People of Johnstown, PA, please, don't beleive your memories and especially don't believe your lying eyes and ears.

Even though Obama was very clear when he spoke about his daughters being "punished with a baby" if contraception wasn't availalable to them, We Rethuglicans think he meant to say that he wants this daughters and yours, to have abortions. Even though we all know that wasn't what his voice said We're pretty sure "that one" meant to say exactly what we would have liked for him to say.

"Mrs. Palin, how's your PREGNANT TEENAGE DAUGHTER doing?"

If Palin's daughter were raped, would she make her buy her rape kit?

Maybe abortion should be one of the major issues involving this election as well as the economy and the WOT

I think the Supreme Court should be a major part of the discussion.  A lot of civil rights including abortion, labor/worker and privacy are in danger if McCain is elected.

 -- but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby -- Obama

Ok, he's talking about sex education...which leads to the topic of abortion if the sex education fails.

If his daughters make a mistake...guess what? It's called pregnancy.

If you're pregnant, how do you keep from being punished with a baby? In Obama's case...the choice is clear...abortion.

In the Obama household...after teaching his daughters his moral values...which they failed to heed or understand...the result is a pregnant daughter...who can now avoid responsibility for her mistake with an abortion of convenience...meaning the true punishment is to the defenseless and guiltless...the unborn baby.

His position is clear...no matter how mmfa tries to muddle the argument.

I hate to disagree Wes, but there are many people who are very much in favor of contraception but still very much against abortion. I've know many woman who've used contraception to prevent pregnancy and either used it improperly of forgot to take their pills and became pregnant. I know none who've had abortions. 

Failure of contraception does not always lead to abortion.

Obama's position on abortion has always been very clear. But this statement of his, which is the topic here, is his position on contraception and on the prevention of STDs. 

I don't disagree with you, king.

The issue will never be resolved...regardless of whether Roe stays or is overturned...because the passion of belief on both sides is too strong. However, we are getting ready to make a decision on who we elect as our leader.

mmfa repeatedly tries to slip and slide with their silly word games and parsing...trying to hide the fact that Obama has a clear record of supporting almost all cases for abortion...and that is the real issue.

It will be only one of the reasons why voters choose to elect Obama or McCain. And it is certainly one of the reasons why I will not vote for Obama.

It's a tough issue and I don't fall into the camps parked at the extreme ends...abortions are always acceptable or abortions are never acceptable.

I believe that abortions are an acceptable solution in cases of rape, incest, and the legitimate health of the mother. What I don't support are abortions for convenience or trumped up "health of the mother" cases.

This is not word parsing.  This is real and hits home for women and somehow I think you don't really get that.  This is not an intellectual "debate"  (A debate about values is ridiculous anyway, as it comes from a holier than thou place most of the time.)

  What is obvious is that Obama is in favor of education about birth control methods and pregnancy PREVENTION.  You don't "support" abortion, how easy for you uterus free philosophers.  I don't support abortion either (I would not get one)--but I will not tell another women what they should do when they are in crisis and need support, not judgment or the fear of criminal charges.

"Uterus free philosphers"- Well said, Mary. Nobody supports abortion.  It's always tragedy but it is no one's place to judge another in such a situation. 

Mary said ".  I don't support abortion either (I would not get one)--but I will not tell another women what they should do"

then according to your logic, the following statments are true as well

I dont support assult, but I would never tell some one else what to do

I dont support robbery, but I would never tell some one else what to do

I dont support murder, but I would never tell some one else what to do

It makes no sence.  Either abortion is muder, or it is not.  Scott Peterson was charged and convicted of killing TWO people.  His wife, and his unborn child.  It is that simple. 

Well, since you have the arrogance to tell us when life begins, I guess it is consistent, at least in your mind, to elide the living with the unborn. Kudos to you omniscient one.

When can we expect, on the count of murder, the executions of rape victims and victims of incest to begin? Murder is murder, right? Does your zealotry prepare you to stay as rigid in regard to executing rape victims as it does in forcing the rest of your, "abortion is murder," beliefs on us?

Pointy, if this country was philosophically divided as to what constitutes murder, robbery or assault, you'd have a good point.

 We get it, you consider a fetus a human being. Just as many Americans don't. If you want a theocracy that forces your religious beliefs on the rest of the country, maybe you should start a new fascist political party towards that end.

Until then, you'll have to live with the centrist position that allows you to follow your dogma, while permitting others to not follow your dogma.

Why is freedom so difficult for you Republicans to understand ?

Point, the failure in your logic is your inability to understand what society can enforce, and what it can't.  Society can (and, indeed, must) enforce the protection of actual persons--therefore, we can tell people not to commit assault, robbery, and murder, because those are crimes against other individuals.

However, a fetus is not *necessarily* an individual, as it certainly cannot survive individually, and in that it doesn't yet have the neurological development to interact with the world or have a sense of self.  There is no scientific evidence (and, in fact, much to the contrary) that a fetus is possessed of any sense of being that would make it, truly, a human being.  The neurological architecture for this doesn't even get close to this capacity until roughly 26 weeks, or even later.

If you believe life starts earlier, you are free to make your own personal choices about that.  But, since there is no scientific evidence to back that up, it remains a personal choice.  The law should hold people accountable to facts and reality, not to enforce a particular religion or worldview on others.

As you are free to make your own choices about when life begins in utero, and for women in particular, who have the burden and privilege of supporting that life, it is society's responsibility to honor women's choices as to whether their biological processes constitute another human being, and afford it society's protections according to the wishes of the woman.  In essence, society must support an individual, a woman in this case, and pursuant to that protection it must enable her to maintain sovereignty over her body, or to secure protections for another human being, if that is what she believes she is in possession of.  Thus, in the Laci Peterson case, Laci obviously is entitled to the protections of the law, and because she wanted her baby and intended to nurture it to full personhood, the law must enforce the protection of the baby as an extension of its obligations to protect the life and wishes of the mother.

mmfa repeatedly tries to slip and slide with their silly word games and parsing...trying to hide the fact that Obama has a clear record of supporting almost all cases for abortion...and that is the real issue.

Show us the record.  Obama doesn't hide that fact that he wants women to do what's best for themselves and their lives and MMFA doesn't try to hide that fact.

"mmfa repeatedly tries to slip and slide with their silly word games and parsing"

MMFA is not redefining what the mistake is.  You are.  That's about as silly of a word game there is.

" And it is certainly one of the reasons why I will not vote for Obama....I believe that abortions are an acceptable solution in cases of rape, incest, and the legitimate health of the mother. What I don't support are abortions for convenience or trumped up "health of the mother" cases."

But you will vote for Sarah Palin's Rapist Bill of Rights that prohibits abortion even in the case of rape and incest. You will vote for a woman who makes women pay for hospital for rape kits. You will vote for a woman who believes that life begins at conception and supports the death penalty; you will in effect vote for a woman that would see rape victims, and their doctors, executed if they are caught terminating the violent seed.

You will vote for the zealot who seeks to use government to impose her faith on the rest of us. 

You will not vote for the man who trusts women enough to make that most personal decision for themselves.

How very tender of you.

funny thing, wesley, that i come across your male opinion of abortion.  just last night i was watching a video of the hateful, bigoted, angry, terrifying mob outside a palin rally, and could hear the ignorant, low-i.q., rant of "baby killers" - which was being screamed at the obama supporters who'd caught sight of the fat white bald man with the monkey doll on which he'd placed an obama sticker.  i started to get angry, as i usually do when i remember the ignorant, self-righteous, fundie sheople who paint abortion as black & white, as if every single abortion reflects an arrogant liberal woman who sleeps with 11 different men a night, no condom, no pill, (NO MARRIAGE, OMG!), drunk, high, and who strolls to the clinic thinking, "ah well, another day, another abortion". 

anyhow...didn't mean to ramble into a tangent, but i'm always amazed by people who are so privileged in their lives, so stress free, so problem free, that they can expend such energy not only judging women they don't even know, but attempting to force their religious beliefs on all of the female gender.  and this is a subject i could type pages and pages upon, this creepy barely-hidden desire for a theocracy - as it doesn't just mean the "abortion issue".  which was really my point all along for this comment.  so, i  come across this video, hear the fundies screaming "baby killers", start to get angry....and then i started chuckling.  yep.  chuckling.  and here is why:  while i will NEVER stop being vigilant in keeping the religious right from forcing their religious beliefs upon myself and my gender, and our right to privacy/liberty/freedom/OUR OWN BODIES, 'cos i accept that, unfortunately, in my lifetime, there will always be religious nuts who can't accept we,  are NOT founded on christianity....but, i chuckle when realizing that for 35 years of yelling/screaming/posters of bloody fetuses/judging/praying/reagan/bush I/bushII - 35 years and abortion IS STILL LEGAL.  you follow the rethug candidate like a puppy on a leash just 'cos they promise they'll overturn roe v. wade - and....how many rethug presidents later? 

so, while i do remain aware that your ilk who'd like to take my right over my own body away will always exist, will always desire to re-take control of my body/reproductive organs...as things stand now...your crowd has done NOTHING since 1973 (aside from a few super-conservative states like s.dakota) to "win" for your supposed god and/or supposed "Values".

Damn good post, bettybrown. Go ahead and write page after page on this subject, I'll read them.

Given Roe vs. Wade, the issue has already been resolved.  However, for people like you, wesley, who feel entirely comfortable intruding yourself into the most intimate affairs of women who have nothing to do with you and wish to have nothing to do with you, the issue remains unresolved.   Your certainty probably comes from some religious conviction which is not universally shared.

There's nothing "tough" about the abortion issue.  In a free society women have a right to decide whether or not to carry a foetus to term.  No doubt, there are many factors that come into play in making such a difficult decision.  The opinion of outsiders like yourself who have no role in the cause of the pregnancy is entirely illigitimate.

Your fascination with this issue reflects an unhealthy prurience which you share with all too many of your fellow fundamentalists and Republicans.  It's time you and your sympathizers check into a clinic for some serious psychiatric care.

An unwanted pregnancy is a punishment in the eyes of a teenager, and that says nothing about what's done about that pregnancy.  You seem to be assuming that someone who is pro-choice demands abortions, which is hard to defend.

If you're pregnant, how do you keep from being punished with a baby? In Obama's case...the choice is clear...abortion.

You're distorting the issue.  He doesn't want his daugthers to be punished with a baby because the far right objects to sex education.  It has nothing to do with abortion.

meaning the true punishment is to the defenseless and guiltless...the unborn baby.

This is your opinion and I disagree with it.

You are making a completely bogus argument in an effort to turn Obama's pro-sex education statement into a "pro-abortion" statement, when it mentions absolutely nothing about abortion.

"If his daughters make a mistake...guess what? It's called pregnancy."

In order to make your argument, you find it necessary to deliberately redefine what Obama clearly identifies as the mistake.

"I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake..."

Obviously, the mistake he speaks of is violation of the values and morals that they have been taught. 

"...I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16."

Pregnancy and STD's are possible consequences of violating his family's values and morals.

"You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions."

Give them information in the first place, not an abortion.

Wes:

If you regard becoming pregnant as a sacred thing, not to be thwarted, then it's even MORE of a burden and, yes, a punishment than if you feel you hqave any say in the matter.

It changes your life forever. it not only changes your body radically--it makes you a prisoner to that holy miracle. And lip service may be paid to the glory of motherhood, but it changes your social standing, and often not in a good way.

Having that religious belief doesn't make a pregnancy for a young girl a wonderful walk in the park towards blissful serenity--it's a trap that God has sprung, merciless and irrevocable.

It is my deeply held belief that a woman is not a vessel but a creator when she makes a child, and that any woman engaged in that pursuit has the right to stop and return what God contributes back to God.

Right on Wes.  You are 100% correct, no matter how MMFA tries to spin it!!

Another desperate, pathetic, phony controversy stirred up by the Troglodytes who have infested the Republican party. What they've done is a very crude, but clever, sleight of hand. Obama said: "but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby" The "mistake" in question is having sex too young, the punishment is an unwanted pregnancy. The Troglodyte Talkers know this, but they pretend that the mistake is getting pregnant. This is obvious since Obama was talking about sex education and birth control. In that scenario, the kid can make a mistake and NOT get pregnant, if they use birth control. Unfortunately, the GOP base is comprised largely of drooling idiots, and they will gladly believe that it's really about abortion if the Republicans tell them it is.

The vagina patrol commingles abortion with sex education and contraception because they want to put an end to ALL of it.

These puritanical nabobs think THEY and THEY ALONE are the carriers of wisdom on how people should conduct themselves in the bedroom, living room, school room and doctor's office. There is no sector of human interest they do not claim as their territorial right to police but for the board room, and Lord knows CEOs do not use a condom before screwing the public where the sun don't shine.

Randy

Wow, is this a threat? From a rightwing "christian" preacher, of all sources. No surprise there...

Minister delivers divisive invocation at McCain event.

The Iowa Independent reports that a minister who spoke at John McCain’s rally in Davenport, IA today injected a divisive statement into his invocation. Here’s what Pastor Arnold Conrad said:

I would also pray, Lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and election day.

I saw that earlier and I am absolutely stunned that a religious zealot would have so much nerve as to tell the Lord that His reputation is at stake in this election. 

Un-freakn'-believable.

He thinks the Lord should be involved in election fraud?

Rev. Arnie sounds like a real putz.

Why am I not surprised that someone like Conrad is such an ignorant buffoon?

- "Hindu" is not only not a god, it's not even a being. It's a religion. In fact, by some understandings, it's not even really a religion as we usually mean the term, it's "a way of living."

- You do not pray to Buddha! Buddha was not a god nor ever revered as one. He was a spiritual teacher.

- By the teachings of Islam, Allah and "the God of Moses" - that is, the Judeo-Christian God - are the same being.

Conrad's statement was not only divisive religious bigotry, it was stupid. Then again, bigotry and stupidity often go together.

Wes - Sorry, but there's no such thing as an "unborn baby"; no medical term as such exists. It's an "emotional trigger" word created by the Repo hypos. Pregnancy begins with a zygote that eventually becomes a fetus. As such, it has no legal rights because it is not yet a person.

 -- it has no legal rights because it is not yet a person.-- demin

"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

"At least 35 states recognize the unborn child as a crime victim in some circumstances."

http://www.wwaytv3.com/no_fetal_homicide_law_in_nc/01/2008

"At least 35 states recognize the unborn child as a crime victim in some circumstances"

And yet...in every case, and every such crime...it is the pregnant women who is compensated, not the foetus.  Such laws, regardless of how they are worded, are...in reality...a recognition of the WOMAN'S emotional attachment to her developing foetus as HER "child" to be.

Any damage done is done to the WOMAN and the compensation is accorded, in consequence, to the WOMAN.

A pregnent women's emotional attachment to her developing foetus in no way confers ACTUAL status as a "child" if the foetus is incapable of being sustained outside her womb.  To her it may very well be "my child" - but to nature it's still a foetus incapable of viablity until it has reached a stage of develpment where it IS viable outside the womb.

This is based on the premise that the child is wanted.  It's based on the premise that there's an emotional attachment there.  It's not based on the idea that a fetus has rights independent of the will of the mother.

I think Wesley has a strong point here, particularly in understanding the meaning of the word "mistake" in this context. If I heard these words from an unidentified speaker, I would conclude that they were referring to, among other options, abortion. Not that I disagree at all with worrierking that many of us who accept or promote contraception are also opposed to abortion. I just think it is tin-eared or obtuse to deny that Obama's remarks in this case suggest abortion as one option. In any case, "punished with a baby" is an unfortunate and callous-sounding turn of phrase that I am sure the candidate regrets. When I hear something like this, I realize how much the rancor over this issue has hardened hearts and rhetoric on all sides.

You're spinning his comment.  If you listen to the question and then his response there is no way anyone can think he was talking about abortion unless you're a rabid far righty.

Unless of course, you take the comment out of context, as Palin did and does. And then of course, it sounds like he's talking about abortion, which he wasn't.

"I think Wesley has a strong point here, particularly in understanding the meaning of the word "mistake" in this context."

Wesley has no point.  He deliberately redefined "mistake" to mean "pregnancy" in order to make his alleged "point." 

Obama clearly defined the "mistake" to be a violation of his family's morals and values.

Typical pete592 comment

So says the typical con.

I have to say it's a rare instance where I agree with Pointoview.It was a "Typical pete592 comment"; logical, concise and very clearly exposing BS.

POVs comment was very typical as well; worthless, lacking substance and childish.

Well played, sir. Well played.

Conservatives either have failed to see the irony or poetic justice that played out during the conventions. Focus on the Family put out a video asking their flock to pray for a deluge during the democratic convention, but it was sunny and warm. The republican convention was interrupted by a hurricane Gustav, however. Limbaugh prays for a riot in Denver, but there were demonstrations and violence at the republican convention.

Because of recent statements that have joked about assassinating Obama, I have a suggestion to Liz Trotta and Roger Ailes of FOX News, and to the young man in the audience at a Sarah Palin appearance in Clearwater, Florida on Oct. 6th. What is that old saying? Be careful of what you wish for….. So far, all of your wishing and praying appears to have had a boomerang effect.

And to the poor despicably treated Sarah Palin bringing up the dead –horse topic that is Rev. Wright, I wonder if she has ever heard of the saying: Those that live in glass houses…. Statements made by her own pastors and by herself in her church justifying war as divine tasks and condemning democrats, and women who don’t support other women to eternal hellfire and damnation are just plain stupid. And insulting…to God.

There appears to be an unsettling ideology among some conservatives as of late. If liberals won’t convert or vote as they do, condemn them to hell, or kill them. Sorry, but I’m not afraid of your conservative religion.

I regret giving Loonz the impression that I might be 'spinning' on behalf of the right. I am a life-long leftie, though I hope not rabid in any case. Nonetheless, I repeat: I did listen to the question and to Obama's answer, and I think MMFA is in denial here. Obama put abortion on the table in this exchange, not as the first or only option, as Wesley might have it, but as an option. This in itself is neither here nor there, because abortion is one perfectly legal option. But referring to child-bearing as 'punishment' is not in our candidate's best interest.

AJ, do you happen to know Obamas' personal stand on abortion? We all seem to know where he stands on the legal end of it. Do you think he would suggest to his daughters, I believe he was speaking of them during the sex education question, that they should have an abortion? And when exactly did Obama mention abortion as an option? Maybe in POV's Upside Down World where you can read extra words with those Readpublican glasses, but I do recall abortion being AN option. Just another desperate attempt by the Crybaby Party to avoid what is happening in the real world.

"Obama put abortion on the table in this exchange, not as the first or only option, as Wesley might have it, but as an option."

What are you talking about?  Obama was advocating in favor of sex education to avoid pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease.

"But referring to child-bearing as 'punishment' is not in our candidate's best interest."

Do you think a teenager who may not have known the consequences of her actions will have a grand old time raising a child with her limited education and resources? Teenagers should have comprehensive sex education to avoid that type of situation, a sexually transmitted disease or potentially making the decision to terminate a pregnancy. If you still insist on reading something concerning abortion into Obama's comment, he's providing an effective way to limit the amount of abortions performed.

I'm sorry, bvt Barack WAS referencing freedom of choice and an abortion as on option if one of his daughters were to make a mistadke and find herself preggers at a young age. Media matters is stretching to make this point. BTW, he's right, teach morals and responibilty first than we need to have the rigfht to make the difficult decsion to abort.

I'm sorry, bvt Barack WAS referencing freedom of choice

Again, the question and answer had nothing to do with choice.

If you're not "pro-life", you're "pro-abortion" - there really isn't any middle ground on that subject.

I think you've mislabeled both groups.  I think one's position on abortion should be classified as either pro-natal (birth no matter what) or pro-choice (women should decide what's best for themselves).  Let's face it, most conservatives are not pro-life.

That's complete garbage.  "Pro-abortion" suggests that one want abortions to occur.  That's the stuff of the irrational right.  Virtually every person who is pro-choice would be very happy if there was never another abortion because there was never another unwanted pregnancy or pregnancy that threatened the life of the woman.  THAT is the goal of the pro-choice movement, not abortions.

Pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion, and it never will be.  You'd be hard-pressed to find a dozen people in the country who are actually pro-abortion.

if your not opposed to the death penalty, you're not "pro-life".

If your not opposed to the War in Iraq, you're not "pro-life". 

I give you the DP, but you've got to be kidding me on the WII.

He's serious.

I'm apparently in the minority opinion here, but I just have to ask: Is it such a bad thing not to want anyone "punished with a baby" REGARDLESS of whether the context of the remarks is contraception or abortion?  It's very clear that Obama's remarks (when taken in full) are about contraception, but I don't see how they are any less applicable to a woman's freedom of choice.

Babies can be one of life's great joys, but they also can be an immense responsibility, and one that some people aren't ready for.  When brought into the world to parents who aren't ready for them, they can bring lifelong poverty, missed education opportunities, emotional turmoil, strained interpersonal relationships, and social stigma.  Wouldn't it be better not to look at babies as a "consequence" or "responsibility" for having sex, but as beings that are genuinely wanted in their own right, that are brought to parents who want them and love them, and will dedicate their lives to educating and rearing them?

Read "The Scarlet Letter" if you want to see some of the "baby-as-punishment" attitude.  I wouldn't wish that moral weight on ANY potential mother OR child.

Or, we can turn more recently to examples of the "baby-as-punishment" midset:

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support. Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family."

DAWUSS, does that mean, then, that if you are pro-life, you are anti-choice?

obama's statement was plain foolish, and revealed his ultraliberal thinking.

"Teenagers should have comprehensive sex education to avoid that type of situation, a sexually transmitted disease or potentially making the decision to terminate a pregnancy.", quoting Loonz. I certainly agree with that 100%, and I hope I did not say or write anything to promote opposition to complete sex education. In pre-Roe v. Wade days I worked at a crisis center, where our most common intervention was helping teenage girls get an abortion, usually via an underground connection to two sympathietic local physicians. Everyone involved was committing a felony, and who in their right mind would want to go back to that? Not I, which is why I would never say into a microphone, as a presidential candidate, the inflammatory phrase, "punished with a baby." And certainly not after referring to a "mistake", when the mistake in question is one leading to an unintended pregnancy. Loonz, I am not a Trojan horse for an anti-choice or anti-contraception agenda. I just wish in this case Obama had chosen his words more carefully. This is a very rare case of Barack sticking his foot in it, and one can only hope it will not have terribly long legs in the press.

I find nothing wrong with what he said.  A baby or an STD is a punishment to an undereducated and resourceless teenager who didn't fully understand the consequences of her actions.

But murdering an unborn baby should never be an option after an unintended post-sexual consequence.

If you don't want kids or STDs, get an effective contraceptive or don't have sex. If you're pregnant, either give that child up for adoption or raise that child yourself.

But murdering an unborn baby should never be an option after an unintended post-sexual consequence.

I don't consider abortion "murdering an unborn baby".  Anyway, a woman can do what she wants to do with her own body.

If you don't want kids or STDs, get an effective contraceptive or don't have sex.

That's why we need comprehensive sex education.

If you're pregnant, either give that child up for adoption or raise that child yourself.

Yes, this is a couple of the options available.  And what gives you the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body?

"But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

So if his kids make a mistake and get pregnant he doesnt want them "punished" with a child. The implication here is obviously abortion so it correctly fits in with Palin's remarks.

How did you get abortion out of a question about sex ed and the consequences to a teenager and society in general if sex ed is not taught in schools?

No, he's talking about prevention.  Abortion is not prevention.  The mistake in this picture is the sex itself, meaning that even if the "abstinence" message doesn't take hold, contraception should be taught in order to prevent a pregnancy.

There's really not much ambiguity here.

I think MMFA is stretching on this one. I've heard the complete audio and Obama was clearly talking about abortion when speaking of the "punished with a baby" comment. Yes, the rest of his comments were in reference to HIV and AIDS. But not that specific comment. It makes little sense for him to be referring to HIV and AIDS when saying "I don't want them punished with a baby." Does having sex and becoming infected with HIV punish a person with a baby? That doesn't make sense even in the world of crazy progressives.

He was talking about sex education, which has effects with regards to STDs and pregnancy alike.

Did you not get that he was talking about sex education, seriously?  Bold MMfA's, italics mine:

"So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual.  But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16...You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible."

Also, did it occur to you that if he's talking about HIV/AIDS, it doesn't make any sense at all for him to refer to abortion at all?

It doesn't make sense for him to bring up getting pregnant in the context of a conversation about HIV or AIDS so he must have been referring to abortion when talking about getting pregnant.  Pay attention.

If he's talking about prevention, then it most certainly does make sense to talk about pregnancy and STDs in the same context.  Now, note his use of the words "prevention" and "prevent".

Your point lacks logic.  The idea that he was talking about abortion makes no sense considering the context.  That stands on its own, independent of your bizarre assertion that prevention of STDs has no common ground with prevention of pregnancy.  It's not as if you can say one thing doesn't make sense, therefore this other thing that clearly makes no sense at all must be the reasonable interpretation.  It doesn't work that way.

And in case you want to go there, I'll say right now that abortion is not prevention of a pregnancy.

Wow!  That's deep.  Any way you cut it he was clearly referring to abortion.  You're right, it doesn't make any sense for him to bring up abortion.  Ask him why he brought it up in the conversation about HIV and AIDS.  

You're so busy showing off your intellect that you missed the fact that it was your liberal media reporting on his gaffe. 

He brought pregnancy up because he was talking about sex education.  Again, the key word is "prevention".  Prevention of pregnancy and STDs.  You can't tell me how that doesn't make sense, and since you've admitted that it doesn't make any sense for it to be about abortion, you lose.

So your empty assertion of a "liberal media" is supposed to mean what?  As if that's supposed to convince me that it must be a valid criticism because it's liberals making it?  I think that's a pretty good sign that you're done.

So you believe he was talking about sex ed then erratically switched to abortion for that one instance and then erratically switched back to sex ed?  If it were McCain speaking, you would have a point.