear that the baby himself is the punishment. This is not a counter-argument to mine. It actually sounds the same as mine. I was saying that it is truly disgraceful that he called a baby a punishment and responded by making it clear that you also think he is calling a baby a punishment.

   So, if you think that is what he was saying, why are you defending him?

3. #103
   On March 31st, 2008 at 2:46 pm, lgm said:

   JW2 (#102):

   A 16 year old girl is smart but immature. She has unprotected sex and has a kid. She loves the kid. But she cannot become a doctor because of her responsibility to her child doesn’t allow her to attend medical school.

   A better outcome is that she would finish medical school and have that child at 30. You cannot deny that sometimes, especially for girls, it’s better not to get pregnant.

   You might say just don’t have sex. But we all know that people do whether they should or not. Abstinence only sex education leads to more unwanted pregnancies than full service sex ed.

4. #104
   On March 31st, 2008 at 2:59 pm, terrig said:

   LGM-that 16 year old girl can put her baby up for adoption and then go on with her dreams. However, you would rather she abort than have the baby to put up for adoption. BTW, it appears you didn’t love your kids until they popped out. How truly sad.

5. #105
   On March 31st, 2008 at 3:10 pm, JW2 said:

   lgm – Please quit side-stepping.

   On March 31st, 2008 at 2:46 pm, lgm said:
   JW2 (#102):

   A 16 year old girl is smart but immature. She has unprotected sex and has a kid. She loves the kid. But she cannot become a doctor because of her responsibility to her child doesn’t allow her to attend medical school.

   A better outcome is that she would finish medical school and have that child at 30. You cannot deny that sometimes, especially for girls, it’s better not to get pregnant.

   I never tried to deny that sometimes it is better for a girl to not get pregnant. That still does not mean that her children are punishments.

   The 16-year-old in your example might be able to attend medical school while raising a child, but it won’t be easy. Or perhaps having the child changes her life plans but doesn’t necessarily destroy her life. Or perhaps she gives her child up for adoption and continues on her career path just one year behind.

   How does your example prove the defensibility or referring to babies as punishments?

6. #106
   On March 31st, 2008 at 3:11 pm, granite said:

   #104 On March 31st, 2008 at 2:59 pm, terrig said:

   “LGM-that 16 year old girl can put her baby up for adoption and then go on with her dreams. However, you would rather she abort than have the baby to put up for adoption. BTW, it appears you didn’t love your kids until they popped out. How truly sad.”

   Very well said.

   We had two miscarriages, the first, before our oldest kid, at ~15 weeks; the second, between our first two kids, at ~ 11-12 weeks.
   My wife was very sad for a while after the miscarriages, especially after the first one.
   Fortunately, even though I was a mid-20s male, I somehow understood; and thankfully did not make it worse for her.

7. #107
   On March 31st, 2008 at 3:49 pm, lgm said:

   JW2 (#105)

   Yes, punishment may be a poorly chosen word when it comes to children. Yes, we love them, but it would be better for them to be born at a different time.

   Still, what Obama was trying to say is right. It is better for kids to have full service sex education. That way those who do have sex will be more likely not to get pregnant or tranmit STDs.

   MM was wrong to stir up a whole thread over a poor word choice when the intended meaning was clear.

   terrig (#104):

   it appears you didn’t love your kids until they popped out.

   This is the same kind of deliberate twisting. It’s not what I said, not what I meant, and not true.

8. #108
   On March 31st, 2008 at 3:59 pm, granite said:

   Right, that’s what we need: even more “sex education” then we’ve had over the past 35 or so years.

   Well, we see how well that’s worked out.

   Higher STD rates, and astronomically higher illegitimacy rates.

   And, of course, an ever-increasing tax burden to pay for treatment of the STDs; to pay for support of the illegitimate children; to pay for the next cycle that arrives when the illegitimate, poor children get their STDs, and have their illegitimate children that they can’t support…and so on, and so on.

   But hey, let’s spend even more of other people’s money.
   Quick, more gasoline on the fire that the socialist/secularist clowns started in the first place.

9. #109
   On March 31st, 2008 at 3:59 pm, terrig said:

   No LGM you said you knew all about the bonding process and when the kiddie was born only then do you love it with all your heart. That is indeed what you said.
   

   I know how human bonding works; once a baby is born, we love her/him with all our hearts

   Nothing was said about loving it before hand.

10. #110
    On March 31st, 2008 at 4:11 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    On March 31st, 2008 at 3:49 pm, lgm said:

    Yes, punishment may be a poorly chosen word when it comes to children. Yes, we love them, but it would be better for them to be born at a different time.

    Yes! Now we have proof there is a god and we can set aside that debate forever. He is lgm – the all knowing. Only lgm knows the right time for a baby to be born and how it can affect the life of the mother.

    /max sarc off

11. #111
    On March 31st, 2008 at 4:12 pm, JW2 said:

    On March 31st, 2008 at 3:49 pm, lgm said:
    JW2 (#105)

    Yes, punishment may be a poorly chosen word when it comes to children. Yes, we love them, but it would be better for them to be born at a different time.

    Still, what Obama was trying to say is right. It is better for kids to have full service sex education. That way those who do have sex will be more likely not to get pregnant or tranmit STDs.

    MM was wrong to stir up a whole thread over a poor word choice when the intended meaning was clear.

    Poorly chosen? Well, I’ve made my feeling on that word choice clear so I guess I’ll stop harping on that.

    But as for it being better for kids to have full service sex ed… why? Where has it been proven that that works? How long has safe sex been taught in schools? And yet, 1 in 4 teenage girls has an STD. That does not sound like it is working to me.

    I also the very existence of this thread and the back and forth here proves that the meaning was not clear. Actually, perhaps just not clear as you interpret it. It is clear in that it shows that Obama does not value human life in the way that the majority of conservatives on this site think the president should.

12. #112
    On March 31st, 2008 at 4:26 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    You cannot deny that sometimes, especially for girls, it’s better not to get pregnant.

    I agree. Our disconnect comes when I argue that the *best* and *only* way to ensure htat doesn’t happen is by not having sex until her education (or career search, etc.) is finished.

    Once again, even with all the “full service” sex education, no method of contraception or protection is failsafe. Pills don’t work or doses are missed. Condoms break, slip, or are put on improperly.

    We tell our youth it’s “natural” to honor our “animal instinct” and have sex with basically whatever moves. Yet I notice a conspicous lack of abortion in the animal world. We push condoms and pills as the solution, yet there are no significant decline in abortion numbers.

    Pro-aborts claim they want abortion to be “safe, legal and rare” but freak out of the numbers dip.

    But the notion that – if she has sex and gets pregnant – the *only* solution is abortion is dishonest. It won’t be easy, but the alternatives – adoption or working hard – are there for her.

    I know how human bonding works; once a baby is born, we love her/him with all our hearts

    I don’t think your words were twisted here at all. I loved my child from the moment I got a plus sign on that pregnancy test, and not after he was born.

    How can we consider ourselves a progressive society when we sacrifice the most vulnerable, the most innocent, on the altar of convenience and selfishness? A culture that kills future generations has no future – and since about 1/3 of *MY* generation has been denied the right to life, I know from whence I speak.

    JW2- Your post was excellent and perfectly clear. Keep up the good fight; you know I’m there for you.

13. #113
    On March 31st, 2008 at 9:46 pm, right_on said:

    Still, what Obama was trying to say is right. It is better for kids to have full service sex education. That way those who do have sex will be more likely not to get pregnant or tranmit STDs.

    The sheer idiocy of the above statement confirms what many on this blog have stated previously about you, lgm.

    Prior to what you call “full service sex education,” pregnancies were rare, and abortions, at the time illegal in the U.S., were even rarer. What changed that trend? It was the insistence by the left (Hello!!! LIBERALS!) that parents were not fit educators on the subject of sex, and or sexuality. (Yeah, and California is again trying to stress this point again.)

    That brings us up to the present, where promiscuity is accepted as “normal” behavior for healthy, sex-driven youths. And, as a bonus, if you can’t keep your legs closed and do get pregnant, you can get a mulligan, via abortion. Additionally, if the liberals had their way, we, the taxpayers, would have to foot the bill for your “do over.”

    We have the LIBERALS in this country to thank for creating one more problem we didn’t have, that is, before the conservatives tried conpromising morals with them.

    It sickens me, knowing how libs feel about a caulous act of legalized murder, and then, as if to put a point on their arguments about healthcare, education, or other social spending, they ALWAYS add, “It’s for the children!”

    And look how liberal politicians in places like Vermont, and Mass. fight tooth and nail to keep child predator laws from becoming law. It begs the question…If “it’s” for the children, at what age do children become worthwhile fighting for and protecting?

    So, lgm, do us all a favor, will you? Stop telling us what this liberal meant, or that liberal meant…WE KNOW what liberals stand for, and it certainly IS NOT FOR THE CHILDREN!

14. #114
    On April 1st, 2008 at 3:57 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

    Abortion = murder.

15. #115
    On April 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm, Tuesday said:

    For someone supposedly intelligent and articulate, it follows he would not say what he doesn’t mean! The words were precise: “… but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. This is also in line with his position in abortion: just another form of birth control!

    BO’s ardent followers are not doing him any favors by trying to massage/re-interpret his phrasing. He hasn’t corrected it himself, has he?