Dang, the pro-choice folks sure are getting all willy-nilly about it. Shoot, even Gloria Allred is now getting involved....asserting that the ad is based upon falsehood.
Because feminists see it as an attack of a woman's right to choose; of course they fail to understand their right to choose is really their right to choose whether to engage in sexual activity or not (excluding rape, obviously).
OK, so what's so wrong with choosing life, as Tim's mom had? It's a celebration on their part. In fact, a rather heartwarming human interest message if you asked me.
There's nothing wrong with choosing life. You somewhat inquired as to why the spot was controversial and I explained that it was mainly feminists getting upset and why they were getting upset. I applaud Tebow for doing this ad, and believe I stated so in the religious player/screwup player thread.
I just flat-out don't see how it's an "attack" on a woman's right to choose. In fact, Tebow's mom very much had a right to choose. And, she made her choice.
Personally, I don't think abortion will be made illegal. However, I think it's a great idea to educate women on the potential dangers of such decisions. And, in the case of this ad, showing a positive outcome from a difficult decision.
I agree, although I think it is a great idea to educate everyone on the benefits of not getting an abortion and the value of life.
I'm what you would consider a very liberal person, so I am pro-choice. I absolutely hate abortions though. I wish we lived in a world where there weren't so many kids already without families, so that when a person doesn't want to keep their child, it would be easy to find them a family. I lose a great amount of respect for women who get abortions.
Whether you are for or against abortion, the key for me is that I do not believe the government should be involved in the decision. Just like I do not believe the government should be involved in gay marriage. It's not a decision for politicians to make.
Largely agree with you, except I'd expand "gay marriage" to "marriage." Government shouldn't handle "marriage" at all. For tax purposes and wills and whatever other procedural business there is, there should be civil unions for everyone, gay or straight. If people want to get "married" in addition, that's between them and their minister.
WTF is a Tebow? edit: never mind, I googled it. Pretty clear the whole story is pure fiction but not surprised ultra-fundamentalist network CBS is shameless enough to run it. Pretty hard nowadays to find true facts to support their radically antiquated views.
Here's the ad for those who haven't seen it yet: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/tim-tebow-super-bowl-ad_n_441091.html
The pro-life side sees abortion as taking the life of a human. Why shouldn't the government be involved in laws related to taking a human life? Should the government be involved if the child is a year old? 3 years old? etc, etc.
Of course it is fiction. Who'd believe that a woman would be counseled to have an abortion, and yet "Choose" something different? And who'd believe that that little bundle of joy would grow up to be a Heisman-winning quarterback? Hate on, progressives....hate on. BTW...I watched every word of Jehmu Greene's interview with O'Reilly. Her contention is that this is a trick by an anti-gay, anti-abortion group (FotF) to undermine abortion and the woman's right to choose. However, she couldn't say how. This seems a celebration of a "woman's right to choose" and therefore something that she should be celebrating. She wasn't forced to do something she didn't want to do. The furor over this is immensely hypocritical.
My wife just entered her third trimester. I've seen pictures, video and sound from the fetus since she was 6 weeks old. What magically happens at 22 weeks that turns her from being a procedure away from the medical waste bin to a felony at 22 weeks, 1 day? "Viability"? Does that mean that anyone not viable to live without 24/7 invasive medical attention should be allowed to be terminated? Maybe that's apples and oranges, but I just don't get it.
when the Republicans had a born again President, a decided advantage in the Senate, and the Supreme Court, why didn't they challenge Roe v Wade once? It would seem that their fundamentalist base would want to know why they never once stood up and acted on their rhetoric maybe because it is settled law and to do so would be political suicide as most of America is very much in favor of the right to choose? STOMP
But when is the right to choose? Is it before or after conception? If you have sexual relations knowing full well that pregnancy is a very possible consequence, isn't your choice then? Why snuff out the possibility for human life? This of course excludes rape-pregnancy which is a very, very sensitive issue.
