J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

A man from Nigeria, whose father is the head of Nigeria’s largest bank and warned the U.S. embassy there of his son’s militant ties possibly to Al Qaeda, gets on an American flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.

Just while the plane is preparing for final approach the Nigerian goes into the bathroom because he has “stomach cramps”. In actuality, he had the makings of an incendiary device sewn into his underwear and had to retrieve them. He returned to his seat and used a blanket because the “stomach cramps” were making him cold.

In fact, he was trying to inject a liquid from a syringe into the powder he already had ready. When the sound of firecrackers was heard an alert and brave passenger from the Netherlands actually jumped over seats with people to get to this man and stop him from blowing up the plane. He suffered burns on his hands and arms, but put out the fire.

The perpetrator suffered from second degree burns on his legs, apparently, as he had no pants legs on him when taken to the front of the plane.

The President of the United States was on vacation in Hawaii and was not notified of this situation for 3 to 3 1/2 hours after the attack. His response? Call the Attorney General and put this armed combatant in jail, after reading his rights and providing a lawyer, and it appears this will be treated as a criminal case instead of the act of war it is.

The Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, said the “system worked”. The system didn’t work. We were just lucky an alert Dutchman took this man down.

Now Americans are going to have to be frisked at American airports, can take only one carry-on bag on an overseas flight, American Airlines (not even the airline involved) is refusing to provide blankets and pillows to passengers, and no one can stand up in the plane within one hour of landing.

The problem was in the Amsterdam airport and the authorities in the embassy for not getting this man on a no-fly list after his own father, a prominent citizen, reported him.If you want to put an incendiary device together under a blanket you can just as easily put it together under your coat. The man had only one carry-on bag and it didn’t contain the explosives, and the highest elected official in our country was not notified for three or more hours just so the staff that did notify him could be “sure” of what happened.

This man deserves no constitutional rights and should be sent to a military tribunal for his crime of terror against the United States.

Are we as a government making it harder for people in foreign airports to come and go as they please, while American passengers must be delayed by an already slow system to board an airplane? I don’t mind being checked, and usually get the full treatment, but I want everyone checked that way here and abroad.

This man had a multiple entry visa to this country while Great Britain revoked his visa for saying he wanted to take a course that did not exist in that country.

It’s time to get out of the 9/10 mentality. We have had a soldier killed at a recruiting station, eleven people killed by a mad psychiatrist on one of our Army bases and now this. The perpetrators will be treated as criminals instead of war criminals, and given every right under the constitution a common thief would be given.

I think Mr. Obama, his staff and Napolitano have a lot of explaining to do. Instead of pushing a health care bill the majority of Americans do not want and pushing other huge spending bills, maybe Obama should divert the money to national security, which seems to have suffered during his short time in office. But then again he doesn’t want to offend his Arab cousins. And before anyone criticizes that statement remember his father is listed as Arab and African. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Tweet This Post

At the end of Sue’s Glass House post she asks the question of what the terrorists who want to kill all of us have to fear.

I went into a long rant in the comments section and thought I’d post it here for those who don’t want to read comments.

I have finally said what I’ve long thought. It may or may not be true, and it may or may not be crazy, but it’s what I think:

They fear nothing because Obama has told his “handler” there is nothing to fear.

Yes, I said the word “handler”. Strange, isn’t it that I once thought McCain was the Manchurian Candidate who was brainwashed and programmed to act a certain way when given the subconscious signal? Instead it seems to me to be Obama.

Yes, call me crazy. Maybe I am, but that bow to the King of Mecca seemed to me to be a message to his “handler” that he was proceeding as ordered and could be counted on to do what it is they want him to do, i.e. destroy this country with every means possible.

How to explain a guy who traveled to Pakistan when it was illegal for an American citizen to do so? He was poor. Where did he get the money for this exotic travel to a Muslim terrorist training ground? Who paid for the trip?

When he comes back, instead of going to his junior college in California he is suddenly bright enough and rich enough to be accepted at not one, but two ivy league colleges. He goes to Columbia and then takes his graduate work at Harvard Law.

Who sponsored and paid for his tuition and living expenses?

When he graduates from Harvard Law, after being the editor of the Harvard Law Review but not having any writings to show for it, he is supposedly offered a great job with a large law firm.

Instead, this poor man wants to go to Chicago, of all places and work as a “community organizer” for a paltry $12,000 per year.

He gets the right girlfriend/wife and begins to be noticed in the Chicago political circles. He gets elected to the state senate by destroying every other candidate in the primary and having them bumped off the ticket.

He does not stand out in the state senate but decides to run for US Senate with the Chicago Democratic political machine backing him. It doesn’t help that the press discloses some dirty laundry about his opponent’s divorce and the opponent drops out and Alan Keys is encouraged to carpet bag his way into Illinois politics. Result: Landslide for Obama. Just as planned.

He is not distinguished in the US Senate but decides to run for president after 2 years in named senate. He knocks off all competitors one by one as planned and then knocks off the republican candidate by making his vice presidential choice the object of the election.

The people are satisfactorily mesmerized and they elect him by hook or by crook. Some because of his race, because of guilt or pride. It doesn’t matter because he’s the one who brought it up all the time.

Meanwhile, he manages to pay off his and his wife’s student loans and we still see nothing in writing to show us what kind of scholar he was.

We can’t see a certified vault copy of his birth certificate because he has lawyers who have spent millions suppressing this information.

We can’t see college records because they might say something he doesn’t want us to know. Maybe he’s really not eligible to be president because he wasn’t really born in the United States. But, if it comes to light now there will be riots in the streets because the “people” won’t stand for it. He’s charismatic and he has changed the view of the US in three short months and three short trips. Changed the view for the worst.

But, hey, you’re getting a few bucks more in your paycheck this year and a $250 buyout on your Social Security check for now. Let’s not be too greedy. Be happy the Great One has deemed you worthy of his largesse. Only it’s your largesse and that of your great-great-great grandchildren for genearations to come. Wait til the bill comes due next year. By then the old snake charmer should have you even more completely under his spell and can do whatever he wants. Not that he can’t now. In the meantime, wait for Bush 43 and Cheney to be dragged to The Hague to stand trial for “war crimes” and no one will protest it.

This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends.
This is the way the world ends.
Not with a bang, but a whimper.

Don’t say nobody told you.

Tweet This Post

I’ve ragged about Obama a lot in the past, so it is only fair to point out those rare instances when he has done something right.

It seems from the interview I heard from Admiral William E. Gortney Obama gave the OK to do whatever was necessary to save the life of Capt. William Phillips from the pirates who had him in their control.

You can read the story here.

Congratulations to the Navy and to Capt. Phillips, who kept his cool during this strenuous time.

And thank you, Mr. Obama, for allowing the military to do what only they can do so well.

Tweet This Post

This may be the first pledge Obama has broken but he’s not president yet. Usually they wait until elected to show their true colors.

In a web video to supporters — “the people who built this movement from the bottom up” — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.

“We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election,” Obama says in the video, blaming it on the need to combat Republicans, saying “we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

Obama wrote: “In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

How many more promises will he break before the election? How much money does one man need to become president? Apparently Obama thinks it’s more than $84 million. Don’t you think a man who cares so much about the plight of the poor would redirect those donations to the poor he claims to care about? Nah. This is politics and they all lie. It’s just that usually they expose their lies after the election.

Let’s see if the presidency can be bought once again. Senator Obama, you are a disgrace.

Tweet This Post

If there is one thing this presidential campaign has convinced me of it is that we are a society of “bandwagon” individuals. This is not a criticism but what is one to think when you cannot visit many prominent websites nor read a major publication or view a news program without the name Wright being front and center?

Here is my question though. Is there any one of us who has not been in the presence of another whose views make us cringe? Heck I’ve had family members with steadfast opinions who left me shaking my head in disbelief. Does this mean that because I have been in their presence on several occasions in my lifetime that I have adopted or agree with their beliefs?

Who among those that have extensively written of their interpretation of Obama’s words or actions was ever present when his “mentor” spoke of his hatred of this country? Has there been anyone who has attended this church who has stepped forward and admitted that Senator Obama personally expressed the same sentiments as his Pastor? Is there one among us who can attest to that fact?

You can judge the character of a man by the company he keeps, that is fair. But the endless pummeling he has incurred based on another’s words to me is ridiculous.

Is anyone holding Hillary fully accountable for her own words? Does anyone even care that if she were to be elected her administration could very well begin where her husband’s left off? Let me say, very few. Obama/Wright has become an obsession and an unhealthy one at that, not for those who choose to continually harp on its existence, but for the process of elections in this country.

There was a time not too long ago that many across the blogosphere had Hillary Clinton’s campaign on life support. I believe I have always said I would never write a Clinton off. They are tough, ruthless individuals who will do most anything to achieve their goals. To some I suppose that is a quality to be admired. But is it admirable when those qualities include ruining anyone and anything in their path? Is it not disingenuous for Hillary to do an end around on any question which involves her faith, but Obama be held fully accountable for his? Senator McCain has stated that he will keep his faith private. Should we not investigate to find out what he might be hiding?

None of this is meant to excuse any candidate whose character comes into question when it comes to securing the presidency. What would have happened though if when the character of President Bush was called into question late in an election cycle no one cared enough to get to the whole truth?

Due to a lack of a choice I find totally acceptable, I will no doubt vote for Senator McCain. The liberal agenda of those on the left is not something to which I could find myself enamored and while I question how different McCain will be, voting for either democrat is something I feel I cannot chance.

There are few who probably agree with what I have written but I will offer no apologies. It is my contention that a presidential race is far too important to allow someone as irrelevant (in the long range scheme of things) as Reverend Wright to become such a central figure in a campaign.

Would it not be more desirable to spend time on real issues like the economy, child welfare, terrorism, trade, energy independence and continued re-building of our military. Sure, these issues are occasionally addressed but for almost a month now it all circles back to one topic Wright/Obama.

I may not believe Obama is the man for the job. But I will not join the party to destroy a man based on a pastor who is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame and has a new book to hawk.

The Senator could conceivably become the President of the United States. Should that materialize, he will receive from me the respect due the Office.

Let’s just hope that whichever candidate is successful in November they do not arrive at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as severely damaged goods. That serves no purpose to the Presidency or the country.

Tweet This Post

Almost like dead air.

Tweet This Post

Before the immigration blow-up at Polipundit I loved to read Jayson Javitz, as he seems so well informed about politics and tells it the way it is.

Today he has a column up at Wizbang that is a must read.

Here’s the introduction:

First things first: If you would have told me six months ago — hell, one month ago — that Clinton would be fighting for her political life against Obama, I would have said: “I’ll have what your smoking.”

“There’s no way,” I would have continued, “that the most ruthless politician since ‘Landslide’ Lyndon Johnson would allow a newbie Senator to end her presidential obsessions.”

Well, despite losing New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts *and* California(!), Obama has the same coin flip chance as Clinton to obtain the Democrat nomination. Which raises two questions: 1. How did this happen? 2. What are Obama’s chances in the Nov. general election?

Read the rest as it isn’t very long and it makes so much sense. I still love you, Jayson, even if you did put me on probation.

Tweet This Post

In Tuesday’s Foreign Relations Committee hearing with Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, it seems Senator Obama was more interested in speechifying than in asking or getting answers to questions.

The long-winded Obama, who bills himself as a consensus builder, wasted an opportunity to show how it could work.

Each member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had seven minutes to question Petraeus and Crocker about the Iraq War. Obama used about six minutes of his time to lecture Petraeus and Crocker that the surge is of modest success given the cost and the Iraq central government is ineffectual — points he has been making in speeches and debates. As Obama was wrapping up, he said, “That, of course, now leaves me very little time to ask questions, and that’s unfortunate.”

“That’s true, Senator,” piped up Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the committee chairman and a rival for the Democratic nomination.

Petraeus never got to answer Obama’s 266-word question. Rushed at the end, Obama asked about benchmarks not met. Crocker said, “Senator, I described for Senator Sununu a little bit ago some of the things that I think are going to be very important as we move ahead.”

Obama tossed a softball: “Can you repeat those?

Biden asked Crocker to summarize and racing the clock, Crocker got in 215 words before Obama’s time was up.

One would think if this man has any substance at all he would have listened and learned from the general and the ambassador.

Instead, he must have been concentrating on his plan for Iraq which he was set to disclose today.

Obama said if he were president now, he would immediately begin pulling combat troops out of Iraq at the rate of two brigades — around 4,000 troops — a month, to be completed by the end of next year.

He would call a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, and not allow it to end until Iraq’s leaders had reached a new accord on reconciliation.

Then he would use “presidential leadership” to “surge” diplomacy with Iraq’s regional neighbors and take immediate steps to confront the “humanitarian disaster” in Iraq.

Obama scheduled his speech a day after war commander General David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker wrapped up testimony to Congress.

So, not only does Obama want to be President of the United States, but it seems he wants to be the leader of Iraq as well.

He needs to learn to listen to someone other than his own voice if he is to achieve the presidency. His lack of experience is showing worse than John Edwards’.

Tweet This Post

I don’t know what to think about this story. I’ve never been able to figure out why we don’t trade with Cuba. Would it be such a bad thing? I do know one thing. It is not going to get you very many votes in southern Florida.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is leaping into the long-running Cuba debate by calling for the U.S. to ease restrictions for Cuban-Americans who want to visit the island or send money home.

Obama’s campaign said Monday that, if elected, the Illinois senator would lift restrictions imposed by the Bush administration and allow Cuban-Americans to visit their relatives more frequently
as well as ease limits on the amount of money they can send to their families.

“Senator Obama feels that the Bush administration has made a humanitarian and a strategic blunder,” spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in an e-mail. “His concern is that this has had a profoundly negative impact on the Cuban people, making them more dependent on the Castro regime, thus isolating them from the transformative message carried by Cuban-Americans.”

Obama was explaining his position in an op-ed piece Tuesday in The Miami Herald.

While the U.S. embargo has limited who can travel to the communist island and what can be sent there since the early 1960s, restrictions added by the Bush administration in 2004 made visiting and shipping gifts to Cuba more difficult.

Most Cubans in the U.S. can only visit the island once every three years and can only send quarterly remittances of up to $300 per household to immediate family members. Previously, they could visit once a year and send up to $3,000. The U.S. also tightened restrictions on travel for educational and religious groups.

The Cuban-exile vote is considered key to winning Florida, and top presidential candidates have generally followed the recommendations of the community’s most hard-line and vocal leaders, who support a full embargo against Fidel Castro’s government. Castro, 80, is in poor health and turned over temporary power last year to his brother

Story

Tweet This Post

I guess words do matter.

Political turmoil in Pakistan deepened Thursday when the government raised the possibility that embattled President Gen. Pervez Musharraf might impose a state of emergency, drawing condemnation that doing so would be a desperate bid to hold onto power.

Tariq Azim, the minister for state information, said a state of emergency could not be ruled out because of “external and internal threats” and deteriorating security in Pakistan’s volatile northwest near the Afghan border.

Azim also said talk from the United States about the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan “has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public.” He mentioned Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama by name as an example of someone who made such comments, saying his recent remarks were one reason the government was debating a state of emergency.

Story

Tweet This Post

Now that is a slap in the face.

There’s one vote that Rudy Giuliani definitely can’t count on in his 2008 presidential bid: his own daughter’s. According to the 17-year-old Caroline Giuliani’s Facebook profile, she’s supporting Barack Obama.

On her profile, she designates her political views as “liberal” and—until this morning—proclaimed her membership in the Facebook group “Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack).” According to her profile, she withdrew from the Obama group at 6 a.m. Monday, after Slate sent her an inquiry about it.

In what may be an effort to avoid public connection to her famous father, the future Harvard freshman and recent graduate of Trinity School in Manhattan uses a slight variation of her name on the Facebook site. But she didn’t lock her profile, allowing any Facebook user with access to the Harvard or Trinity School networks (more than 42,000 people) to view her detailed profile. (As a Harvard student, I was able to see it.)

Story

Tweet This Post

By now everyone knows Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are still arguing over an answer given in the YouTube debate on Monday night.

The question was: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?”

Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist says this plays to Senator Clinton’s strength in her answer, showing she has a better understanding of world affairs than Sen. Obama.

“I would,” responded Obama.

His explanation dug him even deeper: “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.”

From the Nation’s David Corn to super-blogger Mickey Kaus, a near-audible gasp. For Hillary Clinton, next in line at the debate, an unmissable opportunity. She pounced: “I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year.” And she proceeded to give the reasons any graduate student could tick off: You don’t want to be used for their propaganda. You need to know their intentions. Such meetings can make the situation worse.

Just to make sure no one missed how the grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie, the next day Clinton told the Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa, that Obama’s comment “was irresponsible and frankly naive.”

Obama enthusiasts might want to write this off as a solitary slip. Except that this was the second time. The first occurred in another unscripted moment. During the April 26 South Carolina debate, Brian Williams asked what kind of change in the U.S. military posture abroad Obama would order in response to a hypothetical al-Qaeda strike on two American cities.

Obama’s answer: “Well, the first thing we’d have to do is make sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response — something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.”

Asked to be commander in chief, Obama could only play first-responder in chief. Caught off guard, and without his advisers, he simply slipped into two automatic talking points: emergency response and its corollary — the obligatory Katrina Bush-bash.

When the same question came to Clinton, she again pounced: “I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.” Retaliatory attack did not come up in Obama’s 200-word meander into multilateralism and intelligence gathering.

He gives the win to Sen. Clinton

E.J. Dionne, Jr. writes about the same exchange and comes to a different conclusion. Read the rest of this entry »

Tweet This Post

Since the infamous YouTube gaff by Obama on Monday night things have been heating up between the Clinton campaign and Obama’s.

In separate interviews with the Quad-City Times today, Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tangled over Obama’s statement at the YouTube debate Monday that he would be willing to meet in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of countries antagonistic to the United States.

Clinton called Obama’s comments “irresponsible” and “naive.”

Obama countered by accusing the Clinton campaign of hatching a “fabricated controversy” and suggested that her position put her on the same track as the Bush administration.

This campaign that has dragged on for so long now is beginning to show the rough edges around the leaders of the pack.

I wonder what it will be like by the end of the primary season sometime next year?

Tweet This Post

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has proclaimed sex education for kindergarteners is “the right thing to do”.

ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is “age-appropriate,” is “the right thing to do.”

“I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me,” Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.

“‘Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,’” said Obama mimicking Keyes’ distinctive style of speech. “Which — I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter).”

“But it’s the right thing to do,” Obama continued, “to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.”

I started kindergarten at almost five years of age. I didn’t know anything about sex nor did I care. All I knew was girls had to sit when they used the bathroom and boys had to stand, and I was jealous that I couldn’t stand. End of curiosity.

Has life changed so much in the last 55 years that kids aged 5 & 6 need to have sex ed in kindergarten? Are they less innocent than kids that age half a century ago?

My experience with a five year old grandson tells me no. He runs around our house without his shorts on, preferring to wear his boxer briefs with all their colorful characters on them than his pants. He’s not embarrassed to have me come to the bathroom while he’s in there or to come into the bathroom while I’m in there. I’m embarrassed when he comes in on me to excitedly tell me something after I’ve showered but it doesn’t faze him in the least.

What could anyone possibly teach this child that is “age-appropriate” without making him aware of things he should be blissfully ignorant of for a little while longer so he can remain that innocent little child?

Tell me, Mr. Obama, just what does a child that age need to know about sex?

Tweet This Post

I am very strong in my pro-life beliefs, believing abortion should be reserved only for cases where the mother’s life is at risk and not really being sure what I would do if I were in a situation where my daughter or daughter in law had to abort due to a life-threatening condition brought on by a pregnancy.

I believe in the sanctity of life, and I believe it does not stop at birth. I believe we have an obligation to see to it those children are properly cared for in all ways and not abandon them after they have been born simply so we can say we saved them from the abortionist.

This is why I am disturbed by this report. (Free registration required.)

WASHINGTON — Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that her husband’s health-care plan would provide insurance coverage of abortion.

Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the family planning and abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband’s health-care proposal as “a true universal health-care plan” that would cover “all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination,” referring to abortion.

Obama, who earlier gained the endorsement of Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty, offered the group a vision of equal opportunity for women, tying a call for improved access to contraceptives for low-income women with a call for an “updated social contract” that includes paid maternity leave and expanded school hours.

Asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, Obama said it would cover “reproductive-health services.” Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions.

I do not want my tax money to go to kill unborn babies. Abortion should be very rare if used to protect the life of the mother. Unfortunately, it seems to be a form of birth control for some.

Now, some will argue they don’t want to have their taxes spent on a war they disagree with. That’s fine, but the Constitution says we are to provide for our defense and I guess that’s up for interpretation for those people.

There is no section of the Constitution that states it is OK to kill an unborn child, and I’m sure abortions were happening during the founding of our country.

The Supreme Court had to stretch to justify abortion by saying it was a right of privacy.

This is why I consider my vote to be very important. I must stand for certain things and other things I can be a compromiser. Abortion is one of those things for which I cannot compromise.

For what Mrs. Edwards has said on behalf of her husband and what Senator Obama has said about providing for federally funded abortion on demand, I could never vote for either man even if I were of their party and agreed with everything else they say.

I know Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice, but I haven’t seen anything from him yet that states he would sponsor legislation to provide universal health care that would provide for abortion on demand.

If a little girl is raped and becomes pregnant or becomes pregnant due to incest I have a moral problem with what to do. I can’t make a statement about what I would do because I have never been in that situation, but I would hate for her to have to go through childbirth. At the same time, she has already learned, unfortunately, about the reproductive system. It’s not her fault, and I am really conflicted over this. In a case like this I think I would lean ever so slightly in favor of abortion if that’s what the girl and her parents want. She shouldn’t have to carry the extra emotional burden.

Tweet This Post