Thursday, October 23, 2008

In response to comments on my last post

In response to comments on my last post, I’d like to address two points:

1. It was suggested that all of the quotes in the video were taken out of context. I agree that the first one might be taken out of context, which is why I made my comment afterward in the comments section. I was worried about that before posting the clip, and I hope that his mention of STD’s right after the baby comment helps establish the context.

However, I don’t think we should disregard what he is saying in that clip. Before posting it, I listened to more of the speech (link) he was giving. He is saying that although we should teach abstinence, teens should also receive education about contraceptives, etc. I agree that teens should be educated on such matters, but they need to be taught that having a baby IS the consequence of having sex. It is not a punishment for a mistake or misbehaving, it is nature’s consequence. One that cannot be ignored or ‘unchosen’ as Elder Nelson says. And I don’t think that there are many teens in America in this day and age who don’t know where babies come from, so we need to hold them responsible for their actions.

I also had watched more of the speech he made for Planned Parenthood (link) before posting the video, and am satisfied that it was not taken out of context. Obama would (and he mentioned this himself in the last presidential debate) appoint judges who have similar viewpoints as his. I think that that is something we need to be aware of (think about what judges have taken into their own hands recently from the bench!).

Whether you think the clips in the video are taken out of context or not, you can look at Obama’s track record. He has a record for being extreme on abortion. He was the only state senator in Illinois to repeatedly speak against a law that would mandate care for the fetus (baby) who survives an abortion. The following quote describes what happened:

“Well, this is the story of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and it goes back to a hospital in the southwest suburbs of Chicago called Christ Hospital where they were performing on a regular basis induced labor abortions and these are late second, early third trimester abortions in which the drugs are given to the mother to induce violent labor and the baby is usually killed in the contractions and comes out. But about 15 to 20% of the time this produces a a live baby is born, I should say. And sometimes the babies will live just for a few minutes, sometimes for several hours. But this hospital was not giving any thought to medical treatment for them when they survived and could have potentially lived on and saved in incubator under whatever sort of medical technology we have to keep premature babies alive. They were simply shelving…

According to the nurse, Jill Stanek whom I interviewed for the kids against Barack Obama, they were one of the places they would put these babies to die while they were struggling is the utility closet where medical waste goes. According to the hospital they were putting them into comfort rooms where they would just simply leave them to die with a blanket or something…

Barack Obama was the only state senator to speak against this law…

In all the times it came up, in fact, he was the only one to speak against it. And his speech that he gave is very interesting, and I've given it in full in Chapter 10 of The Case Against Barack Obama because the argument is basically this, that if we go and recognize premature babies born alive in what some people call a previable condition, although they were clearly living for a while, if we do this, then it might down the road affect the right to abortion…

Senator Obama voted he voted present on that bill. It was part of a strategy that he devised, that he and some Planned Parenthood lobbyists had devised that basically everyone would vote present instead of voting no. And just so you know, it came up the following year; he did it again.”
--David Freddoso on the Glenn Beck Show (link)

2. As for special abortion circumstances, I urge everyone to read the full article by Elder Nelson (link). It’s so good. He makes the point that “circumstances in which the termination of pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the mother are very rare, particularly where modern medical care is available.” He says that abortions due to rape or incest are also very rare. And he tells a story about a family who was urged to have an abortion because the baby was probably going to end up with severe defects, but they chose not to and had a beautiful baby girl who was deaf, but had the intellect of a genius. Elder Nelson talks about adoption, too. And he says that “more than 40 million abortions are performed per year” worldwide. Sadly, I don’t believe that most of those are due to the circumstances previously mentioned.

I am not saying that abortion should never be legal under any circumstances. And I am not saying that I am a John McCain supporter. But I am saying that there are people with extreme views on abortion who are killing those beautiful unborn babies in the name of “choice.” And we need to protect those babies.


NoSurfGirl said...

I don't think anyone disagrees with anything stated above. I certainly don't. I think that incorporating the fact that babies are a possibility when engaging in sexual activity (and a high likelihood if there is no protection involved)is an important part of sexual education.

My mother came to our high school every year to talk to the health classes about childbirth, basically to scare sense into the students (especially the boys, who aren't always as worried about those kinds of things).

The reality is, teenagers are going to have sex. even when they have good parents, moral parents, parents who teach them right from wrong, there are a few who are going to choose that. Sarah Palin's daughter is a good example of this. I'm almost positive she educated her daughter about these things, and taught her abstinence (she is, after all, a staunch born again Christian). Her daughter made a choice, and her choice after discovering the results was to keep her child and get married to the father.

What about the fourteen year old who makes that choice? The twelve year old?

I don't see this as a problem with the youth so much, I see it as a problem with society. When it is common for twelve year olds to have sex outside of marriage as recreation and "fun" and "fitting in" we know there's something wrong. And teachign abstinence and the results of choices might have some effect, but let's face it. At twelve, where are your priorities? More than anything there is a drive to fit in. I made some silly choices when I was twelve (though luckily they weren't the choices that got me pregnant or addicted to drugs).

I say, we need both forms of education. Teaching about the consequences of sex is one thing. Teaching about babies, and how they're not a punishment, they're a natural consequence is another. But teaching about birth control is also very, very necessary... because for those who have the poor judgment make the choice to have premarital sex (against all they've been taught), birth control could save them from being "punished" for the rest of their life for stupid 12-year-old mistakes. I'm sorry, but I don't think some twelve year olds have the judgment necessary to adequately understand these choices and consequences.

Whew! Long, preachy response.

Also wanted to add, Despite the fact that church-approved abortions only occur on very rare occasions, they still have to occur. And imo, that decision needs to be between parent, doctor, and priesthood leader... without interference from the government, and in a facility that is legal, up-to-date medically, and capable of providing safety and as little suffering as possible to baby and mom.

Like i said, I don't think I could ever do it. But then I've never been in any of the situations mentioned either. And I've been in situations before that I never thought I'd be, and have had to do things I never thought I'd do.

Abortion as a form of birth control=wrong, wrong, wrong. Evil, evil, evil.

That law that you mentioned that Obama voted present on: that's a tough one. I'd have to say they should of course try to save the babies, and if they're going to die, give them as much comfort as possible. That statement he made smacks of abortion as a form of birth control, to me. And being willing to get rid of a baby that might be a "burden" on a parent. Also wrong, wrong wrong.

anyway, thank you so much for this discussion.

merrilykaroly said...


Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree with you and with Michele in that I don't think abortion should be illegal in every circumstance, as I mentioned at the end. I also agree that teens need to be educated on consequences and contraceptives. And adoption.

I think a 16 year old (as Obama mentioned) can be held responsible for their decisions though. Only God knows why He made it possible at such a young age, but there you have it. He didn't seem to think the consequence was too severe for the action. I could think for myself at the age of 16.

But yeah, younger than that and, well, it's hard to make a call. Situations might even involve a guy pressuring a girl into something, and then leaving her to fend for herself as a young, pregnant teen.

But I think Obama's views are so extreme and dangerous for a potential president to have. I'm afraid that with his kind of leadership (no matter how he might modify his stance to appeal to the more mainstream before the election) abortion will be legal no matter what the circumstances, making it easier for people who are using it as a convenience.
I definitely don't think it's a black and white issue. I acknowledge that there is a grey area. But I think we are in danger of making it an all or nothing issue in the favor of 'choice' as a means of birth control.

The Petersons said...

This doesn't really have anything to do with abortion, but...this dispensation is the only one where woman are married older. In the world's history, girls were married at 12 or 13, this was how it happened. The body is able to make babies at that age because it had to-but whether God intended it to be that way, I don't know...maybe it was always meant as something to tempt us and that we would need to work through.
ANYWAY I didn't even know things like late pregnancy abortions where the baby lived and they let it die took place. Thank you for giving me one more reason to not vote for Obama-even if that was never your intention.

NoSurfGirl said...

It's an interesting series of thoughts.

I really hope my girls are wise enough to know right from wrong, and to see the consequences for what they are, and not to bend to peer pressure. :) That is where it really lies, I think... the responsibility in all this. Too bad a lot of parents aren't really enough in their kids lives to provide the guidance they really need.

Josh said...

I guess my biggest concern with abortion and the ability to choose comes with the life of the baby.

When do I have the right to choose to take someone else's life? It seems to me to only be when my life or the life of others is in danger or has been taken.

So then, wouldn't the government have the right to stop people from choosing to do abortions that don't meet the criteria? And allowing choice when it does? Or is the life of the fetus baby not the same as the life of a born baby because that life is more dependent on one person than any other age of a human?

What is right and what is wrong?

NoSurfGirl said...

I agree with you, Josh. The question for me is, to what extent do the laws protect the life of the fetus (which is a baby, in my opinion, and alive. In my child dev. class we learned that fetuses begin to feel at about 10 weeks. their hearts begin to beat much sooner than that. Wow that was a long parenthetical) to what extent do they interfere with the ability to make the really difficult decision to perform an abortion, in the rare case where it is deemed necessary by a medical professional, and deemed advisable by a priesthood leader.

michele said...

I was thinking about this and just realized that my comment to the earlier post about the quotes being taken out of context could have been taken the wrong way.

I should explain that I wouldn't trust any video about any person made in that manner. McCain, Biden, Palin... Even if it was done with the intent of revealing the truth. Maybe its just me, but there's something about those sorts of things (including negative advertising in the campaign) that always make me feel angry inside. I appreciate it when someone who disagrees with another person still shows respect to them.

I hate intollerance! I am extremely intollerant of it! :)

merrilykaroly said...

Michele-- I agree with you on the negative campaigning. Sometimes it really disgusts me.

However, I think it's also important to be aware of the negative aspects of a candidate.

Steph said...


I loved what you had to say. This world can be so sick sometimes :( Thanks for being one of the few that tries to educate and share with a conservative view point!