Tebow vs. women???

[khyron65]

I don't think it is really a philosophical issue...Is it a life or not?  Is it a collection of biological mass...or is it a baby?  If it is a life, then does it deserve to be protected?  If it's not a life, then when does it become one?  If you draw the biomass/life line at say, 4 months...what's to stop someone else from moving that line further up, or further back?

Then you have to wonder where are the lines to be drawn.  What about the "potential of life" as in protection of  sperm or eggs?  Why don't most pro-lifers walk the walk and be vegetarians or better yet, vegans?  Any life is sacred isn't it?  Put down that fly swatter too!

Hello, animals and plants dont have souls! And neither do babies until they are one year old, has to be true, saw it on Venture Bros!

[funky49]

Then you have to wonder where are the lines to be drawn.  What about the "potential of life" as in protection of  sperm or eggs? 

The way I break it down:
Given nutrition, shelter and time a spurt of sperm just dies on their own.
Given nutrition, shelter and time an egg is flushed out of the uterus, dies.
Given nutrition, shelter and time a fertilized egg becomes a living baby.
Given nutrition, shelter and time a teenager moves out to live on their own.
Therefore, a fertilized egg is life. It's a life inside of the momma. It's her job to take care of it (one way or the other). If someone thunk it out different, please share.

I know of a mom-to-be that drank while preggo. I've seen a couple moms-to-be that smoked during their pregnancy. Is that child abuse? If abortion was outlawed, shouldn't we then have laws enforcing women to not smoke/drink*? If we do that, what about the gov't making sure moms-to-be also take their pre-natal vitamins and all the other mom things?

*maybe that's a law already on the books?

[jsgtrman]

On the news:  "Planned parenthood plans to release ad to counter Tim Tebow's anti-abortion ad"

Still... 

Understanding even LESS now...  "Planned Parenthood" group would be promoting...PLANNING to have a child and not abortion, correct?

Tim Tebow's anti-abortion ad would be....planning on NOT having an abortion, correct?

Isn't it the same thing???

Are people bitching just to bitch?

[funky49]

Understanding even LESS now...  "Planned Parenthood" group would be promoting...PLANNING to have a child and not abortion, correct?

From watching so much Penn & Teller... PP run the gamut from abstinence to contraceptive use to abortion... everything is on the table. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control-4211.htm

[funky49]

wait, i just read through the list.

BREASTFEEDING is a form of birth control? Geez.

I'm surprised "Dorky Looking Glasses" aren't on that list.

[Yosho]

I don't think it is really a philosophical issue...Is it a life or not? 

I would say that I'm produce as well, but I lean heavily to the life side.  I still respect that they do, in fact have a choice.  As I alluded to earlier, I have yet to meet a woman who chose to aborted their baby and say it was a good choice.

I'm not talking about my own body and hopefully this will never apply to my wife or any daughters that we might have together, so I approach it as a philosophical and moral issue rather than a practical one.  I feel I've narrowed down the problem (when does a soul begin) but am unable to arrive at a conclusion (I'm not God), therefore I don't feel I can force my views on anyone else.  Having said that, I certainly wouldn't advocate abortion without that critical insight... so our viewpoint seems to be very similar.

Is it a collection of biological mass...or is it a baby?  If it is a life, then does it deserve to be protected?  If it's not a life, then when does it become one?  If you draw the biomass/life line at say, 4 months...what's to stop someone else from moving that line further up, or further back?

Exactly the point.  We're dealing with concept of a soul that's been debated and contemplated for thousands of years.  Is a body just a shell, a collection of cells if it doesn't have a soul?  What is a soul? Does a soul start at birth or at conception?  Does all life have a soul or is it something unique to humans?  Just some of the many questions surrounding the issue of abortion.

There are, however exceptions to every rule.  Any person who tells a mother that they will carry their pregnancy regardless of circumstance, risk of health etc. is a nutjob.

I wouldn't tell a prospective mother that either, but I can see how those who feel they have the answers to the above questions would and should.  What is more surprising to me is that most of those who feel they can answer these questions feel that exceptions are acceptable.  Following their logic (not mine), I just can't square that with their stated viewpoint.  Since you share my general viewpoint, perhaps someone else here who feels they know when a soul begins can tell me how the exceptions are morally justifiable?

 

[Yosho]

The way I break it down:
Given nutrition, shelter and time a spurt of sperm just dies on their own.
Given nutrition, shelter and time an egg is flushed out of the uterus, dies.
Given nutrition, shelter and time a fertilized egg becomes a living baby.
Given nutrition, shelter and time a teenager moves out to live on their own.
Therefore, a fertilized egg is life. It's a life inside of the momma. It's her job to take care of it (one way or the other). If someone thunk it out different, please share.

I know of a mom-to-be that drank while preggo. I've seen a couple moms-to-be that smoked during their pregnancy. Is that child abuse? If abortion was outlawed, shouldn't we then have laws enforcing women to not smoke/drink*? If we do that, what about the gov't making sure moms-to-be also take their pre-natal vitamins and all the other mom things?

*maybe that's a law already on the books?

Very logical breakdown and an interesting analysis... so you take a strictly biological view of the issue?  At the moment of birth, a fetus becomes a newborn baby and is no longer reliant upon the mother's body for life.  Is that your determining factor on when the mother should have the ability to end it's life?  As you point out, that seems to be consistent with the history of western civilization law.  You raise some good points about what exactly is child abuse if the behavior is prenatal and what would be the logical consequences of that position.

[funky49]

Very logical breakdown and an interesting analysis... so you take a strictly biological view of the issue?  At the moment of birth, a fetus becomes a newborn baby and is no longer reliant upon the mother's body for life.  Is that your determining factor on when the mother should have the ability to end it's life?  As you point out, that seems to be consistent with the history of western civilization law.  You raise some good points about what exactly is child abuse if the behavior is prenatal and what would be the logical consequences of that position.

I'm not much into theology so yeah, its easier for me to understand this issue from a biological viewpoint.

A woman's body is her own. Hopefully she makes decisions with the other half of the baby's genetics. She's ultimately responsible for what goes on with her own body. I'm not for abortions in the 3rd trimester as that's apparently the least healthy time for her and the best chance for the baby to get nutrition+shelter outside of her 'shelter'. It's just a messy subject.

The best bet is to keep youngsters informed in an age appropriate way. Show the cause and effect of their actions. Encourage abstinence but recognize the powerful biology going on and the real possibility your kids will have sex some time in their lives. Ideally abortions should be much more rare, and would be if there was better sex education.

"As long as I was in Washington, I never met anybody that I thought was was good enough, who knew enough or loved enough to make sexual decisions for anybody else." -Jocelyn Elders on Penn & Teller Bullsh!t
http://www.tv.com/video/5576/101/17579/

There's another argument against abortions. It's from the camp that believes that women/babies are just supposed to die in pregnancies/birth to keep traits from possibly being passed on. It's like a better "survival of the species" thought that's pretty cold but I thought I'd throw it out there. It's kinda like Intelligent Design being supported by both religious groups as well as believers in alien visitation... makes for strange bedfellows.

Bedfellows ha! Ba-da-bing! HEY! I'll be here all week!

[Jocko]

Hello, animals and plants dont have souls! And neither do babies until they are one year old, has to be true, saw it on Venture Bros!

Life is life isn't it?  Whose place is it to pick and choose which forms of life on the planet should be protected and which should not?  It's about end-to-end consistency of an argument.

[briefcase]

Life is life isn't it?  Whose place is it to pick and choose which forms of life on the planet should be protected and which should not?  It's about end-to-end consistency of an argument.

Because there's so much in life (with the exception of death) that's consistent from end-to-end... 

foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

[Wumpus]

Focus on the Family's Super Bowl commercial with Pam and Tim Tebow

Well, boys and girls there it is. 

The ad the has generated so much controversy,so much fear about supressing women's choices.  It made Planned Parenthood, NOW and NARAL all have such a collective fit that they had to pressure CBS to pull it off the air before anybody's eyes were stained for all time by the horrible images it would generate and Planned Parenthood had to rush to put out a counter ad before ever even viewing it.

So I ask you...What's offensive about this?

[Wumpus]

I guess this is NOW's attempt to salvage something from the avalanche of embarrassment the past 10 days have caused.

Pro-Abortion Group Claims Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad Promotes Domestic Violence

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
February 8, 2010

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Unable to gain any traction by calling the Focus on the Family Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad extremist or over the top, pro-abortion groups today are offering a new dig on the commercial. The president of NOW and other abortion advocates claim the ad promotes domestic violence.

The Super Bowl ad has won praise from pro-life advocates who have hailed its heartwarming storyline and the helpful impact of the ad on the abortion debate over the last several weeks.

The ad features Pam Tebow sharing her story of how Tim Tebow "almost didn't make it into this world" because of her tough pregnancy.

The ad directs viewers to the Focus on the Family web site where Tebow shares more about how her doctor advised her to have an abortion because of the heavy drugs she was given to combat dysentery she contracted while serving on a missions trip to the Philippines.

In an attempt to fall in line with the humorous nature of most Super Bowl commercials, the Focus on the Family in-game ad shows Tebow tackling his mom and his mother playfully scolding him for interrupting her.

In remarks that are raising eyebrows from pro-life advocates, NOW president Terry O'Neill said that bit of the ad glorified violence against women.

"I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it," she told the Los Angeles Times. "That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."

O'Neill's reaction drew guffaws even from hardcore abortion advocates.

Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for Choice, told the Times that NOW is way off base.

"It's absurd to claim that this is an endorsement of violence against women," Kissling said. "These people came across as affectionate, loving, funny and happy."

NOW wasn't alone in trying to play the domestic violence card.

Abortion advocate Amanda Marcotte had this post on Twitter that has drawn a reaction from pro-life advocates: "Hey Mom! Tried to kill you from the womb and failed. How about a blind side tackle? Violence against Moms."

The ad drew praise and support from pro-life groups.

Americans United for Life Action president Charmaine Yoest told LifeNews.com, "This ad was funny, light-hearted, and had a positive message for everyone. The hate-filled reaction from pro-abortion groups reveals a radical abortion-at-any-cost agenda that is far out of step with the American people. Congratulations to Focus on the Family for inspiring us all in the face of extremism."

Monica Miller of the Center for a Pro-Life Society noted, "the very fact that pro-abortion people made a stink about it in the weeks leading up to the Super Bowl, was a plus for the pro-life movement."

"The threat that a pro-life commercial was to air during the Super Bowl caused millions of people to focus on the abortion issue--and the pro-abortionists looked foolish, narrow-minded, paranoid and ridiculous," Miller added.

"Now that the real ad has aired--and the abortion issue was never addressed--the pro-abortionists look even more ridiculous," she told LifeNews.com

[jsgtrman]

Actually, it was reported that this WASN'T the original commercial idea, and that it was edited.  So, somebody decided to tone down whatever it was gonna be a bit.  I thought it was fine, and most people were saying "That was IT?  What was the big deal?".  Many apparently didn't even know what it was about or promoting. It was a little funny and lighthearted. It's crazy NOW they're talking about violence against women...again just bitching just to find something to bitch about. What about the commercial with Betty White and Abe Vigoda being tackled?  Is that promoting violence against old people?

[funky49]

Okay... so they made a light commercial with a famous person in it and they gave a web address for people to find out more information. Great job Go Daddy! Everyone loves some Danica Patrick!

Oh yeah, the Focus on the Family folks did the same thing.

[briefcase]

The ad the has generated so much controversy,so much fear about supressing women's choices.

Only conservatives trade in 'fear'; when progressives do it, it's called 'expressing concern' or 'defending our freedoms' or what have you.