The President Speaks on the Trayvon Martin Case

Wise words indeed.

The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week, the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling. I gave an — a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday, but watching the debate over the course of the last week I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.

First of all, you know, I — I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they’re going through, and it’s — it’s remarkable how they’ve handled it.

The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there are going to be a lot of arguments about the legal — legal issues in the case. I’ll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues.

The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a — in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works.

But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling. You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African- American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that — that doesn’t go away.

There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.

And there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

And you know, I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.

The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Now, this isn’t to say that the African-American community is naive about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they are disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact, although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.

We understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

I think the African-American community is also not naive in understanding that statistically somebody like Trayvon Martin was probably statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else.

So — so folks understand the challenges that exist for African- American boys, but they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it or — and that context is being denied. And — and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

Now, the question for me at least, and I think, for a lot of folks is, where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? You know, I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family.

But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do? I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government — the criminal code. And law enforcement has traditionally done it at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.

That doesn’t mean, though, that as a nation, we can’t do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I’m still bouncing around with my staff so we’re not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.

Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it’d be productive for the Justice Department — governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.

You know, when I was in Illinois I passed racial profiling legislation. And it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.

And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way, that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and in turn be more helpful in applying the law. And obviously law enforcement’s got a very tough job.

So that’s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought bear if state and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would be. And — and let’s figure out other ways for us to push out that kind of training.

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than defuse potential altercations.

I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that the stand your ground laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case.

On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?

And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

Number three — and this is a long-term project: We need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys? And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?

You know, I’m not naive about the prospects of some brand-new federal program.

I’m not sure that that’s what we’re talking about here. But I do recognize that as president, I’ve got some convening power.

And there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African-American men feel that they’re a full part of this society and that — and that they’ve got pathways and avenues to succeed — you know, I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we’re going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.

And then finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. You know, there have been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven’t seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have.

On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there’s a possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can; am I judging people, as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

And let me just leave you with — with a final thought, that as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. I doesn’t mean that we’re in a postracial society. It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated. But you know, when I talk to Malia and Sasha and I listen to their friends and I see them interact, they’re better than we are. They’re better than we were on these issues. And that’s true in every community that I’ve visited all across the country.

And so, you know, we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues, and those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days I think have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did, and that along this long, difficult journey, you know, we’re becoming a more perfect union — not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

"Hi Michael,Up to this point, I think you have been gracious and fair to me ..."

Universalism and “The Devil’s Redemption”
"Hi John,I find your distinctions quite helpful and illuminating. Most people on this list are ..."

Universalism and “The Devil’s Redemption”
"I agree Michael,N. T. Wright and Balthassar both do this."

Universalism and “The Devil’s Redemption”
"Ynree--You asked in one of your posts about my take on Isaac the Syrian. In ..."

Universalism and “The Devil’s Redemption”

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Dan Martin

    He just doesn’t understand that the breaking down of the family structure, especially in the African American community is the #1 contributor to so many of these social issues. Another government, local, religious, athletic, scholastic etc program is not going to help the situation. They can only catch them as they are falling out of the family structure without any kind of positive male role model. I’ve done inner city work down in Florida. The biggest problem facing the community is the lack of true Fathers.

  • Holly

    Here is one simple thing which could be done to help young, black males feel loved and wanted.

    Stop aborting them.

    Abortion rates within the African American demographic are devastating. He should stop supporting that.

  • Holly

    Other than that, though, a good speech.

  • First: Why would you assume President Obama doesn’t understand that the decimation of family structure contributes to all manner of social ills?

    Second: In referencing the fact that the decimation of family structure is particularly pronounced in the African-American community you have said something true, but you have also jumped into the middle of the story. We need to ask why this fact is so. Might it have something to do with another fact — the fact that during their first two and half centuries the African community in North America was subjected to the forced and systematic destruction of their families? For ten generations the African-American fathers were absent because they were sold as property by the dominant land-owning elite. And now we dumbly wonder why there is a fatherless problem in the African-American community.

  • Dan Martin

    I agree with everything that you said about why the situation is what it is. It’s a vicious cycle that has trickled down the generations. I would say that Obama doesn’t understand it because he has done little to support the traditional family, has never mentioned that it is a factor, and continually points to social programs as the answer. Maybe he has commented on the decline of the family, but I have never seen it.

  • jason

    Dan, Obama has addressed this issue in several different contexts. Here, for example:

  • Dan Martin

    Okay, I stand corrected. Thank you.

  • Barb

    Dan, saying that the President has “done little to support the traditional family” seems kind of a loaded statement. Don’t you consider trying to grow the economy, create jobs, providing health care, etc are done to help the family? Do you want him to outlaw divorce? 🙂 or turn back the clock to when –for at least the well-off–only men worked and women stayed home to take care of the kids in some traditional way? If the family structure is already broken for so many don’t we have to provide more opportunities for young men to learn how to be fathers?

  • Barb

    There are many ways that the President’s policies–if supported by all would reduce the number of abortions. Better health care is just one. I’m pretty sure that the President does not support high abortion rates. No liberal that I know does.

  • Why is it when anyone addresses any issue, the knee-jerk response by so many is “what about abortion?”

    It doesn’t seem to matter the nature of the issue — be it guns, institutionalized racism, racial profiling, poverty, etc.… …always the pat response for many is “what about abortion?”

    Like all issues of justice pales for that one, without any regard to nuance or semantics or rights; just a simple equation that abortion equals murder, and that nothing else should be done or said about any other societal ill.

  • Susan_G1

    It was a great speech. It was heartfelt, personal, non-inflammatory, true, and brave. It was meant to address our biases and how we can become a better nation. It was a courageous Presidential move.

    Can we accept it for what it was, an exhortation to do better? Some people will expand on it, based on their own agendas, by pointing out that their own biases and pet causes (no matter how valuable) were not included. It makes me wonder if they *listened* to and thought about what he was saying. He said enough for all of us to ponder seriously.

    It was good, and it was Presidential, and it was risky politically. But it was the right thing to do, and delivered in a humble and relatable manner. I am proud of him.

  • Patrick O

    “Don’t you consider trying to grow the economy, create jobs, providing health care, etc are done to help the family?”

    I don’t.

    I consider actually growing the economy, creating jobs, providing health care would help the family.

    Here in California, however, the trying rather than the doing has made things much more difficult for those of us who are sensitive to the actual conditions instead of feeling good about trying. My dad and brother, both teachers, lost their jobs. We have a low income and were on California healthy Families, which was dropped. We have higher costs, less options, for us and our daughter.

  • mark almlie

    A- speech. Theme: empathy (“I want to talk about…how people are feeling”). The President excelled at identifying with the Martin family and the African American community. I think he, overall, brought calm and helped those ‘outraged’ by the verdict to feel heard and understood by his comments. He was healer in Chief in his speech. I think, overall, he is to be commended, and I agree there was much wisdom in his speech.

    Some quibbles:

    1. He took sides. There are people on both sides of this issue. It would have been more presidential, in my opinion, if the President of the entire United States had said that he and Michelle were praying for both families–not just one family.

    2. He said, “The juries were properly instructed that in a — in a case such as this,
    reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict.” This was not a wise statement; it was a mis-characterization of the jury’s deliberation. Reasonable doubt, according to juror b37, was not the relevant issue. the relevant issue was self-defense.

    However, self-defense is not even in play as a possibility for most who are ‘outraged’ by the verdict. Therefore, it seems to me, the President simply refused to talk about self-defense as “relevant”. It simply did not fit the script of his empathy speech to those outraged–i.e. it would have enraged even more if the President gave ANY consideration that self-defense was relevant. In this particular sentence, I believe he allowed empathy to trump truth.

    3. Those that felt juror b37 empathized too much for Zimmerman (she felt sorry for both Trayvon and Zimmerman), might temper their response in the light of the President empathizing entirely with Trayvon (“I could have been Trayvon 35 years ago). Some would see this as the President choosing sides in this case.

  • Ted M. Gossard

    I agree. So sad how many will not weigh his words.

  • Nick

    If this President has been anything he has been a great orator in times of national crisis or questioning. Starting with the Jeremiah Wright controversy when his campaign faced serious questions, then on to Tucson, into Newtown and now with the country deeply divided over Zimmerman he has given yet another calming, reflective, but also suggesting some small steps we can take to get the conversation started. In no way is he a perfect President, but he has great empathy with those who suffer, something that should be remembered about him in the future.

  • LT

    Brian, we are a century and a half past the time when the African community was subjected to forced and systematic destruction of their family. No one today fathers a child out of wedlock and leaves the mother because of slavery. No one fathers 5 kids with 5 women because of slavery. The fatherless problem is due to a lack of morals in the African American community, and that starts with the leaders. It’s time to stop blaming the past and start taking responsibility.

  • Barb

    I agree with you but judging from the comment thread in my local paper over 300 people did not listen and did not get the point–instead they wrote stuff that shows just how right the President was about his assessment of the bias that still exists.

  • Holly

    Gosh, no, this fits. Can you truly not see the direct connection here? If you want a demographic of people to feel loved and wanted – which was his point, “how to do that,” – you certainly shouldn’t abort them. Abortion doesn’t exactly spell “welcome!” I did not say that I don’t like the president, I like him just fine, but it is no secret that he supports abortion, and abortion disproportionately kills black children. I don’t know why people aren’t mad as heck over that…white people own and run clinics which statistically show to kill black children. It’s genocide, and it’s tragic.

  • LorenHaas

    Holly, why would President Obama, as a African-American man support the “genocide” of black children? Perhaps instead of saying that the President “supports” abortion, it would be more accurate to say that he supports the right of every woman to choose, without government coercion? Secondly, if you want to reduce abortions, how about working towards full employment, a living wage, and reducing the incarceration of young black men?
    Or should we start locking up young black women as well?

  • Andrew Dowling

    “for both families”

    Huh? The Martins lost their son forever. Zimmerman (who I don’t believe has any children) has gone through a media circus but is in this situation because he decided to follow strangers around with a gun.

    So no, I don’t see any reason why the President should have at all equated the suffering felt by the Martins to that of Zimmerman and his wife . . .

  • DJ

    Let us assume that the problem is a lack of morals. It is evident that this lack is not due to circumstances of merely today, but it is also due to what happened in the past. The lack of morals could not have just happened this morning. The past always has play on the future. For instance, I am formed by The Enlightenment — even though I may not like it. What happened in the 17th and 18th century has a hand in shaping my 21st century thoughts and actions.

    The past then does have play on the problems of today. Yes, responsibility must be taken; by whom or what though? Systemic atrocities were present and still are present. Just because something happened century(s) ago does not entail that it has no influence on what is happening now. Culture and history are very important (you can thank Modernity for the lie that they aren’t). To forsake a consideration of the influence that history has on the present is a fallacy.

  • mark almlie

    Yes, both families are suffering. Both families are in pain. There need not be equal pain for the President to pray for both families, or do you think that Zimmerman must die first for the President to simply offer a prayer for both families?

    Zimmerman, from his perspective, was looking out for his neighbors, gets sucker punched and beaten for simply following where martin might be headed so he could relay information to the police. He has to deal with guilt/pain for shooting martin. The nation then gets whipped up by the media and he gets death threats. He gains 100 pounds from depression one imagines. He endures the possibility of life in prison for what the jury deemed was simply self-defense, and then gets more death threats and half the nation protesting his innocence after the trial.

    Ya, I think he and his family are in pain and suffering, and the President could have helped the nation re-direct its outrage from Zimmerman to gun violence or Florida laws etc, if he had simply said “Michelle and I are praying for both families.”

    The pain is not equal, but again there need not be equal pain for the President to offer prayer–and thus show his Presidential empathy/care for both sides in this tragedy.

    If this is a tragedy–if you accept the premise that Zimmerman isn’t a monster–then yes it would have been more presidential of the President to empathize with both families rather than choosing sides and only offering empathy for one side.

    You diminish the pain and suffering of Zimmerman by brushing it off and saying he has only endured “a media circus.” Daily death threats and the media painting a negative image of you–that’s pain and suffering on top of the original tragic event.

    I’m afraid a compassion and empathy that is incapable of showing compassion and empathy for both sides in this tragedy is misguided. It is an ‘us vs. them’ mentality, that should be avoided. It is a Martin is good, Zimmerman is bad mentality. It’s too simplistic and doesn’t do justice to the tragic event.

  • Andrew Dowling

    Well, it doesn’t really matter what his motive was. Lots of people do stupid things out of what is in their warped mind a good motive. The guy nominated himself neighborhood watch and ended up killing somebody. Any ridicule he receives is the result of HIS CHOICE he made. That’s not saying he’s a monster, it’s saying he’s responsible for the outcome. Martin on the other hand didn’t choose to be followed around by a guy with a gun “looking for troublemakers.” If you can’t see this is ethical apples to oranges than I don’t know what else to say. I think any move to place their levels of suffering AT ALL on the same plane is completely faulty.

  • LT

    Thanks for that, though I am not sure how that is a response to me. I never denied that the past has influence. It does. But it’s not a cause. The responsibility that must be taken for children is the father’s and the mother’s, and that’s true in every generation.

    With your line of thinking, there is no hope because the past will always be the past, and there will be no hope for escape from slavery to it. But when we begin to teach personal responsibility, that changes. People can have hope because they are responsible for themselves.

    There are systemic problems, and I live in the middle of them and try to pastor in the middle of them. But the hope I give to young people is not that the system will change, but that you can change. You can be different. Your past, and that of your ancestors, does not have to be your master.

  • Holly

    That’s not what I said, and it isn’t even logical, Loren.

    Of course you don’t lock up black women who are pregnant. (I’d point out that women don’t have to be particularly young to be pregnant. Women ages 11-50+ can and do have babies. But anyway….) Let me flip the question back to you. Why do you love abortion so much that you are willing to defend it in conversation with a woman you don’t even know? Why do you ignore statistics and clear connections and Obama’s voting record. You don’t know my background, yet you will jump in and defend Obama’s policies in a comment to me. I’ve read his books, I’ve read his explanations…but his votes are what they are, and his support for Planned Parenthood couldn’t be more clear. I find him a very likeable fellow, admirable in many ways. But on the issue of abortion? Abysmal. And his supporters, like you, push me further away.

    But it’s not just you. I’m stunned at the level of support for abortion here at a Christian site. I used to be drawn to progressive Christianity, thought it appeared more loving. It took several years, but I see that is a fallacy. Progressive Christianity is loving only to pre-selected groups; those who are fashionable at the moment. So sad.

    I am standing up for young women of all colors, against the more powerful people who make money off of aborting their children. Poor women, poor black women, especially, are vulnerable to those who perform abortions. The only acceptable approach is compassion and genuine, tangible, provision and help for them and their children.

    If one ethnic group is statistically aborted at greater levels than any other, this is a tragedy. Why aren’t you as upset about it as you are the other issues you raised?

  • Susan_G1

    “The only acceptable approach is compassion and genuine, tangible, provision and help for them and their children.”

    Holly, this is untrue, and naive. Women from all classes and backgrounds have abortions for various reasons. Not in a serious/healthy relationship, interferes with schooling, too many children already, not ready for a child, others. Do you think, given a choice, most women will carry the fetus to term because you’re going to help them (how?)? Mostly, they don’t want the child, Holly. With or without your help.

    One point I haven’t heard you raise: contraception. If you really want to reduce the number of abortions, the best way is to reduce the number of pregnancies. The best way to do that is to make contraception free/nearly free, it’s use easy to understand, and readily available to all. Do you have problems with that? I ask because ironically, most anti-abortion advocates are also anti-free-contraception and even anti-sex-education.

    Obama has supported the woman’s right to safe abortions. He also strongly advocates for contraception, including having the insurance of non-profits and religious organizations cover contraception costs. His stance may cut the number of abortions much more than you’re willing to acknowledge.

  • Holly

    You admit it is a child which is killed! That’s good, Susan. Admitting the truth of the issue is the first step. Your saying that the killing of a child is due to selfishness and a lack of desire to have a real and living child is…well, it’s just honest. I don’t see that a lot. Perhaps in your search for integrity and consistency, you’ll keep walking forward and your heart will become tender for the child’s rights, as well.

    But oddly enough, I haven’t heard you mention teaching men to be responsible. Why is that? Why is that never a part of the abortion discussion? Serious question, which needs to be thought through. Why do we not call men to responsibility?

    Regarding contraception; that’s up to individuals to decide. It’s not that expensive; available at any drug or grocery store. It’s widely available in other countries, too, I’ve been to many. In the US, there is absolutely no reason for it to be governmentally funded. If people want government to stay out of their bedroom, they need to stop asking government to fund their birth control. In other countries, shouldn’t we leave that up to their own government? How supremist and colonialist for us to go to other countries and tell them to use birth control, or tie the issue to receiving foreign aid.

    I was interested to recently read “The Hospital by the River,” where Dr. Elizabeth Hamblin is the founder (and has been a pioneering surgeon) of the Fistula Center (Ethiopia.) She’s given her entire life to repairing fistulas which are caused by a lacking of prenatal care and the ability to get to the hospital in time. In the book, she addresses the issue of outsiders coming in and trying to force her to tell the women to use birth control. She is angered by it; feels it is a horrible idea. She says that the outsiders have no idea of the culture, of the intrinsic issues involved with being a woman in Ethiopia. Instead, she speaks very firmly to the Ethiopian Church, asking them to TEACH MEN TO BE RESPONSIBLE, and teaching them the proper way to care for their wives and daughters. I respect that approach for the church, rather than stepping in and imposing my western view on the world.

  • LorenHaas

    Holly, based on
    your argument, you would use the power of the state to lock up women who made
    the choice to end their pregnancy. That is what making choice in abortion access illegal means.
    Lock them up.

    What if instead of being so regressive and penal, the power and resources of
    the state is used to encourage men and women to be responsible in their sex
    lives and make raising a child in a safe supportive community more of a
    reality? How about focusing on health care for everyone, employment opportunity for everyone? How many abortions would be never considered if this option was
    the norm?

    Or we could use the state to build more prisons.

  • Susan_G1

    Holly, you condescend. Of course it’s a child. Do you think most mothers don’t know that?

    It was as I supposed. The best way to reduce abortions is to prevent them. You want to intrude into a woman’s body, but you don’t want the government to intrude into the bedroom. Strange philosophy. No one will force a woman to use contraception. But some women can’t afford it, though, as you say, the drugstore is right there. One can’t walk in and buy the pill. A doctor visit is needed, a prescription. If you cared about the life of even one of these aborted children, you would support sex-ed (yearly), and free or nearly free contraception in all it’s forms.

    Teaching men… do you think they are stupid oxen? When the women feel strong enough to say no, that will help. If society actually punished men for getting women pregnant (intercourse without protection), say a month in the slammer; that would cut down on unwanted pregnancies, too, when there were real consequences to doing the wrong thing, like job loss, jail-time, and shame.

    It’s a fantasy world you live in where you save babies by winning over the mother to 9 months plus 18 years and talk to boys and tell them it’s a no-no to abandon their responsibilities, instead of the simple solution of pregnancy prevention.

  • Holly

    You are both nonsensical. I can tell that you’ve been involved in these conversations before; you have your rote answers down pat. You make assumptions and stereotypes, don’t even really engage with what I’ve said, specifically you, Loren. Perhaps you should quit using a lame fear tactic (telling women that pro-lifers want to lock them up for getting pregnant) and actually talk with people based upon what they have said. You win no bonus points with me. Susan, who condescends? Really? Lol.

    I won’t waste any more time on the conversation. You know truth, even as you ignore it. Best wishes to you as you continue to soothe your consciences.

  • LorenHaas

    Locking up women for getting pregnant? Where did that come from? Are we discussing “Brave New World” now? Since we are not connecting let’s agree to stop trying.

  • Susan_G1

    Holly, I was being sincere. If you want to discuss the issue and can look past some of the snark, I do want to discuss it.