Election 2008

Open Thread: Barack Obama Talks Dads

Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama spoke at a Chicago church this Father's Day, calling on fathers to realize that "responsibility does not end at conception."

"Any fool can have a child, that doesn't make you a father, it's the courage to raise a child that makes you a father," said Obama. The issue has particular significance for the candidate whose own father left when he was two, and Obama says it is something the African-American community can't afford to ignore.

On the show today, Politico editor John Harris talked about the politics of Barack Obama's Father's Day sermon.

"This is something the most effective African-American politicians have done," said Harris. White audiences "don't want a sort of radical African American politician they want somebody who they believe shares essential middle class values."

Comments

 

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Wow, who is this Harris person anyways? Does he honestly think he is talking for all middle class whites? I am a middle class white woman that has a dead-beat ex-husband. Facts are facts and Obama, whether we as a nation like it or not, is right on task. Their are too many children without fathers in their lives. This is not a black problem its am American problem, no matter what your ethnic background. I was not aware that talking about absentee parents was an issue that would label a person a radical. Guess that makes me a radical too, especially since I deal with the consqueinces of his absenteeism daily. Shame on Harris for assuming he is talking for all middle class whites.

Sent by Tammy Hunter-Horton | 10:03 AM | 6-16-2008

Wdhat an idiot! Has he ever stopped to think that the so called absentee father is absent because the wife left and took the child and will not allow the father to see the child or children? Is he so uninformed that he believes that because his own father deserted him that all fathers do it? And we want this man to be the president of the United States, Why? I for one have seen too many ignorant ravings by both Obama and his wife and from McCain as well. With idiots like this running our country no wonder we are in the condition we're in.

Sent by Fred | 10:06 AM | 6-16-2008

So Obama says that father's "responsibility does not end at conception."

I have a simple question, sir. Responsibility for what? After all, you are the same politician who claimed not to know when human life begins, who said that he didn't want his daughters "punished with a baby," should they have an unplanned pregnancy --leaving the topic of injecting your family into your campaign for another day-- and who, while state senator in the Illinois Assembly, killed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act while in committee.

While I agree with the words you say, those words need also be heard by the man who said them. According to you, sir, human life doesn't begin at conception but fatherhood does. Your words would have so much more credibility were they coming from pro-life politician and not an anti-life politician like yourself.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 12:12 PM | 6-16-2008

In the nit-picking world that is politics today, that was a poor choice of words on Mr. Obama's part (as evidenced by Mr. Scallon's comment). What I think Mr. Obama meant was that every man is 'responsible' for a child (in the sense that it takes male genetic material to make one) but that that alone does not make a man a father. After conception your responsibility shifts from providing the genetic material to make the child to providing for the child. Responsibility doesn't end at conception. Presto! Clear as I can make it. I do think though that Ms. Horton has a point: It is not just a problem for the African-American community, which would make chiding this community in particular a bit out of place were it not for the fact that Mr. Obama belongs to that community and that that community has the highest percentage of single-parent households (im not 100% sure about this, but lets say 70% sure). To Mr. Fred: You have a point, father absenteeism can be related to other factors besides the father abandoning the child. However, you are making the same mistake you accuse Mr. Obama of making, namely over-generalizing. Do you have statistics that say that most of the fathers are absent because the mothers are keeping them out? If it was the case that father absenteeism is MOSTLY because of father abandonment, Mr. Obama's comments would still make sense. I'll assume that you don't like Mr. Obama. That's okay, youre more than entitled to your opinion. But don't let your dislike for Mr. Obama cloud your reasoning.

Sent by J. Medina | 3:19 PM | 6-16-2008

I am tired of Obama using Black folks as a doormat so he can resonate in white conservative venues... Obama's lecturing was over the top. I have heard better in barber shops on any Sundays at most Black churches.

Obama should stop playing Mr.Morality on the backs of Black folks... When can we expect him to go to Muslim mosques and Jewish temples to attack them about racism flowing from thier venues?

Should I pray on it and hold my breath??

Sent by Thrasher | 5:19 PM | 6-16-2008

Where one likes Senator Obama or not, his point is well-made, in my view. Increasingly, we have a culture of shifting blame, not taking responsibility, and excuse-making. Unfortunately it is oftentimes that our children suffer for it.

Sent by Casey | 5:23 PM | 6-16-2008

This speech was more impressive than Philidephia. Obama speaks plainly to all americans and calls them to responsibility, both white and black.

He will be one of the greatest preidents our country has had.

great communicators
roosevelt kennedy reagan obama

Sent by joe kavadas | 7:04 PM | 6-16-2008

Ohh I forgot...Pro-life? Anti-life? Pro-choice? Anti-choice? Isn't that exactly the kind of politics we shouldn't be bothering ourselves with right now?

Sent by J. Medina | 7:18 PM | 6-16-2008

@J Medina "Pro-life? Anti-life? Pro-choice? Anti-choice? Isn't that exactly the kind of politics we shouldn't be bothering ourselves with right now?"

Amen. Only fools fight in a burning house.

Sent by Dave Wiley | 12:10 AM | 6-17-2008

@J. Medina, I'm sad to say this, but this is "exactly the kind of politics" we should be bothered with right now. Since abortion industry supporters like the Senator have made a 35-year habit of calling us pro-lifers "anti-choice," slapping us with RICO suit --a practice ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, thankfully-- blocking B.A.I.P.A., while claiming to support it, their side should not expect anything else. That includes Senator Obama, since he's as guilty of this as all the rest of them.

Obama can line up Bob Casey, Tim Roemer, and whatever few pro-life Democrats the anti-life party leaders allow in to catch a few crumbs of power as endorsers and supporters. In the words of the Dixie Chicks, I'm not ready to make nice.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 12:58 AM | 6-17-2008

'any fool can have a child, but that doesn't make you a father, its the courage to raise a child that makes you a father,'
What is so confusing about this statement? It seems that Most of the comments made- have twisted its meaning around- to support whatever the writer already believes.

It is True that the greatest Majority of single-parent homes are headed by Black single women. That is a fact.
Obama did not Exclude Whites- or any other group. Merely stated a fact.

This is a difficult subject to approach. Nobody wants to be held responsible for- Anything(!).. making babies and not supporting them, for instance.

Tammy is correct when she says that this is an American Problem.
I believe that it is an American Problem because America is going to be "stuck" with the Poorly Educated kids who did not have an adequate 'Father Figure' - lack of Discipline- because mom is just too tired (after working all day), Sub-standard Education- because they live in the Poor area of town, etc... and fall into Gangs, Drugs, etc....

These are Predictable Patterns that have been Documented = FACTS.

That is why this is an American Problem. These Children become Adults and in another 20 years, we will be paying to support One Third of these individuals in jail or prison- black, white or mexican.

- but statistics (patterns, based on facts) tell us that half (inmates) will be Black, and Whites will be the minority in prison.

Maybe we should be giving these Children a decent chance - and throw the Corporate Thieves- the real Criminals in prison.

Sent by Donna | 4:32 AM | 6-17-2008

@ Matthew Scallon

You're Pro-life/anti-life/pro-choice/anti-choice argument is just a rehashing of the pot calling the kettle black... I believe what Dave Wiley and J. Medina are suggesting (and rightfully so) is that this same old bickering back and forth solves nothing. That new approaches and out of the box solutions need to be addressed if we are to solve these very old problems.

This is off topic but since you brought it up... I find it somewhat sad and ironic that you so-called Pro-lifers are so insistent on crushing the "abortion industry" and yet you offer little to no solution to the very real problem that was originally addressed in this forum. There are too many kids in the world and not enough parents... and when a child isn't brought up in a good environment they become a criminal, sex offender, basket case, etc... Abortion is an undoubtedly ugly phenomenon in America -- but what would you offer as an alternative... Victorian-Era abstinence? Give me a break... Prohibition didn't work in the 30s either.

If you Pro-Lifers really want to solve this problem (and rid the US of abortion), then quit running ads of dead fetuses and start encouraging people to use anti-contraceptives, to limit the amount of children they have, to adopt children instead of breeding and help grow childcare organizations like Big Brothers/Big Sisters... Maybe if you tackled the actual problem and not just a symptom, we wouldn't keep going in the same circles that we've been in since Roe vs. Wade.

Fact is you Pro-Lifers are just as part of a problem as Pro-Choice supporters... just a different type of cog in the same machine. And by the way -- the verdict is still out on when life begins, sir. Micro-biologists and human geneticists haven't agreed to when life exactly begins... are you more qualified than say a US senator to judge this? If you really want to change the way things are, then get off your soapbox and actually do something... otherwise you're just whining.

Sent by Dan | 12:35 PM | 6-17-2008

@Dan, what I find most interesting about your reply to is how pedestrian it is. It rehashes all of the tired, unproven, and disproven attacks against us pro-lifers and while prefessing all of these tired, unproven, and disproven attacks with the complaint "that this same old bickering back and forth solves nothing." Commenter heal thyself.

"I find it somewhat sad and ironic that you so-called Pro-lifers are so insistent on crushing the 'abortion industry' and yet you offer little to no solution to the very real problem that was originally addressed in this forum." Answer: Please read Democrats for Life of America's 95/10 Initiative: http://www.democratsforlife.org/documents_etc/95_10brochure.pdf. I've brought it up here at the BPP before, and I'm bringing it up again. Maybe, I pray this time, you'll pay attention.

"There are too many kids in the world and not enough parents... and when a child isn't brought up in a good environment they become a criminal, sex offender, basket case, etc..." Answer: I quote: "How can you say there are too many children in the world? You may as well say there are too many flowers." -Mother Teresa. As one who's in the process of adopting, no one's stopping you or anyone on your side of the baby-killing debate from adopting. Or perhaps you're not married and are waiting to marry before you adopt so that the child benefits from a two-parent household, which is a good move. But, I do hope that you are not so hypocritical as to require that we pro-lifers are the only ones who are supposed to act as those "few parents" while your side stays in bed and does nothing.

"Abortion is an undoubtedly ugly phenomenon in America..." Answer: And it's ugly because...why? I mean, your side uses all kinds of euphymisms like "undoubtedly ugly phenomenon," "painful moral dilemma," "harrowing decision," to name but a few, all to avoid saying why abortion is all of those things. We pro-lifers know why it is all of those things, but, when we dare speak the reason, your side calls us names, slaps RICO suits on us, arrests us, block us from judicial appointments, and censor us from blog comments (except here of course). I want you to tell me why it's so ugly, otherwise it's just "scripta pro sui" (I think my Latin's right).

"-- but what would you offer as an alternative... Victorian-Era abstinence? Give me a break... Prohibition didn't work in the 30s either." Answer: I've already answered the first part about alternatives. I don't know what you have against abstinance. We teach abstinance when it comes to cigarette smoking, and the numbers of teenage smokers have gone way down. Enivonmentalists like myself call for a "carbon-free future" which calls for abstinance from burning fossil fuels. We even have abstinance for other health risks like gluten and trans-fats. Now, if abstinance education is good enough for these issues, abstinance, along with education in less effective means of birth control, is good enough for the issue of unplanned pregnancy (and STD's for that matter). As to Prohibition, though it didn't eliminate alcohol consumption, researchers have shown that it did lessen the level of consumption per capita, a lowered amount which continues to this day, so you partially prove my point.

"If you Pro-Lifers really want to solve this problem (and rid the US of abortion), then quit running ads of dead fetuses and start encouraging people to use anti-contraceptives..." Answer: I think you mean "contraceptives." Don't worry, I don't grade on grammar (including my own, unfortunately). Regarding, contraceptives, read the pamphlet. I don't know which ads of dead fetuses you're talking about. There are many pro-life ads, from the old "Life: What a Beautiful Choice," to the more recent "9 Months" ads done on BART trains in the Bay Area. Perhaps, your side should be bit more specific, especially since I've seen pro-life ads vandalized by your side's graffiti of bloody coat hangers. You see, there's a reason why I refer to the other side of baby-killing debate as "your side." You've demonstrated why here. You, like other pro-choicers (see, I can play nice), lump all of us pro-lifers together if we're some monolith which plots strategy over Tuesday night poker. We don't. We pro-lifers are all races, women and men, gay and straight (yes, Virginia, there are gay pro-lifers), young and old, and of all religious persuasions, including atheists, who agree on very few things save for one topic. You pro-choicers don't like being lumped together, show us pro-lifers the same courtesy, otherwise you'll continue to be "your side."

"to limit the amount of children they have, to adopt children instead of breeding and help grow childcare organizations like Big Brothers/Big Sisters... " Answer: Third time now, read the pamphlet. Since you consider the process of childbirth to be little more than "breeding," I recommend you not share your opinion with Alison Stewart (just a suggestion). I say again, we are adopting, thank you, and so should you. Pro-lifers already have organizations to work with women kicked out of their homes for choosing not to have abortions, women who've lost their scholarships when their colleges didn't like their decision not to kill their babies, and the list goes on from there. The fact that you don't know this shows me that you don't know any pro-lifers or the pro-lifers you know are just too humble to sound the trumpet before themselves, as hypocrites do.

"Maybe if you tackled the actual problem and not just a symptom, we wouldn't keep going in the same circles that we've been in since Roe vs. Wade." Answer: read the pamphlet, read the pamphlet, read the pamphlet. The circle which you speak of is Roe v. Wade. To draw a parallel, when New York legalized abortion, which happened before Roe, one state legislator, a Catholic no less, said that his vote for legalized abortion would settle the matter once and for all. He was wrong then, and pro-choicers are wrong now. So long as Roe is law of the land, the issue won't go away. Now, overturning Roe won't end the debate, but it will put it back where it belongs: back in the state houses.

"Fact is you Pro-Lifers are just as part of a problem as Pro-Choice supporters... just a different type of cog in the same machine." Answer: And those problems from pro-choice supporters would be what? I mean, you've used 4-5" of screen space firing a whole litany of alleged crimes all of us pro-lifers are guilty of. Care to show equal space?

"by the way -- the verdict is still out on when life begins, sir. Micro-biologists and human geneticists haven't agreed to when life exactly begins... " My source is the late Dr. Jerome LeJeune, the award-winning geneticist, pediatrician, chemist, and (I'm not making this up) self-taught computer scientist. He's the man rightly credited with discovery of the genetic defect responsible for Down's Syndrome (trisomy-21). I've listed my source. Name yours.

"are you more qualified than say a US senator to judge this?" Answer: I was going to say that a roomful of monkeys trying to type "Hamlet" on a thousand typewriters are more qualified than a U.S. senator to judge this, but I won't say that, because I like monkeys. Instead, I'll say that the voters who should know politicians' inconsistencies in regard to the sanctity of life, and Barack Obama (it does all come back) has shown such inconsistency by claiming that fatherhood begins at conception but human life doesn't (or maybe it does; he's not sure, but he knows fatherhood starts at conception).

"If you really want to change the way things are, then get off your soapbox and actually do something... otherwise you're just whining." Answer: I do more than you'll ever know, especially since I get the impression that you don't know any pro-lifers, so you'll never know what we do. As to whining, what exactly was the previous 4-5" of screen space? Exculpatory evidence?

Sent by Matthew C. Scallon | 5:11 PM | 6-17-2008

to Joe Kavadas:

"roosevelt kennedy reagan obama"

OK, SAT time: One of these things is not like the others! One of these things does not belong!

Can you guess which? :P

To J. Medina: I couldn't agree more. All these terms are political reframing maneuvers and inherently dishonest. It is too complex an issue to be boiled down to a two- or three-syllable nametag.

To Dan: I agree, and you completely forgot to mention the true clincher, which is to pointedly ask where the so-called "Pro-Life"ers are when it comes to protesting capital punishment and unjust wars, which kill far, far more people than abortion ever could.

Sent by Kasreyn | 9:25 AM | 6-18-2008

Hey, an open question here: if anyone reading this comment has access to LEXIS-NEXIS, would you please search for the earliest appearances of the terms "anti-choice" and "anti-life" in national news media, and post the results here?

Somehow, I think they might surprise Mr. Scallon.

Sent by Kasreyn | 9:34 AM | 6-18-2008

@BPP, I answered all of Dan's charges (and ironically, Kasreyn's charge as well) against us pro-lifers and yet you didn't post my comment, but you didn't post my comment and have posted more charges against me. Any reason for that? The length possibly? Well, in defense, the charges against me were lengthy as well. I didn't use any bad words, save possibly for when I quote Dan --which can't be helped. Please, I'd like to what the policy is on that. Are so-called pro-choicers allowed to attack pro-lifers at will but pro-lifers not allowed to defend our positions?

Sent by Matthew C. Scallon | 10:37 AM | 6-18-2008

To Matthew:

Which of my charges have you answered? The one where I noted the conspicuous absence of "pro-life" people at protests outside prisons and military bases? Or my factual description of all these terms, both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" (and their opposites) as inherently dishonest political reframes?

And if Dan doesn't answer you, I feel I have to respond to a couple of your points.

You quoted Mother Theresa, I see. But the fact is, there ARE too many children. Mother Theresa was a wonderful person and truly a saint, but she certainly wasn't an expert on population pressure. It's an act of mass irresponsibility to keep bringing children - especially unwanted ones - into a world that cannot support all those children at a decent standard of living. And while you may, by your own admission, be more enlightened than many (kudos on adopting!), I wonder how many in the pro-life movement as a whole share your view.

As for abstinence, you're talking nonsense. Abstinence from cigarettes is far, far easier than abstinence from sex - we have an innate drive for sex, but no innate drive for smoking. When preaching abstinence from sex, it's not just the kids' peers you're struggling against (which is the case for smoking), but also the messages their own bodies are sending them. It's childishly naive to think that a parent's admonition or a school teacher's abstinence-only course will have much impact on a teenager facing peer pressure to become sexually active as well as their own strong natural desires.

As such, "abstinence-only" programs succeed only at shooting themselves in the foot (as their goal is to reduce teenage sexual activity). For some reason, proponents of abstinence-only sex ed seem to think that being informed of contraceptive options will make teens more likely to have sex, which is nonsense. And even if it does increase the rate of teenage sexual activity by a couple of percentage points, it will be more than made up for by the dramatic increase in safe sex practises (remember, we're talking not just pregnancy but AIDS to consider here) and the reduction in teen pregnancies that follows. A comprehensive sex-ed scheme, teaching both the merits of condom use as well as the merits of simple abstinence, is best; it's a pity that so many of your colleagues stand ready to throw the baby out with the bath-water.

In short, it's ridiculous to try to somehow expect or force teens to be responsible enough to choose safety over immediate pleasure. They're still considered children for a reason, after all. The only real solutions for teenage pregnancy is to either lock them all up under adult supervision - which is physically unworkable - or provide them with the means to enjoy themselves safely and without creating unwanted children. The responsibility for choosing wisely is with adults.

Cheers!

Sent by Kasreyn | 12:55 PM | 6-18-2008

Why is it that people want to put stiffer penalties on people that don't pay child support but, why does a man have to go through court proceedings to see his child.Then if you want them to be in the fabrics of the childs life it's going to take more then money.Everybody is always focused on the money but not the child's well-being and seeing the father.For instance my son was born five years ago today marks 5yrs. 15days and 6hrs, since the last time I've seen mine.Through all the packages, child support, what impact have I had in my childs life? Not to mention that I take care of 4 that are not mine.Some women don't give you the opportunity to see are take of the child,unless your with them.So next time he want to go to a black church and appeal to the nation,he should remember that it gets deeper than child support to be a father,it's giving from both sides.Women have there part to let men take care of there responseability.

Sent by Sent by Ro of LV,NV | 2:37 PM | 6-18-2008

@Kasreyn, "The one where I noted the conspicuous absence of "pro-life" people at protests outside prisons and military bases? Or my factual description of all these terms, both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" (and their opposites) as inherently dishonest political reframes?" The first one. As to second time, any time you want to air the diry laundry of the so-called pro-choice side, go right ahead.

I answered it this way: "We pro-lifers are all races, women and men, gay and straight (yes, Virginia, there are gay pro-lifers), young and old, and of all religious persuasions, including atheists, who agree on very few things save for one topic." So there are pro-lifers on both sides of your aforementioned. Not to make this about religion, but the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops oppose capital punishment and the war in Iraq, and the Southern Baptist Convention has written to stop global warming. Those of these bodies would fall on the pro-life of the spectrum.

Now, the reason you don't "see" us at, as I stated earlier, as that we pro-lifers look like everyone else. So, unless you're expecting pro-lifers to have three heads and scales to identify ourselves, we blend in very well into those venues, too.

As to other comments, I didn't say abstinance-only, I said abstinance included. That you think so little of teenagers capability for self-control says volumes more about you than me. And, as to the rest, you obviously haven't read the pamphlet, so I'm not going to justify myself any further to someone who hasn't done their homework.

Sent by Matthew C. Scallon | 3:25 PM | 6-18-2008

@ Matt Scallon
I appreciate your response to my post. It's obvious that you are very passionate about this subject. I think you may be surprised to find, however, that in some areas we share more in common then you would have guessed. I originally wanted to start by countering a few incorrect assumptions that you made of my personal philosophy regarding this topic until in rereading my original comment I realized that I too was guilty of those same faults -- so I'd like start my response to you with an apology. I was wrong to label you in stereotypes... it was presumptuous and as you indicated incorrect.

To give you some background from where I am coming from: I am actually not a die-hard Pro-Choice/anti-Lifer as you guessed. Though I would say I am equally disenchanted with the *ahem* stereotypical Pro-Life campaign (hence the dead fetus remark). I have actually had a very large amount of contact with Pro-Lifers -- I come from parents who are adamantly Pro-Life and was inundated with Pro-Life philosophy through religion and schooling at a rather young age. Reflecting honestly I'm sure that a large portion of my philosophy now is in response to similar hypocrisy that you pointed out in many Pro-Choicers (I assure you it goes both ways). Morally speaking I would describe myself as somewhere on middle ground (undecided; more of an outsider looking in). Politically, however, I lean very strongly towards the Pro-Choice ranks based on a Libertarian view of government: I do not believe that it is a right of the State to make a decision such as this... to do so creeps dangerously close to Totalitarianism.

In response to your points:
- 95/10 Initiative -- I read through this and have to say that I partially applaud your group's efforts to give an alternative to abortion. I still have to stand by my statement though that these actions are only treating the symptoms and not the cause of this problem. Abortion is a byproduct of a completely separate issue -- unwanted pregnancy. Discussing alternatives to abortion is important but as the technology exists to delay and prevent pregnancy why not attack on multiple fronts? (I suspect I know the answer to this but will remain silent in fear that I have again prejudged you).

- Overpopulation - Quotes from Mother Teresa withstanding... overpopulation is indeed a real issue in the world today. Perhaps not so drastically in this country but the fact remains that around the globe many children starve to death every year. There is a finite amount of resources in this world and the exponential growth of human population has quickly approached a dangerous level. In an effort to provide some resources:
www.Overpopulation.org;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
Popular Authors: Thomas Malthus, Paul R Ehrlich

- Prohibition & Abstinence - I'm not sure what statistics you are referencing to the effectiveness of Prohibition but regardless to any benefits that may have taken place, history also shows that crime increased dramatically during those years and that Legislation moved drinking underground... where it was unregulated and arguably more dangerous than before. I suppose we could argue this but I believe it is beside the point... I have witnessed first hand abstinence programs fail... as Kasreyn mentioned -- the drive for children to experiment sexually is a very natural and strong urge -- to not completely prepare them for "real world" experiences is irresponsible.

- Morality of Abortion - There is no doubt in my mind that abortion is in fact the killing of life... to dispute that would be ridiculous and false. However, depending on your spiritual view of life -- this takes on different meaning. Without going into details, I take on a more Darwinian and Nietzch-esque view of life -- nature can be very harsh (almost cruel at times) and I think an argument can be made that early-abortion in some situations is merciful compared to raising a child in an environment void of love and support.

- Dr. Jerome LeJeune - I read up on this geneticist and I commend you for introducing him to the conversation... the Pro-Life movement needs intelligent men such as this if it hopes to win over the thinking man. However, I would like to counter with this quote by Carl Sagan (Billions & Billions):
"Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg."
And the following editorial by Karl Miller, MD:
http://www.stfm.org/fmhub/fm2004/November/Walter690.pdf
I see the argument that life begins with conception -- it is a fair one - but what about awareness and intelligence... when does a person become a person? Do men have souls? These are questions that philosophers have been pondering for centuries... while science has been able to address some of these questions, many still remain. Let's also not forget that we as a society do not consider masturbation and ovulation to be forms of murder and infant death though both of these acts waste the precious ingredients of life. Where exactly do we draw the line?? Honestly, I do not know... though I get very suspicious when others claim that they do.

Lastly, my final paragraph came across as snide... that wasn't my intention. What I meant to express was frustration that (as an outsider) both the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life movements seem irrational and misguided (granted I've focused primarily on Pro-Lifers). I do still believe that in the Pro-Life movement is its own worst enemy. Perhaps a new generation will work to change that?

Sent by Dan | 4:15 PM | 6-18-2008

"That you think so little of teenagers capability for self-control says volumes more about you than me."

Nah... I think it just means I remember being a teenager more clearly. ;)

Thanks for the conversation, I found it stimulating.

Sent by Kasreyn | 8:10 AM | 6-19-2008

Support comes from: