Barack Obama's open letter to his daughters and every child in America

[spokette]

Brack Obama published this letter in Parade Magazine in USA last week.

At his core, he is a family man who loves and cherishes his daughters as well as his beautiful wife. I love him.

Oh, that's good, I'm not under suspicion, I've not been gushing....

Just seen your profile, Pavlov - I wasn't far off my guess of your career!

I think Dubya was a bit of a fox in his much younger days. I know. You're shocked.

I've seen pix of Dubs as a youth. No. He. Wasn't.

Oh come on. I love a man in uniform, me.

Well, I agree, given the choices, if we re gonna have some-ones mug all over the papers for the next god knows how many weeks, it might as well be a good looking mug. But lets not get carried away with the reasons. If he was a a minger, and spoke in a horrid nasal voice that we could not bear to listen to (instead of that take me to bed voice), would we be gushing 'quite' as much?

I am not quite a psychologist...

I am seriously questioning your taste. For one thing, Dubya hardly counts as "a man", does he? More like an early life form.

at MrsMerryHenry

Oh i love a man in uniform too....might not necessarily want him to say much though...

Honestly Pavvers (can I call you Pavvers? It feels so...I dunno, pubic school) I think the reason for gushing is just the fact that he's personable and intelligent. All the things Dubya ain't. So it's kind of a gush of relief, like when you pass wind and your waistband feels looser. So, to sum up, George Dubya Bush was a big fart and now he's been passed. Ahhhhhh...

MrsMerryHenry - at your analogy! Not quite as sexy now though!

(I was rather proud of it, myself!)

Gasp! "pubic school"!

ROFL

I did not even read it as that! I was just about to say feel free to call me Pavvers if you please, but certainly not sure if it has those connotation!
ROFL

Oh dear, maybe I should just stick to "Pavlov"!

I'm quite worried about my own taste atm. I seem to be warming up to all sorts. I shan't confess how long it's been, but abstinence is clearly not doing me any good...

Kay. you need one of these

I have not read the letter yet but saw mention of The Obamas' decsicion to send their DDs to private school and wanted to comment.

I can only speak about his time in Chicago but imagine that he sent his DDs to a $20,000 a year school because the other schools in the area are appalling. And, until that changes, many people do everything they can to send their children elsewhere. I know this because I am desperately searching for somewhere to send DS and I so wanted him to go to a state-funded school. The school system here is different to the UK (I have worked in both) and a bad school in England is nothing compared to what we have here. Children get shot at our local schools. Even elementary schools. Yes, they need to change but, until they do, private schools will be preferred by the majority of families in our neighborhood even though we can't afford it. Jimmy Carter did not send his daughter to a Chicago Public School.

It certainly wasn't about security in Chicago - anyone can walk into the school that the girls were at, even after he was elected. I go in twice a week and no-one ever questioned who I am or why I was there (my child doesn't go to school).I have no doubt that after he was elected, things were tightened up and that the SS were present but, to me, security was lacking. I know things will be different in DC.

I really think that it is unfair to judge him on the choice of school unless you know something about his options.

I'll go and read the letter now.

I read all the posts first and then clicked on the link. It was actually a lot better than I was expecting!

FAQtothefuture - Americans do still have a huge 'element of choice' regarding abortion.

What Bush did (probably the ONE goog thing he did!) was abolish partial birth abortions, which are horrific procedures (google it and find out exactly what it entails before you pass any judgement - I defy any mother not to be if they know the full implications of it). Obama has said the first thing he will do as president is make it lawful again... Why he has said that I realy cannot understand as he seems such a decent man in every other way.

I know what a partial birth abortion is, yes it's horrific, but then in my mind most forms of abortion of horrific (different thread I know I know I know)

Lets not forget that one of the first things that Bush did when he came into power was to stop funding any health clinic that offered abortion advice, or even mentions abortions when giving referrals and counselling.

He also blocked $200 million dollars of funding to the United Nations Population Fund . Not only did that not help reduce the number of abortions in poorer countries, but increased the number of unsafe ones. And also reduced access for contraception and prenatal care as the clinics which were affected cover more than one thing.

I am pro-life, but I will defend any woman's right to do what she chooses with her body and foetus.

And to be frank many states in the US offer little "choice" for woman, especially those with no private health insurance.

BUT surely it is a step in the right direction to introduce legislation which will reduce the number of abortions... and a step in the wrong direction to repeal that legislation?

In my mind if the law makes it harder to get an abortion there will be fewer abortions.

The freedom of choice act will allow tax payers money to be used to fund abortions - why not use that money to provide support for mothers with unwanted pregnancies?

I am also pro life, but unlike you I would defend the life of the unborn child before the wishes of the mother. The law is there to protect the weakest most vulnerable members of society - not to assist in murdering them!

If the Freedom of choice act is introduced Catholic bishops have vowed to shut down catholic hospitals (as otherwise they will be forced to perform abortions) - and that will reduce all kinds of healthcare for underpriviledged people.

If you understand how horrific partial birth abortion is (Pure and simply the brutal and painful murder of a baby which might otherwise survive to live a normal life) - how can you support it being legal? Morally, there is no difference between it and being allowed to murder old or handicapped people (in a cruel and painful way!) just because their relatives can't be bothered to look after them.

but there's no evidence it's reduced the number of abortions. Only evidence to show that legal and safe abortions have reduced. Of course very few figures on illegal and dangerous abortions, but reports would indicate that those are on the rise..

I would much rather (despite my own personal prolife veiw on the subject) that any woman can choose to abort and have it done safely with the correct support before, during and after. Than see the number of "backstreet" abortions increase even further.

I do know someone (not in the UK) who several years ago had an illegal abortion, he was made infetrtile and has horrendous problems "down there" now all these years later.

Making abortions difficult/illegal to do doesn't mean that people stop having them.

It does mean people are LESS LIKELY to have them though, and will at least think twice about it.

I certainly wouldn't want the number of illegal abortions to increase either - which is why i think the government should spend more money on supporting mothers with unwanted pregnancies (and perhaps on hunting down and prosecuting backstreet abortionists) - much better to spend the money on that than on providing abortions legally.

Bush introduced the first legislation in years that made abortions more difficult rather than more easy - and I just think it was a step in the right direction - it's such a shame to go back to square one. If Obama had said he was going to review things a bit I would understand it more, but to say he is going to make abortion easier in all of these different ways as his FIRST ACT as president...it's just too extreme.

On the bright side, at least the Freedom of choice act should bring it all into the public eye once again and hopefully make people think about it rather than just let things carry on as they are... Particularly in Britain where the laws are even more barbaric.

but if you make abortion illegal/difficult to obtain then backstreet abortions go up. It doesn't stop those woman with unwanted pregnancies that much less likely to want to keep the baby.

It simply increases the number of backstreet abortions. Frequently resulting in death or permanent scarring (both phsyicaly and pyschological) to the mother.

As I've got a few spare minutes this afternoon, and this is on my threads I'm on, I thought I'd slip in a comment, but I probably won't be back for a while.

The choice, as I see it, is between the definite death of lots of pre-born children through legal abortion, or the possible harm to women who choose illegal abortion. For me (and this is probably the crux of why my pro-life beliefs compel me to believe in making abortion illegal) the definite deaths have to take precendence over the possible deaths.

That's why I was against Israel's recent war against Hamas - it wasn't a good enough argument to say that Israelis might die, so Israel had to definitely kill lots of Palestinians.

I just don't think that forcibly ending someone's life is ever an appropriate response to suffering. I know people disagree with me, and I totally respect that they do so in good conscience. I believe Obama holds those different beliefs in good conscience, too. But I just thought I'd stick my reasoning out there for the sake of conversation.