Jesse caves

dave2pvd

SteveS wrote: »

Jesse is mad that Obama is forcing him further into irrelevancy. He had admonished him for not being "black enough" and addressing issues that important to black people. As a candidate, Obama has been trying to reach out to everyone and if he is to win, then that is what he has to do.

Fixed it for you.


I think you're all being a pedantic with the conception vs beginning of responsibility morsel. The greater point is that a whole lot of black men walk out on their kids/pregnant women. It's torn social fabric; a huge vicious circle with no straight forward solution.

CtrlSource

Sand wrote: »

There is an inconsistency - Obama is pro-choice, which implies a judgement that an embryo is not a human being [ the classification of an embryo being human implies a right to life]...

...Given the above implications, why should anyone feel any responsibility to be a father to something thats not human or doesnt have any rights? If Obama is saying fatherhood doesnt end with conception, then hes implying it begins there... ...And a child is human, with a right to life - which undermines the logic of the pro-choice position Obama is in favour of.

Why does being pro-choice imply that you believe an embryo is not human? It is the product of human activity after all. Regardless of your stance, i think all sides agree that conception starts the ball rolling towards a potential birth!

i'm baffled that this weakness you perceived in his speech somehow implies that Obama shouldn't suggest that fathers act responsibly towards their kids.

dave2pvd wrote: »

Fixed it for you.

I think you're all being a pedantic with the conception vs beginning of responsibility morsel. The greater point is that a whole lot of black men walk out on their kids/pregnant women. It's torn social fabric; a huge vicious circle with no straight forward solution.

+1. i'm no expert on this, but he worked in deprived communities on the south side of Chicago for years, which well qualifies him to opine on this social problem

Sand

Why does being pro-choice imply that you believe an embryo is not human?

Because pro-choice movement doesnt argue in favour of the murder of humans. They argue embryos arent human or deserving of human rights until a certain stage is reached in their development.

They certainly do not argue it is acceptable to kill human embryos, they argue the embryo isnt human at all.

[ BTW, I amn't judging their argument as valid or invalid.]

Regardless of your stance, i think all sides agree that conception starts the ball rolling towards a potential birth!

Or a potential abortion, which weakens the argument that a fathers responsbility begins from conception when he may never actually become a father in anything other than a theoretical/biological capacity.

i'm baffled that this weakness you perceived in his speech somehow implies that Obama shouldn't suggest that fathers act responsibly towards their kids.

Im not saying he shouldnt. Theres no contradiction between being pro-choice and asking parents to take responsibility for their children. The wording Obama used was poorly thought out, and left him open to the attacks he received from the pro-life movement which criticised him for implying a child deserves a father from the moment of conception, but doesnt deserve the right to life until several weeks later.

Obama is not infallible. He can make small errors in how he puts things like anyone else. Im not clear on why its so controversial to note the discrepancy.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

Or a potential abortion, which weakens the argument that a fathers responsbility begins from conception when he may never actually become a father in anything other than a theoretical/biological capacity.

Who said responsibility begins at conception? Obama certainly didn't.

The wording Obama used was poorly thought out, and left him open to the attacks he received from the pro-life movement which criticised him for implying a child deserves a father from the moment of conception, but doesnt deserve the right to life until several weeks later.

He didn't imply anything of the kind.

Obama is not infallible. He can make small errors in how he puts things like anyone else. Im not clear on why its so controversial to note the discrepancy.

There is no discrepancy. It exists only in the minds of those who (a) don't understand English, and (b) have an axe to grind.

Sand

But we also need families to raise our children. 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.

What does this mean to you? What did Obama mean there when he said a fathers responsbility does not end at conception?

Did he mean that fathers have no responsibility at all at conception?

If you have no responsiblity then it cant end there I suppose. So I guess if Obama didnt mean fatherhood begins with conception he actually meant fathers dont have any responsibility at all.

I mean, I took it as implying that at the time of conception a father should be responsible for their child, as the responsbility they have does not end there. Which implies it exists and continues from that point to some other end...

Christ, why is it so hard to accept what he said?

There is no discrepancy. It exists only in the minds of those who (a) don't understand English, and (b) have an axe to grind.

Theres two possibilities here:

A - Obamas speech writers made an error in reading through the text looking for loopholes and potential avenues of attack on their candidate

B - Everyone who can read and see the glaring contradiction between arguing men should be fathers to their children from at least the point the conception, and that those children can be terminated at any point up to X number of weeks as they are not human and have no right to life is completely and totally wrong.

One is more likely than the other...

CtrlSource

Sand wrote: »

What does this mean to you? What did Obama mean there when he said a fathers responsbility does not end at conception?

Did he mean that fathers have no responsibility at all at conception?

No. He was basically saying that the fathers' responsibility continues after the act takes place and he shouldn't just shoot and run, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors!

His words were then twisted by the abortion lobbies on both sides for their own purposes. In that sense, his words were, in retrospect, chosen poorly. However if he'd advoided that pitfall and substituted "birth" for "conception", i don't think it would have had the same impact, because i'm reckon he wanted to convey that fathers should be supportive during pregnancy as well

Flamed Diving

sovtek wrote: »

besides trigger happy cops, racial profiling, a corrupt and racially biased court system, lower average salaries, average higher unemployement...etc etc

Yes, anything to deflect responsibility away from the individual.

SteveS

dave2pvd wrote: »

Fixed it for you.


I think you're all being a pedantic with the conception vs beginning of responsibility morsel. The greater point is that a whole lot of black men walk out on their kids/pregnant women. It's torn social fabric; a huge vicious circle with no straight forward solution.

Thanks, I think you are correct. I certainly have no solution and I worked for public mental health agency for 10 years.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

What does this mean to you? What did Obama mean there when he said a fathers responsbility does not end at conception?

This may be an utterly crazy thought, but what's wrong with the idea that he meant what he said?

If I said that "the N5 doesn't end at Tarmonbarry", does that mean that it starts there? That there is no N5? That the N4 goes through Thurles?

No, it means that it doesn't end there.

Yet again, I'll ask the question that everyone's so keen to avoid: are you claiming that being pro-choice necessarily does mean that fatherhood ends at conception? Because that is the implication of the questions being asked about what Obama actually said.

Did he mean that fathers have no responsibility at all at conception?

Of course he didn't mean that. It's logically impossible to arrive at that conclusion from what he said.

I mean, I took it as implying that at the time of conception a father should be responsible for their child, as the responsbility they have does not end there. Which implies it exists and continues from that point to some other end...

Christ, why is it so hard to accept what he said?

My question precisely. What he said was very simple, and 100% true. It's only the attempts to apply sophistry and wring some sort of alternative meaning out of his remarks that complicate the issue. In other words, there's nothing wrong with what the man said - the problem is with what people have taken upon themselves to decide what he must have meant by it.

Everyone who can read and see the glaring contradiction between arguing men should be fathers to their children from at least the point the conception...

But that's not what he said. It's what you have decided to interpret from his remarks.

Attacking the man for something you've decided he must have meant rather than for what he actually said is just silly.

Sand

Right, Im bowing out of this one as Id only be repeating myself. Obamas speechwriters screwed up, imo, but in the opinion of others its clearly impossible Obama could have let rhetoric get in the way of detail.

Either way, its minor and not worth the time devoted to it already, let alone anymore.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

Right, Im bowing out of this one as Id only be repeating myself. Obamas speechwriters screwed up, imo, but in the opinion of others its clearly impossible Obama could have let rhetoric get in the way of detail.

I'm not replying to this simply to get the last word in, but to point out that I've asked a couple of simple questions several times in this thread, and haven't received a single straightforward response.