right. People have the right to choose to have an abortion before conception... way to sum things up STOMP
no shit! What does that have to do with the Roe v Wade decision that gave Americans the right to choose to have an abortion? Nobody wants to have one, and many people (like me for instance) can't imagine having one with their significant other, but that doesn't mean that I want to take away the right for others to choose to have one if they deem that the right choice. STOMP
The pro-death folks see any sort of ad against their viewpoint as an attack on themselves personally. It's just the way they are.
Listening to a tv news show the other day, one of the people on it said "the pro-abortion group". I don't know if that's what they really think that is what you would call that point of view (and actually don't know), or if they're purposely trying to miss label the group by calling them something that if you think about the name is pretty much something that can't be defend able. No one is "pro abortion". They're pro choice. I would venture a bet that far more people who are pro choice are actually not in favor of abortions but believe someone else has the right to make their own personal choice.
I bet some of them believe that, and some of them are purposefully trying to mislabel people that are pro-choice. I have never heard anyone say that abortions are good or they like abortions.
a perfect demonstration of the pot kettle hypocrisy... probably thinks he's justified too in other news... STOMP
I'm pro-death. I just don't see why we limit it to fetuses when there are perfectly acceptable adult candidates as well.
You can't have it both ways. Nearly all "Right to force people to have unwanted babies" proponents, or "Pro-lifers" as they erroneously call themselves, paradoxically oppose any and all public taxation to provide the lifelong social services these unwanted children will need to become and remain productive citizens.
education and access to condoms has shown to significantly lower unwanted pregnancies but the religious right is against that too, counting solely on proven loser abstinence only teachings and attacking everything else. It's not just the couple that has the baby that is responsible for unwanted pregnancies, it's also the taxpayer who bears the cost. I'd rather owe less then more. I'll ask it again... when the Republicans had a born again in the White House, a decided advantage in the Senate, and the Supreme Court, why didn't they challenge Roe v Wade once? STOMP
Personally, I don't think it's the Government's place to stipulate - one way or the other. However, I believe it "is" its obligation to educate the masses....such as Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign, which turned out to be quite successful at the time. Therefore, I think it's absolutely appropriate/fine - during a national event - for Tebow and his Mom to declare their celebration of life.
I really don't see what the fuss is all about here. Nobody's even seen the commercial yet, so there's nothing specific to protest. If anything, the decision by CBS to air an advocacy ad at all might be questionable. I happen to be quite pro-choice, but I have no problem with ANY rhetoric (short of threat of physical harm) against it. Even if the ad were to advocate banning abortion, we all have the right to agree or disagree with it. If the ad convinces women to not have abortions, that is their decision. It all boils down to the woman's decision, period, and doctors shouldn't advocate abortions nor other options but should provide the options and let the woman choose, than facilitate that choice. As far as the ad goes, it's a business deal between an advertiser and CBS. Nothing illegal about it. If the womens' rights groups want to buy ads to counter whats in this ad, I think they should go for it.
so you support Planned Parenthood type education and the like or do you want to cling to the narrow scope of pushing abstinence only education despite it's clear failure? I haven't seen the ad, so I don't really know what it's about. If it's just about a mother and son celebrating life, whats to debate? If it's more them pushing unpopular political/religious views on the general population, I can understand why some chafe. Me? I plan to be snowboarding (if the conditions are good) or hiking while everyone else is watching TV! STOMP
after my last post I did some digging on google to see whats what. Very interesting first hit suggesting that their inspirational story is BS http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/tim-tebow-super-bowl-ad-m_n_442808.html STOMP
That article is nonsense. There were 500,000 fully legal abortions the year before Roe v. Wade decision. It was legal in California and New York, as well as many other states. Note that while it might have been illegal in the state she was in or lived in, it's fully legal to go to a state where it is legal and have one. Just like it's always been legal to gamble in Vegas while it was illegal in peoples' home states.
Nonsense? Certainly it's a much longer flight from the Philippines to the states then from the East Coast to Vegas... It will be interesting to hear what sort of sickness she had that would have them recommending that she take a long flight back to the US and have an abortion. It seems farfetched to me that this is what the Philippine doctors were advocating and it certainly wasn't what her group's docs were pushing. I hope she doesn't go light on the details about her illness STOMP
