Tim Tebow to deliver anti-abortion message during SB (1 Viewer)

[Chaka]

Maybe Tebust should spend less time talking about abortion and more time correcting his QB flaws!

I think Tebow is slightly more concerned about his status as a person and a christian than he is a football player. Believe it or not beliefs might come first ahead of career status. And this might blow your mind even more, but maybe just maybe Tebow wants success because he believes he has something positive to say and a good message to spread and what bigger stage could he have to speak on than being an NFL player, or just as good, in a superbowl commercial. Good for this guy, he has strong beliefs and sticks to them. We need more people like this in the WORLD, and whether or not he ends up the best QB ever...who cares.

Maybe, just maybe a 22 year old with extremely limited life experience (most of which involves him being put on a pedestal) should shut his mouth, play football and learn a little bit about life before preaching to adults who live in a much different world than Tebow has ever known.When has this guy ever lived in the real world? When has he ever faced any sort of adversity that did not come in the form of a blitzing linebacker or safety? Missionary trips on his summer vacation as a pre-teen are the sum total of his experiences with adversity (none of which he was forced to overcome, he was merely a spectator to the adversity of others). He was effectively raised and educated in seclusion by missionaries. At every turn in his life he has been able to write his own ticket. Tebow simply does not have any life experience that would allow him to see or understand life through anything but the prism of his own sheltered and self entitled existence.I am not saying he is a bad person, by all accounts it's quite to the contrary but he is not the right person for this advertisement. If it was Kurt Warner doing this ad I think it would be far more credible.

I'm 39. How old are you? Have I been through enough life experience to preach to someone?I've been pro-life ever since I first learned what an abortion was. My life experience has done nothing but reinforce that opinion and I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth or even a brass one for that matter.You are entitled to your opinion on the matter. But for you to demean Tebow for having one based upon his lack of "real-world" experience as it relates to this topic is laughable. What next, he can't say it's wrong to sell crack to kids or kill grandmas in drive-byes because he wasn't raised in the projects?

Read the thread, I have already addressed this but here is the synopsis:Selling crack and killing grandmothers are black and white issues (please provide me with an argument in favor of selling crack and killing grandmothers and I will be happy to reevaluate my position).Abortion is not a black or white issue it is deeply complex and nuanced. You may think abortion is wrong but at least 1/2 the country disagrees. Does 1/2 the country think selling crack and killing grandmothers is not a bad thing? 1/3rd? 1/10th? 1/100th? How about anyone who is not institutionalized or selling crack or killing grandmothers?

 

[Rovers]

Oh, there is no doubt that it is an anti-abotion message, but I suspect it will come across more as a pro-life message, and there is a difference. But I haven't seen the ad, so I'm guessing as much as you are. I don't think it will attack women who have made pro choice decisions. That is a bit different that the first post I quoted you from. You had said the message was that all aborted babies would be extraordinary human beings, which would not only be preposterous, but it is also a fairly ridiculous conclusion to make unless one has seen the ad.

Like I said on page one, passing judgement on an ad that no one has seen is premature (pardon the pun). Until we actually know what the heck we are talking about (seeing the ad) it's a near meaninless debate.

 

[Chaka]

Oh, there is no doubt that it is an anti-abotion message, but I suspect it will come across more as a pro-life message, and there is a difference. But I haven't seen the ad, so I'm guessing as much as you are. I don't think it will attack women who have made pro choice decisions. That is a bit different that the first post I quoted you from. You had said the message was that all aborted babies would be extraordinary human beings, which would not only be preposterous, but it is also a fairly ridiculous conclusion to make unless one has seen the ad. Like I said on page one, passing judgement on an ad that no one has seen is premature (pardon the pun). Until we actually know what the heck we are talking about (seeing the ad) it's a near meaninless debate.

I don't think it will attack anyone either although I don't make much distinction between pro life and anti-abortion.Again you don't need to see the commercial to deduce that the implication is "If you choose life your child will be Tim Tebow" I will even grant you a substitution of the word "might" for "will" but that is the message (call it underlying if you like, to me it is right up front). Of course that message is preposterous but it is far from a ridiculous deduction based on the body of evidence.ETA: I never have a problem admitting when I am wrong, I sometimes even enjoy it because being wrong is often instructive and promotes growth. If that turns out to be the case I will gladly come here and acknowledge it.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Maybe Tebust should spend less time talking about abortion and more time correcting his QB flaws!

I think Tebow is slightly more concerned about his status as a person and a christian than he is a football player. Believe it or not beliefs might come first ahead of career status. And this might blow your mind even more, but maybe just maybe Tebow wants success because he believes he has something positive to say and a good message to spread and what bigger stage could he have to speak on than being an NFL player, or just as good, in a superbowl commercial. Good for this guy, he has strong beliefs and sticks to them. We need more people like this in the WORLD, and whether or not he ends up the best QB ever...who cares.

Maybe, just maybe a 22 year old with extremely limited life experience (most of which involves him being put on a pedestal) should shut his mouth, play football and learn a little bit about life before preaching to adults who live in a much different world than Tebow has ever known.When has this guy ever lived in the real world? When has he ever faced any sort of adversity that did not come in the form of a blitzing linebacker or safety? Missionary trips on his summer vacation as a pre-teen are the sum total of his experiences with adversity (none of which he was forced to overcome, he was merely a spectator to the adversity of others). He was effectively raised and educated in seclusion by missionaries. At every turn in his life he has been able to write his own ticket. Tebow simply does not have any life experience that would allow him to see or understand life through anything but the prism of his own sheltered and self entitled existence.

I am not saying he is a bad person, by all accounts it's quite to the contrary but he is not the right person for this advertisement. If it was Kurt Warner doing this ad I think it would be far more credible.

This is the dumbest thing Ive ever heard. I dont need to get raised out of poverty to run a good homeless center. I dont need to have spent 20 years in prison for murder to preach the values or not being one. Most preachers and pastors are people who have been mostly good their entire life. You dont need to have been through every life experience to know right and wrong. He learned right and wrong from what he learned in church and the bible. Not all of us our ignorant, if someone says a flame is hot, not all of us need to burn ourselves first to find out, we just dont put our hand in it. As far as he is concerned, everything he needs to know is in the bible which Im pretty sure he's well in touch with. He doesnt need to experience bad things to know if they are right and wrong. And Im sure he does what he can to be the best QB he can, but my point was that if he had to make a choice, cut back on his goals as a christian or cut back on his goals as a football player, I think the decision would be pretty easy.

Dumbest thing ever? You need to get out more.Life experience isn't just about knowing that murder is bad and fire is hot. The black and white issues are the easy part unfortunately most of life involves shades of gray that are far more nuanced and complex than knowing that murder is bad and fire is hot. Abortion is clearly one of those issues.

The irony packed into this paragraph would choke a mule.

And before you cast me in your mind as a leftist, liberal baby killer here is my stance on abortion. I think people often use it recklessly and with little regard for the consequences. I don't, however, think it should be illegal because the consequences would be even more tragic. My thoughts here are specifically about the credibility of Tim Tebow as a spokesperson for this issue.

If there is nothing immoral or "wrong" with abortions, why not have more of them? If you aren't ending human life, I see no reason not to have one for whatever reason you want to. The procedure would be no more in need of serious consideration than, say, removal of your tonsils.

The point is that the guy has no perspective other than 22 years of deeply religious home schooling and getting everything he ever wanted when he wanted it. His upbringing is practically akin to brainwashing or living in a cult, he has truly had no experience in life that were not filtered through the perspective of his parents. It is the right of his parents to do so but, unfortunately it also provides a very limited view of the real world.

This is where you are getting off track. The choice made was his mother's. And SHE was one who had that life experience and chose life over abortion. He is celebrating her choice. And that is where Divine Intervention's point is made. Tebow doesn't have to have lived through those things first hand because he knows someone who has and SHE taught him.

If someone is going to tell an uneducated 16 year old girl from a low socioeconomic background that she must keep her baby at all costs it should probably be someone who understands most, if not all, of the ramifications for her to have that child. I would much rather hear that message come from a guy like Kurt Warner, who at has a little understanding of what is involved in raising a family with limited means.

So the solution to this contoversy is to simply substitute K.Warner for T.Tebow and it all goes away?

Tebow simply has very little experience with the realities that 99+% of people in this world face. He is not a credible spokesperson for this topic. He (or perhaps Focus on the Family) is merely using his fame to push an agenda that he realistically does not completely understand.

Who has more credibility to speak about abortion than someone whose neck was actually on the chopping block? Ever consider that perspective? Every good thing in life that he has experienced would never have been if his mother had followed someone's advice. Further, go ask the poor if they value their life? Go ask someone who's ill or handicapped if they think their life is not worth living. That's the funny thing about life...we all have it in common...which makes us each uniquely qualified to speak about its value. Tim Tebow was a candidate for abortion. I don't know what your back story is, but that may make him more qualified than you to have an opinion on the topic if we want to follow your logic.

And what is the message they are pushing? If you don't have an abortion your child will be Tim Tebow. Sure they may not explicitly state that but that is what they are pushing. That is an unrealistic and irresponsible message. Don't deny or justify it because you will never convince me otherwise.

O contrare! What is being pushed is that the decision to abort, in the best light it can be cast, is one that purports to be "merciful" to the unborn. Tebow and his mother are simply argueing that you should err on the side of life given the uncertainty involved. Ironic that the target audience is apparently sophisticated enough to decide whether or not to have an abortion but not sophisticated enough to realize that their child won't be Tim Tebow.

Besides political messages really have no place during the Super Bowl in the first place.

Do "drink responsibly" messages have a place in Super Bowl ads?

 

[JamesTheScot]

It's not so much that there is an ad on the Super Bowl that is anti-choice, but more so the non-sensical argument they are using in the ad (every aborted baby is a Tim Tebow, or some other extraordinary human being, which is just nutty). Clearly they aren't teaching statistics at the University of Florida.

Have you seen the ad yet? Does the ad make an argument that every aborted baby will be an extraordinary human being? Or does it just present the possibilty of some babies turning out to be extraordinary human beings? Clearly, the school you went to didn't teach much in the way of objective reasoning. You are making assumptions based on almost no information. If the ad does indeed attempt to use a premise that all babies who are aborted will be extraordinary people, I would agree. However, I will reserve judgement until I see the ad and have some clue as to what the message is. You have a position on abortion, and this response was biased and emotional. I'll wait until I have some facts to base my opinion on.

Your unborn child is the next Tim Tebow is precisely the message they are sending.It is a Focus on the Family commercial, they could be in front of the camera doing a soft-shoe and juggling and that would still be the message.

If you're going to generalize, do so with some accuracy. They use Tim Tebow's celebrity to get the viewers' attention and they use that celebrity status as an appeal to authority over the viewer.The same as using Bono, Bush 1, Clinton or Oprah in Haiti relief ads.Good advertising: Use a celebrity.Better advertising: Use a celebrity that has some real-world connection to the product so he/she can say they aren't a paid spokesperson...which then wins over more viewers that would normally see the celebrity as a paid schill for the sponsor.BTW, IIRC, the whole "your baby might be Albert Einstein or Tim Tebow argument" was referenced by the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade decision when they acknowledged a state interest in limiting abortion once the fetus was viable. While the decision was a poor one IMHO, supposedly brighter minds than you would give FOTF credit for having find that argument somewhat compelling.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Maybe Tebust should spend less time talking about abortion and more time correcting his QB flaws!

I think Tebow is slightly more concerned about his status as a person and a christian than he is a football player. Believe it or not beliefs might come first ahead of career status. And this might blow your mind even more, but maybe just maybe Tebow wants success because he believes he has something positive to say and a good message to spread and what bigger stage could he have to speak on than being an NFL player, or just as good, in a superbowl commercial. Good for this guy, he has strong beliefs and sticks to them. We need more people like this in the WORLD, and whether or not he ends up the best QB ever...who cares.

Maybe, just maybe a 22 year old with extremely limited life experience (most of which involves him being put on a pedestal) should shut his mouth, play football and learn a little bit about life before preaching to adults who live in a much different world than Tebow has ever known.When has this guy ever lived in the real world? When has he ever faced any sort of adversity that did not come in the form of a blitzing linebacker or safety? Missionary trips on his summer vacation as a pre-teen are the sum total of his experiences with adversity (none of which he was forced to overcome, he was merely a spectator to the adversity of others). He was effectively raised and educated in seclusion by missionaries. At every turn in his life he has been able to write his own ticket. Tebow simply does not have any life experience that would allow him to see or understand life through anything but the prism of his own sheltered and self entitled existence.I am not saying he is a bad person, by all accounts it's quite to the contrary but he is not the right person for this advertisement. If it was Kurt Warner doing this ad I think it would be far more credible.

I'm 39. How old are you? Have I been through enough life experience to preach to someone?I've been pro-life ever since I first learned what an abortion was. My life experience has done nothing but reinforce that opinion and I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth or even a brass one for that matter.You are entitled to your opinion on the matter. But for you to demean Tebow for having one based upon his lack of "real-world" experience as it relates to this topic is laughable. What next, he can't say it's wrong to sell crack to kids or kill grandmas in drive-byes because he wasn't raised in the projects?

Read the thread, I have already addressed this but here is the synopsis:Selling crack and killing grandmothers are black and white issues (please provide me with an argument in favor of selling crack and killing grandmothers and I will be happy to reevaluate my position).Abortion is not a black or white issue it is deeply complex and nuanced. You may think abortion is wrong but at least 1/2 the country disagrees. Does 1/2 the country think selling crack and killing grandmothers is not a bad thing? 1/3rd? 1/10th? 1/100th? How about anyone who is not institutionalized or selling crack or killing grandmothers?

Explain to me how killing a born human is less nuanced than killing an unborn human.Because you may want the cover of nuance to defend your position which you already admit is partially uncomfortable does not in fact make the issue one of nuance.

 

[DoubleG]

Maybe Tebust should spend less time talking about abortion and more time correcting his QB flaws!

I think Tebow is slightly more concerned about his status as a person and a christian than he is a football player. Believe it or not beliefs might come first ahead of career status. And this might blow your mind even more, but maybe just maybe Tebow wants success because he believes he has something positive to say and a good message to spread and what bigger stage could he have to speak on than being an NFL player, or just as good, in a superbowl commercial. Good for this guy, he has strong beliefs and sticks to them. We need more people like this in the WORLD, and whether or not he ends up the best QB ever...who cares.

Maybe, just maybe a 22 year old with extremely limited life experience (most of which involves him being put on a pedestal) should shut his mouth, play football and learn a little bit about life before preaching to adults who live in a much different world than Tebow has ever known.When has this guy ever lived in the real world? When has he ever faced any sort of adversity that did not come in the form of a blitzing linebacker or safety? Missionary trips on his summer vacation as a pre-teen are the sum total of his experiences with adversity (none of which he was forced to overcome, he was merely a spectator to the adversity of others). He was effectively raised and educated in seclusion by missionaries. At every turn in his life he has been able to write his own ticket. Tebow simply does not have any life experience that would allow him to see or understand life through anything but the prism of his own sheltered and self entitled existence.

I am not saying he is a bad person, by all accounts it's quite to the contrary but he is not the right person for this advertisement. If it was Kurt Warner doing this ad I think it would be far more credible.

I'm 39. How old are you? Have I been through enough life experience to preach to someone?I've been pro-life ever since I first learned what an abortion was. My life experience has done nothing but reinforce that opinion and I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth or even a brass one for that matter.

You are entitled to your opinion on the matter. But for you to demean Tebow for having one based upon his lack of "real-world" experience as it relates to this topic is laughable. What next, he can't say it's wrong to sell crack to kids or kill grandmas in drive-byes because he wasn't raised in the projects?

Read the thread, I have already addressed this but here is the synopsis:Selling crack and killing grandmothers are black and white issues (please provide me with an argument in favor of selling crack and killing grandmothers and I will be happy to reevaluate my position).

Abortion is not a black or white issue it is deeply complex and nuanced. You may think abortion is wrong but at least 1/2 the country disagrees. Does 1/2 the country think selling crack and killing grandmothers is not a bad thing? 1/3rd? 1/10th? 1/100th? How about anyone who is not institutionalized or selling crack or killing grandmothers?

Please stop making things up to support your point of view:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-ame...first-time.aspx

Last I checked Gallup is pretty reputable and unbiased.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Could it be that the Dr.'s/Nurses in the Philipeans, knowing that she was from the US and also knowing that abortion is legal here, suggested she go "home" and have things taken care of?

Each of them would risk 6 years in jail and the loss of ever being a health practitioner.

You mean like people who risk jail/fines for transporting narcotics into the United States, writing bad checks, beating someone to death in the street, etc.?Or American doctors who advised their patients to cross state lines to get abortions back prior to Roe or American doctors who commit Medicare and insurance fraud or traffic in prescription narcotics?No. It couldn't have happened. It was illegal. Nothing ever happens once it's declared to be illegal.What's the over/under odds on that?

 

[Chaka]

Explain to me how killing a born human is less nuanced than killing an unborn human.Because you may want the cover of nuance to defend your position which you already admit is partially uncomfortable does not in fact make the issue one of nuance.

Let's not have the actual abortion debate here, okay?I am carefully trying to avoid expressing personal stances on abortion itself and focusing on the commercial. Besides I am guessing you know the counter-arguments and completely disagree with them. Which ultimately is why this commercial is going to be pointless, you are not going to change anyone's stance on abortion with a 30 second ad.

 

[Chaka]

Please stop making things up to support your point of view:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-ame...first-time.aspx

Last I checked Gallup is pretty reputable and unbiased.

Seriously? Would you prefer it if I said "On average..."?

 

[DoubleG]

Please stop making things up to support your point of view:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-ame...first-time.aspx

Last I checked Gallup is pretty reputable and unbiased.

Seriously? Would you prefer it if I said "On average..."?

43% is not "at least half" nor is it "on average". It is less than half and less than average. You're entitled to your opinion - just not your own set of "facts". We get it. You're pro-choice, don't like the commercial, and feel it's acceptable to make up statistics and facts to support your opinion.

 

[Chaka]

Please stop making things up to support your point of view:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-ame...first-time.aspx

Last I checked Gallup is pretty reputable and unbiased.

Seriously? Would you prefer it if I said "On average..."?

43% is not "at least half" nor is it "on average". It is less than half and less than average. You're entitled to your opinion - just not your own set of "facts". We get it. You're pro-choice, don't like the commercial, and feel it's acceptable to make up statistics and facts to support your opinion.

Slow down. The title of that gallup poll is More Americans "Pro-Life" Than "Pro-Choice" for the First TimeCan't we wait for the 2010 poll to come out before we call one data point from one poll a fact? After all there are 14 other data points in that poll that suggest that this may not be a trend. Is that too much to ask?

I never said I was pro choice you assumed it from my stance on the commercial. What I said was

I think people often use it [abortion] recklessly and with little regard for the consequences. I don't, however, think it should be illegal because the consequences would be even more tragic.

Just because I understand why the laws exist does not mean that am a fan or support them. I simply think the alternative would be worse.

 

[Chaka]

Since I have also said I think this commercial will not change anyone's stance on the issue (but it will cause more than a few arguments) I guess I can't really see the harm.

So more power to them. I hope the $2.5 million FotF spent on this commercial is worth the jobs of the 500 people they fired in September.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Explain to me how killing a born human is less nuanced than killing an unborn human.Because you may want the cover of nuance to defend your position which you already admit is partially uncomfortable does not in fact make the issue one of nuance.

Let's not have the actual abortion debate here, okay?I am carefully trying to avoid expressing personal stances on abortion itself and focusing on the commercial. Besides I am guessing you know the counter-arguments and completely disagree with them. Which ultimately is why this commercial is going to be pointless, you are not going to change anyone's stance on abortion with a 30 second ad.

Look, Chaka, you are obviously a very intelligent person. I want to say that up front because in these types of debates it's very easy to slip into tossing jabs and insults back and forth which cause the debate to degenerate and I actually enjoy the intellectual exercise even if I have strong and deep-seeded opinions on the matter.But you can't say abortion is a nuance issue and murder isn't to justify your position on Tebow's entrance into the arena. You are begging the question.To someone who is pro-life, abortion is a black and white issue...which is why we are pro-life. And because it's a black and white issue, Tebow has as much credibility to speak about it as anyone else would.So our opinions on abortion color our opinions about who is qualified to have an opinion on it. This is necessarily true if you are a man who claims to be pro-choice because you think it's a woman's right alone to choose.So my challenge to your position on Tebow can't be separated from my challenge to your position on abortion.Now, I respect that you don't want to debate the underlying issue and there are plenty of times I don't want to either. I don't particularly want to today, but I don't concede that abortion is any less a black and white issue than would be killing the homeless, handicapped or poor out of pity for their less than ideal life situation.It's a highly emotional issue but, respectfully, that doesn't make it an issue of nuance. But I'm happy to part ways with a friendly handshake and agree to disagree on that issue.

 

[Rovers]

Explain to me how killing a born human is less nuanced than killing an unborn human.Because you may want the cover of nuance to defend your position which you already admit is partially uncomfortable does not in fact make the issue one of nuance.

Let's not have the actual abortion debate here, okay?I am carefully trying to avoid expressing personal stances on abortion itself and focusing on the commercial. Besides I am guessing you know the counter-arguments and completely disagree with them. Which ultimately is why this commercial is going to be pointless, you are not going to change anyone's stance on abortion with a 30 second ad.

This is a wise post. It's about the commercial, not about becoming a debate on abortion. I'm not sure I agree with your last premise however. While it by itself will not convince the general population to change their veiws on abortion, it would likely only polarize public opinion, but it could influence a woman who is facing the choice, if not only to give it more thought and consideration. I am sure there are some women who wouldn't give it a second thought, but I think most facing an unwanted pregnancy struggle with the decision. Believe it or not, there are organizations who will house and feed a pregnant woman to go full term and put the baby up for adoption. That I am sure is another agonizing choice women face. I wonder if any of those organizations will be referenced in the ad. I think the real question here is not whether or not pro choice or anti abortion ads should be on TV, it's not even about Tebow doing it, it's about whether or not the SB is the appropriate venue for such an ad. That is up to CBS. It's a media issue, not a football issue. If the SB was played in October, in an election year, would they allow candidates to place ads? I'm pretty sure they would. Then they refused the gay dating service ad. That was an obvious attempt to get free publicity, but refusing it also opens a can of worms. The networks have always censored their content. They have to, it's FCC law. This ad really pushes the gray area. Can they accept an ad during one programming event and refuse it on another?

 

[Chaka]

Explain to me how killing a born human is less nuanced than killing an unborn human.

Because you may want the cover of nuance to defend your position which you already admit is partially uncomfortable does not in fact make the issue one of nuance.

Let's not have the actual abortion debate here, okay?I am carefully trying to avoid expressing personal stances on abortion itself and focusing on the commercial. Besides I am guessing you know the counter-arguments and completely disagree with them. Which ultimately is why this commercial is going to be pointless, you are not going to change anyone's stance on abortion with a 30 second ad.

Look, Chaka, you are obviously a very intelligent person. I want to say that up front because in these types of debates it's very easy to slip into tossing jabs and insults back and forth which cause the debate to degenerate and I actually enjoy the intellectual exercise even if I have strong and deep-seeded opinions on the matter.But you can't say abortion is a nuance issue and murder isn't to justify your position on Tebow's entrance into the arena. You are begging the question.

To someone who is pro-life, abortion is a black and white issue...which is why we are pro-life. And because it's a black and white issue, Tebow has as much credibility to speak about it as anyone else would.

So our opinions on abortion color our opinions about who is qualified to have an opinion on it. This is necessarily true if you are a man who claims to be pro-choice because you think it's a woman's right alone to choose.

So my challenge to your position on Tebow can't be separated from my challenge to your position on abortion.

Now, I respect that you don't want to debate the underlying issue and there are plenty of times I don't want to either. I don't particularly want to today, but I don't concede that abortion is any less a black and white issue than would be killing the homeless, handicapped or poor out of pity for their less than ideal life situation.

It's a highly emotional issue but that doesn't make it an issue of nuance. I'm happy to part ways with an handshake to agree to disagree on that issue.

Thanks James. Right back at you.The principle difference between your beliefs on abortion and murdering homeless people is math, which is why I bow down to the numbers of people that support each opinion. I will be the first to admit that the will of the majority is not always correct, I am not sure it is even often correct but that is a topic for another time. However in this case it seems to be a major discrepancy. The vast majority of Americans would agree that murdering a homeless guy is wrong (what do you think? 90%? 95%? More?) but far less than that number feel the same about abortion (despite what Double G's gallup poll says I will call it 50%, if he insists on 43% fine by me that still equates to almost 73 million registered voters). So while the issue is black and white for both sides individually the issue itself is a little more complex than that.

I have always enjoyed an old Dennis Miller take on abortion: No one here is imbued with enough sacred knowledge to make a qualitative decision on this issue one way or another. Any data you get from a fellow human being is purely a lateral move on the informational flow chart and until we all get a pink "while you were out" memo from the Big Guy in the head office we are all going to have to tend our own gardens on this issue.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I never said I was pro choice you assumed it from my stance on the commercial. What I said was

I think people often use it [abortion] recklessly and with little regard for the consequences. I don't, however, think it should be illegal because the consequences would be even more tragic.

Just because I understand why the laws exist does not mean that am a fan or support them. I simply think the alternative would be worse.

Why you think there should be a choice does not mitigate the fact that you do think there should be a choice.So you are pro-choice nonetheless regardless of why you are pro-choice.

Why would you shrink from that?

 

[Chaka]

Explain to me how killing a born human is less nuanced than killing an unborn human.Because you may want the cover of nuance to defend your position which you already admit is partially uncomfortable does not in fact make the issue one of nuance.

Let's not have the actual abortion debate here, okay?I am carefully trying to avoid expressing personal stances on abortion itself and focusing on the commercial. Besides I am guessing you know the counter-arguments and completely disagree with them. Which ultimately is why this commercial is going to be pointless, you are not going to change anyone's stance on abortion with a 30 second ad.

This is a wise post. It's about the commercial, not about becoming a debate on abortion. I'm not sure I agree with your last premise however. While it by itself will not convince the general population to change their veiws on abortion, it would likely only polarize public opinion, but it could influence a woman who is facing the choice, if not only to give it more thought and consideration. I am sure there are some women who wouldn't give it a second thought, but I think most facing an unwanted pregnancy struggle with the decision. Believe it or not, there are organizations who will house and feed a pregnant woman to go full term and put the baby up for adoption. That I am sure is another agonizing choice women face. I wonder if any of those organizations will be referenced in the ad. I think the real question here is not whether or not pro choice or anti abortion ads should be on TV, it's not even about Tebow doing it, it's about whether or not the SB is the appropriate venue for such an ad. That is up to CBS. It's a media issue, not a football issue. If the SB was played in October, in an election year, would they allow candidates to place ads? I'm pretty sure they would. Then they refused the gay dating service ad. That was an obvious attempt to get free publicity, but refusing it also opens a can of worms. The networks have always censored their content. They have to, it's FCC law. This ad really pushes the gray area. Can they accept an ad during one programming event and refuse it on another?

I will go one step further and say that I was hasty in my objection to Tebow, he still lacks any credibility IMO but that is why his mother is in the commercial (they go part-in-parcel, no one would listen to his mother alone and she provides him credibility).I will even withdraw my objection to the message, for now, because Rovers is right I need to see it to make a more informed opinion. Although I have difficulty how combining mom + tebow + fotf does not = your unborn kid will (might) be the next tim tebow. But let's see how they present it.I also would rather not see such divisive issues presented on the biggest entertainment day of this (and every) year. But let's see how this plays out, who knows it may be informative.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Explain to me how killing a born human is less nuanced than killing an unborn human.

Because you may want the cover of nuance to defend your position which you already admit is partially uncomfortable does not in fact make the issue one of nuance.

Let's not have the actual abortion debate here, okay?I am carefully trying to avoid expressing personal stances on abortion itself and focusing on the commercial. Besides I am guessing you know the counter-arguments and completely disagree with them. Which ultimately is why this commercial is going to be pointless, you are not going to change anyone's stance on abortion with a 30 second ad.

This is a wise post. It's about the commercial, not about becoming a debate on abortion. I'm not sure I agree with your last premise however. While it by itself will not convince the general population to change their veiws on abortion, it would likely only polarize public opinion, but it could influence a woman who is facing the choice, if not only to give it more thought and consideration. I am sure there are some women who wouldn't give it a second thought, but I think most facing an unwanted pregnancy struggle with the decision.

Believe it or not, there are organizations who will house and feed a pregnant woman to go full term and put the baby up for adoption. That I am sure is another agonizing choice women face. I wonder if any of those organizations will be referenced in the ad.

I think the real question here is not whether or not pro choice or anti abortion ads should be on TV, it's not even about Tebow doing it, it's about whether or not the SB is the appropriate venue for such an ad. That is up to CBS. It's a media issue, not a football issue. If the SB was played in October, in an election year, would they allow candidates to place ads? I'm pretty sure they would. Then they refused the gay dating service ad. That was an obvious attempt to get free publicity, but refusing it also opens a can of worms.

The networks have always censored their content. They have to, it's FCC law. This ad really pushes the gray area. Can they accept an ad during one programming event and refuse it on another?

And the irony is that ads which advocate the position I quoted in red are also protested by N.O.W. and other self-proclaimed "pro-choice" groups. It floors me and is the reason many of use on the pro-life side see these advocates as "pro-abortion"...because they actually protest any choice other than the one to have an abortion.And I agree with Rover's contention that the commercial is targeted at women who are trying to decide which option to take even though they might be politically pro-choice. Choosing life should be a valid choice for someone who is pro-choice.

 

[Chaka]

I never said I was pro choice you assumed it from my stance on the commercial. What I said was

I think people often use it [abortion] recklessly and with little regard for the consequences. I don't, however, think it should be illegal because the consequences would be even more tragic.

Just because I understand why the laws exist does not mean that am a fan or support them. I simply think the alternative would be worse.

Why you think there should be a choice does not mitigate the fact that you do think there should be a choice.So you are pro-choice nonetheless regardless of why you are pro-choice.

Why would you shrink from that?

I am not sure I agree. I think many people on the Pro Life side do not consider the potential ramifications of making abortion illegal. If more deaths were to occur as a result of making abortions illegal isn't that a bad result for the Pro Life side?

 

[JamesTheScot]

I never said I was pro choice you assumed it from my stance on the commercial. What I said was

I think people often use it [abortion] recklessly and with little regard for the consequences. I don't, however, think it should be illegal because the consequences would be even more tragic.

Just because I understand why the laws exist does not mean that am a fan or support them. I simply think the alternative would be worse.

Why you think there should be a choice does not mitigate the fact that you do think there should be a choice.So you are pro-choice nonetheless regardless of why you are pro-choice.

Why would you shrink from that?

Chaka, I posted this not as an attempt to further the debate on the issue itself but merely a curiosity I have with your position as what I would call a reluctant pro-choicer.Having said that, I also see that there is no way to address my question without, once again, delving into the underlying topic as well.

So consider my question respectfully withdrawn until such a time as we may engage in a civil and fiendly debate on the underlying issue.

 

[vandyt]

Explain to me how killing a born human is less nuanced than killing an unborn human.Because you may want the cover of nuance to defend your position which you already admit is partially uncomfortable does not in fact make the issue one of nuance.

Let's not have the actual abortion debate here, okay?I am carefully trying to avoid expressing personal stances on abortion itself and focusing on the commercial. Besides I am guessing you know the counter-arguments and completely disagree with them. Which ultimately is why this commercial is going to be pointless, you are not going to change anyone's stance on abortion with a 30 second ad.

Believe it or not, there are organizations who will house and feed a pregnant woman to go full term and put the baby up for adoption. That I am sure is another agonizing choice women face. I wonder if any of those organizations will be referenced in the ad.

Same reason the NRA protests any attempt to legislate any firearm or ammunition."You can't have bazookas, but you can still have rifles" "Ok thats reasonable""You can't have rifles, but you can still have shotguns" "Ok thats reasonable""You can't have shotguns, but you can still have handguns" "Ok....thats reasonable?""You can't have handguns, but heres a slingshot" "WTF, where'd my guns go?"NOW doesnt want adoption becoming the only alternative to not having a child. Its a bit messed up when taken at face value, but I see the logic in it.

 

[Rovers]

Explain to me how killing a born human is less nuanced than killing an unborn human.Because you may want the cover of nuance to defend your position which you already admit is partially uncomfortable does not in fact make the issue one of nuance.

Let's not have the actual abortion debate here, okay?I am carefully trying to avoid expressing personal stances on abortion itself and focusing on the commercial. Besides I am guessing you know the counter-arguments and completely disagree with them. Which ultimately is why this commercial is going to be pointless, you are not going to change anyone's stance on abortion with a 30 second ad.

Believe it or not, there are organizations who will house and feed a pregnant woman to go full term and put the baby up for adoption. That I am sure is another agonizing choice women face. I wonder if any of those organizations will be referenced in the ad.

Same reason the NRA protests any attempt to legislate any firearm or ammunition."You can't have bazookas, but you can still have rifles" "Ok thats reasonable""You can't have rifles, but you can still have shotguns" "Ok thats reasonable""You can't have shotguns, but you can still have handguns" "Ok....thats reasonable?""You can't have handguns, but heres a slingshot" "WTF, where'd my guns go?"NOW doesnt want adoption becoming the only alternative to not having a child. Its a bit messed up when taken at face value, but I see the logic in it.

The thread is about the commercial. Not the NRA, not about abortion. It's about was is and isn't a proper venue for such ads and network censorship and how that is decided upon and enforced. I know the temptation to make it a wider topic of discussion is great... but it's about the commercial. Sling shots have nothing to do with it. I mentioned what I did in terms of what content might be in the ad. Not to start a debate about adoption vs abortion.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I never said I was pro choice you assumed it from my stance on the commercial. What I said was

I think people often use it [abortion] recklessly and with little regard for the consequences. I don't, however, think it should be illegal because the consequences would be even more tragic.

Just because I understand why the laws exist does not mean that am a fan or support them. I simply think the alternative would be worse.

Why you think there should be a choice does not mitigate the fact that you do think there should be a choice.So you are pro-choice nonetheless regardless of why you are pro-choice.

Why would you shrink from that?

I am not sure I agree. I think many people on the Pro Life side do not consider the potential ramifications of making abortion illegal. If more deaths were to occur as a result of making abortions illegal isn't that a bad result for the Pro Life side?

I think they do. Those I know have.I don't buy that more will die if it's illegal than if it's legal. Currently, every successful abortion costs one human life (admittedly an opinion). So you'd have to have a 100% mortality rate for the mother as well as the fetus and more than 50% of the current abortions for the total deaths to exceed their current totals. Successful home-made abortions have been going on for centuries so I frankly don't see the mothers' mortality rate rising high enough to offset the gains by a reduction in the total number of abortions performed.

But even if that weren't the case, I would see someone who died in a back alley abortion similarly to someone who died from a drug overdose or Russian roulette. A needless engagement in a dangerous endeavor. The pregnant woman who opts for that procedure, no matter how desperate she may feel, still has more to say about her own safety, assumption of risk and survival odds than does the child in her uterus. She at least had a choice in whether or not to undergo the risky procedure. What choice did the unborn child have? How can that unborn child act to save his/her life or to put it in danger for that matter?

I am pro-life because the unborn are defenseless and don't have a choice in the matter. I believe they deserve the opportunity to live and scratch and claw their way through life like the rest of us. I also believe they are blameless yet they bear the ultimate consequences (short of judgment from God) of their mother's choice. Once they are here and are competent to make those life decisions for themselves, I'm pretty much an anything goes advocate so long as they are not exposing another person to risk of imminent bodily harm.

I tend to be anti-prohibition on most things. Were I ever to become convinced a fetus was not human life, my position would likely be that it's simply an elective medical procedure and it wouldn't bother me if millions were performed each year - aside from the impact that would have on social security - of course the 'boomers are going to do us in on that score regardless.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Could it be that the Dr.'s/Nurses in the Philipeans, knowing that she was from the US and also knowing that abortion is legal here, suggested she go "home" and have things taken care of?

Each of them would risk 6 years in jail and the loss of ever being a health practitioner.

You mean like people who risk jail/fines for transporting narcotics into the United States, writing bad checks, beating someone to death in the street, etc.?Or American doctors who advised their patients to cross state lines to get abortions back prior to Roe or American doctors who commit Medicare and insurance fraud or traffic in prescription narcotics?

No. It couldn't have happened. It was illegal. Nothing ever happens once it's declared to be illegal.

]What's the over/under odds on that?

No I dont. You mean like... they would offer these suggestions the foreigner and not to their sisters and cousins and aunts?

Sorry it doesnt add up at all.

The odds are far far far more greater that the person who seeks to push her religion around the world is liing about her circumstances/situation because it makes a good story.

Then any Phillipine Doctor was of doing something not only illegal, but damn near unheard of in Manilla. And this was in a hospital? pffft

Hindi iyan nangyari. Ang storya ay kasinungalinan.

So your saying they wouldn't even tell their mothers and sisters that an abortion may be preferrable to carrying the child to term? Really?So then I can put you down for "no abortions are ever performed in the Phillipines".

What doesn't add up is your assertion that because something is illegal, it can't happen.

The American foreignor is going to report the Philiipino doctor to Phillipino authorites for telling her she could return to the states and get an abortion? That's harder for me to believe than your earlier premise.

 

[Chaka]

But even if that weren't the case, I would see someone who died in a back alley abortion similarly to someone who died from a drug overdose or Russian roulette. A needless engagement in a dangerous endeavor. The pregnant woman who opts for that procedure, no matter how desperate she may feel, still has more to say about her own safety, assumption of risk and survival odds than does the child in her uterus. She at least had a choice in whether or not to undergo the risky procedure. What choice did the unborn child have? How can that unborn child act to save his/her life or to put it in danger for that matter?

This is the part of the belief system of many pro life advocates that I never understood. Death of a human is still death of a human regardless of the knowledge they possess or the choice they make. Isn't the death of any human the worst possible outcome to all on the pro life side? Shouldn't it be? How can one life be more sacred than another?I also have always found it odd that so many (I didn't say all or a majority) pro life advocates also support the death penalty (I also find it odd that so many on the pro choice side are opposed to the death penalty but at least I can understand their logic as they believe the fetus was never alive to begin with).Don't feel obligated to answer (sincerely). We have entirely abandoned the original intent of this thread. Perhaps we should just let it go...at least until next Monday (perhaps Tuesday, I suspect my critical thinking skills will be impaired next Monday).

 

[Rovers]

But even if that weren't the case, I would see someone who died in a back alley abortion similarly to someone who died from a drug overdose or Russian roulette. A needless engagement in a dangerous endeavor. The pregnant woman who opts for that procedure, no matter how desperate she may feel, still has more to say about her own safety, assumption of risk and survival odds than does the child in her uterus. She at least had a choice in whether or not to undergo the risky procedure. What choice did the unborn child have? How can that unborn child act to save his/her life or to put it in danger for that matter?

This is the part of the belief system of many pro life advocates that I never understood. Death of a human is still death of a human regardless of the knowledge they possess or the choice they make. Isn't the death of any human the worst possible outcome to all on the pro life side? Shouldn't it be? How can one life be more sacred than another?I also have always found it odd that so many (I didn't say all or a majority) pro life advocates also support the death penalty (I also find it odd that so many on the pro choice side are opposed to the death penalty but at least I can understand their logic as they believe the fetus was never alive to begin with).Don't feel obligated to answer (sincerely). We have entirely abandoned the original intent of this thread. Perhaps we should just let it go...at least until next Monday (perhaps Tuesday, I suspect my critical thinking skills will be impaired next Monday).

Agreed, the thread has run it's course, but I also find a serious contradiction in people who are "pro-life" and for the death penalty. I've tried to be objective about it all in this thread, but I think it's likely obvious that I am pro-life, but not an extremist... but am also anti death penalty. I figure if the death penalty is not a deterent, (which I am certain it is not) it is a socially approved revenge killing. I also think only police and armed guards should be able to carry handguns (concealed weapons) but Americans should always have the right to own guns.I know... I'm crazy. Does anyone have an old copy of "The hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy"? I think I need to find a new planet.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I don't mind the showing of the ad. However it's hypocitical to allow this, and not to allow this

Seems that in todays market CBS would want 2 million from anybody. Seems hypocritical in light of the Tebow ad.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/29/...in6154905.shtml

CBS) CBS has rejected an ad from gay dating site Mancrunch.com, telling the site that the ad "is not within the Network's Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday," James Hibberd reports at The Live Feed.

CBS released the following statement: "After reviewing the ad - which is entirely commercial in nature - our Standards and Practices department decided not to accept this particular spot. As always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions."

The dating site for gay men had hoped it could fork over $2 million or more to CBS in return for 30 seconds of air time.

Hibberd reports that CBS believed ManCrunch was trying to generate free publicity by submitting an ad they knew would be rejected.

"We're 100% serious," ManCrunch spokesperson Elissa Buchter said. "We have the money to pay for it. If the ad showed a man and woman kissing it would have been accepted. You see ads for erectile dysfunction morning, noon and night. It's discriminatory that they won't show this....They should call our bluff. If the ad doesn't air on the Super Bowl, it will air on another network. It's not like it plays like Adam Lambert [kissing another man on the AMAs]."

The Super Bowl, while perennially the most-watched television event of the year, has traditionally avoided the role of political platform, until this year.

Former Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow will star in a pro-life spot during the big game, too.

But, these ads have plenty of critics.

Before CBS rejected tha ad, the American Family Association President, Tim Wildmon, released this statement Thursday:

"CBS should not put parents in the position of answering embarrassing and awkward questions from their children while they're just trying to enjoy a football game."

Watch the ad here:

 

[Truman]

Thanks for posting it twice and starting a new thread for it. You'll see I posted it last night if you read the thread.

 

[Gary Davenport]

Explain to me how killing a born human is less nuanced than killing an unborn human.Because you may want the cover of nuance to defend your position which you already admit is partially uncomfortable does not in fact make the issue one of nuance.

Let's not have the actual abortion debate here, okay?I am carefully trying to avoid expressing personal stances on abortion itself and focusing on the commercial. Besides I am guessing you know the counter-arguments and completely disagree with them. Which ultimately is why this commercial is going to be pointless, you are not going to change anyone's stance on abortion with a 30 second ad.

This is a wise post. It's about the commercial, not about becoming a debate on abortion. I'm not sure I agree with your last premise however. While it by itself will not convince the general population to change their veiws on abortion, it would likely only polarize public opinion, but it could influence a woman who is facing the choice, if not only to give it more thought and consideration. I am sure there are some women who wouldn't give it a second thought, but I think most facing an unwanted pregnancy struggle with the decision. Believe it or not, there are organizations who will house and feed a pregnant woman to go full term and put the baby up for adoption. That I am sure is another agonizing choice women face. I wonder if any of those organizations will be referenced in the ad. I think the real question here is not whether or not pro choice or anti abortion ads should be on TV, it's not even about Tebow doing it, it's about whether or not the SB is the appropriate venue for such an ad. That is up to CBS. It's a media issue, not a football issue. If the SB was played in October, in an election year, would they allow candidates to place ads? I'm pretty sure they would. Then they refused the gay dating service ad. That was an obvious attempt to get free publicity, but refusing it also opens a can of worms. The networks have always censored their content. They have to, it's FCC law. This ad really pushes the gray area. Can they accept an ad during one programming event and refuse it on another?

I will go one step further and say that I was hasty in my objection to Tebow, he still lacks any credibility IMO but that is why his mother is in the commercial (they go part-in-parcel, no one would listen to his mother alone and she provides him credibility).I will even withdraw my objection to the message, for now, because Rovers is right I need to see it to make a more informed opinion. Although I have difficulty how combining mom + tebow + fotf does not = your unborn kid will (might) be the next tim tebow. But let's see how they present it.I also would rather not see such divisive issues presented on the biggest entertainment day of this (and every) year. But let's see how this plays out, who knows it may be informative.

It's not about having the "Next Tim Tebow"...it's about the hope, the promise, the potential that each new life brings to this world.That said, I'm Anti-Abortion (in most instances...Rape/IncestNastiness etc..being some exceptions) and Pro Choice if that makes any sense (don't think it's right, but also don't think it's my right to choose for someone else), and end of the day it's an ad just like any other...the folks whose minds get changed by things like that will be changed just as easily the following Monday when everyone is crowing incessantly about it...kind of like some are now.

 

[Chaka]

Explain to me how killing a born human is less nuanced than killing an unborn human.Because you may want the cover of nuance to defend your position which you already admit is partially uncomfortable does not in fact make the issue one of nuance.

Let's not have the actual abortion debate here, okay?I am carefully trying to avoid expressing personal stances on abortion itself and focusing on the commercial. Besides I am guessing you know the counter-arguments and completely disagree with them. Which ultimately is why this commercial is going to be pointless, you are not going to change anyone's stance on abortion with a 30 second ad.

This is a wise post. It's about the commercial, not about becoming a debate on abortion. I'm not sure I agree with your last premise however. While it by itself will not convince the general population to change their veiws on abortion, it would likely only polarize public opinion, but it could influence a woman who is facing the choice, if not only to give it more thought and consideration. I am sure there are some women who wouldn't give it a second thought, but I think most facing an unwanted pregnancy struggle with the decision. Believe it or not, there are organizations who will house and feed a pregnant woman to go full term and put the baby up for adoption. That I am sure is another agonizing choice women face. I wonder if any of those organizations will be referenced in the ad. I think the real question here is not whether or not pro choice or anti abortion ads should be on TV, it's not even about Tebow doing it, it's about whether or not the SB is the appropriate venue for such an ad. That is up to CBS. It's a media issue, not a football issue. If the SB was played in October, in an election year, would they allow candidates to place ads? I'm pretty sure they would. Then they refused the gay dating service ad. That was an obvious attempt to get free publicity, but refusing it also opens a can of worms. The networks have always censored their content. They have to, it's FCC law. This ad really pushes the gray area. Can they accept an ad during one programming event and refuse it on another?

I will go one step further and say that I was hasty in my objection to Tebow, he still lacks any credibility IMO but that is why his mother is in the commercial (they go part-in-parcel, no one would listen to his mother alone and she provides him credibility).I will even withdraw my objection to the message, for now, because Rovers is right I need to see it to make a more informed opinion. Although I have difficulty how combining mom + tebow + fotf does not = your unborn kid will (might) be the next tim tebow. But let's see how they present it.I also would rather not see such divisive issues presented on the biggest entertainment day of this (and every) year. But let's see how this plays out, who knows it may be informative.

It's not about having the "Next Tim Tebow"...it's about the hope, the promise, the potential that each new life brings to this world.That said, I'm Anti-Abortion (in most instances...Rape/IncestNastiness etc..being some exceptions) and Pro Choice if that makes any sense (don't think it's right, but also don't think it's my right to choose for someone else), and end of the day it's an ad just like any other...the folks whose minds get changed by things like that will be changed just as easily the following Monday when everyone is crowing incessantly about it...kind of like some are now.

We all understand (or most of us here do) that there is more to the commercial than the basic notion that "Your unborn child is the next Tim Tebow" but that does not mean it isn't the message they are pushing. And I question how many people will truly see any deeper than the surface message.

 

[JamesTheScot]

But even if that weren't the case, I would see someone who died in a back alley abortion similarly to someone who died from a drug overdose or Russian roulette. A needless engagement in a dangerous endeavor. The pregnant woman who opts for that procedure, no matter how desperate she may feel, still has more to say about her own safety, assumption of risk and survival odds than does the child in her uterus. She at least had a choice in whether or not to undergo the risky procedure. What choice did the unborn child have? How can that unborn child act to save his/her life or to put it in danger for that matter?

This is the part of the belief system of many pro life advocates that I never understood. Death of a human is still death of a human regardless of the knowledge they possess or the choice they make. Isn't the death of any human the worst possible outcome to all on the pro life side? Shouldn't it be? How can one life be more sacred than another?I also have always found it odd that so many (I didn't say all or a majority) pro life advocates also support the death penalty (I also find it odd that so many on the pro choice side are opposed to the death penalty but at least I can understand their logic as they believe the fetus was never alive to begin with).

Don't feel obligated to answer (sincerely). We have entirely abandoned the original intent of this thread. Perhaps we should just let it go...at least until next Monday (perhaps Tuesday, I suspect my critical thinking skills will be impaired next Monday).

Agreed, the thread has run it's course, but I also find a serious contradiction in people who are "pro-life" and for the death penalty. I've tried to be objective about it all in this thread, but I think it's likely obvious that I am pro-life, but not an extremist... but am also anti death penalty. I figure if the death penalty is not a deterent, (which I am certain it is not) it is a socially approved revenge killing. I also think only police and armed guards should be able to carry handguns (concealed weapons) but Americans should always have the right to own guns.I know... I'm crazy. Does anyone have an old copy of "The hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy"? I think I need to find a new planet.

Let me clear it up for you both as best I can. Unborn life is innocent, defenseless life. The life of a murderer is not innocent life and most adults are capable of making choices or taking action to prolong and preserve their own life. If your actions cause your own death, I have less pity for you than I do an unborn child who does not and cannot act to cause their own death...or take measures to prevent it. You need not agree with that distinction having merit, but it is a real and actual disctinction nonethless. And please consider that our society makes these types of distinctions all the time. Consider children, the infirm of mind, and criminals. I value freedom to come as go as I please, to vote, to own firearms, etc. Must I also then oppose the jailing of violent felons and the revocation of their right to vote and own firearms because I value freedom? Of course not. Actions have consequences. Is jail or fines a deterrant? No more so than the death penalty. Crime continues to occur.

By the same measure, I am A-OK with protecting children, the old and the mentally handicapped from exploitation and harm that they cannot prevent to themselves. We do this by limiting their ability to enter in contracts and engage in risky behavior which they may not fully be capable of evaluating. We do so because we recognize that they are defenseless in that regard. So we manufacture a defensive scheme to protect them (no drinking under 21, for example) and we punish those take advantage of their naivete (statutory rape, for example).

So, with respect, no, not all lives are equal in their rights in our society.

I approve of the death penalty in the abstract but I do question whether or not innocent people are subjected to it. So I cannot say I am pro or anti, I'm still coming to terms with it. The thought of executing an innocent is abhorrent to me.

As for serious contradictions...how about those that oppose the death penalty, even for the truly guilty, yet support abortion? Let's save the murderers. The unborn? Meh.

Enjoying the dscussion, though.

 

[Scooby1974]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0020102067.html

Sorry if this link is a HONDA. Just saw it in the Washington Post---written by a self-proclaiming Feminist.

 

[JamesTheScot]

So your saying they wouldn't even tell their mothers and sisters that an abortion may be preferrable to carrying the child to term? Really?

So then I can put you down for "no abortions are ever performed in the Phillipines".

What doesn't add up is your assertion that because something is illegal, it can't happen.

The American foreignor is going to report the Philiipino doctor to Phillipino authorites for telling her she could return to the states and get an abortion? That's harder for me to believe than your earlier premise.

My assertion is NOT because its illegal. But it is illegal and not allowed, even if the womans life is in danger.It is because I know the people and the culture there and it DOESNT happen from a Doctor/Hospital position -- in Manilla no less.

Specifically people in the health care industry. (I talked to several nurses last night and one doctor today, regarding this very story).

You cannot put me down in the "no abortions are done"... wtf is wrong with you? You think common sense is lost? They happen illegally, hundreds of tousands of times.

But she was in a hospital post-coma. That just doesnt pass any common sense test of any kind.

It remains FAR FAR FAR more likely that Mrs Tebow is simply selling/telling a good story for her vantage point.

I heard on the radio today (and consider the source because it was talk radio) that many had it wrong and that a doctor in the Phillipines could recommend abortion, at least when Tebow was there, for health reasons. Are you sure that it was as illegal as you are asserting?Also, I find it interesting that you admit that thousands of abortions occur in the Phillipines yet adhere to the belief that no doctor or nurse would ever suggest that such a thing be done when there might be a medical basis for the procedure. Even more so when the patient could return to the States to have it performed.

Further, since most people are incapable of coming to that medical opinion themselves, if your premise is true, we'd have to assume then that 0% of the illegal abortions performed in the Phillipines occur because the mother believes her life to be in danger. Because a doctor or nurse would never tell a pregnant woman that sort of thing in the Phillipines. So how would she decide that it was in her best interests medically to have one? So then 100% of them must be occuring for either convenience or shame reasons. I'm curious then if the death rate for mothers in labor is significantly higher in the Phillipines than it is where abortion is legal.

You are so cynical on the one hand (about Tebow) and yet so naive on the other (about medical professionals). Could it be that this variance is selective because it fits with your political leanings on this issue to believe it that way?

 

[JamesTheScot]

Im simply playing the common sense odds of the given scenario. 45-1 she made up a story that was pro her agenda.

And 45-1 you say a doctor in Manilla would NEVER tell someone that an abortion would be in her best medical interests because it fits with your agenda.

 

[JamesTheScot]

A little hyperbole in the quick response.

true odds set at 9.5 : 1

 

[Chaka]

Let me clear it up for you both as best I can. Unborn life is innocent, defenseless life. The life of a murderer is not innocent life and most adults are capable of making choices or taking action to prolong and preserve their own life. If your actions cause your own death, I have less pity for you than I do an unborn child who does not and cannot act to cause their own death...or take measures to prevent it. You need not agree with that distinction having merit, but it is a real and actual disctinction nonethless. And please consider that our society makes these types of distinctions all the time. Consider children, the infirm of mind, and criminals. I value freedom to come as go as I please, to vote, to own firearms, etc. Must I also then oppose the jailing of violent felons and the revocation of their right to vote and own firearms because I value freedom? Of course not. Actions have consequences. Is jail or fines a deterrant? No more so than the death penalty. Crime continues to occur.By the same measure, I am A-OK with protecting children, the old and the mentally handicapped from exploitation and harm that they cannot prevent to themselves. We do this by limiting their ability to enter in contracts and engage in risky behavior which they may not fully be capable of evaluating. We do so because we recognize that they are defenseless in that regard. So we manufacture a defensive scheme to protect them (no drinking under 21, for example) and we punish those take advantage of their naivete (statutory rape, for example). So, with respect, no, not all lives are equal in their rights in our society.I approve of the death penalty in the abstract but I do question whether or not innocent people are subjected to it. So I cannot say I am pro or anti, I'm still coming to terms with it. The thought of executing an innocent is abhorrent to me. As for serious contradictions...how about those that oppose the death penalty, even for the truly guilty, yet support abortion? Let's save the murderers. The unborn? Meh.Enjoying the dscussion, though.

The question is not: Does a child = a murderer? The question is: Is life sacred? And apparently the answer is "Not if we can satisfy our need for vengeance." (call it justice if you must).That's all the death penalty is, vengeance. It's not a deterrent it's only more death.I am not sure if you are a Christian man James, and I know some Christian people try to defend the opposite of my next statement, but I am pretty sure that Jesus would not support killing in the name of vengeance. And the Pope agrees. I have done my research on this so you don't need to site chapter and verse to show how he may have thought otherwise, I know much of the opposing viewpoint. This is another one of those debates, like abortion, that will not allow for a consensus to be met.

 

[Devine Intervention]

Let me clear it up for you both as best I can. Unborn life is innocent, defenseless life. The life of a murderer is not innocent life and most adults are capable of making choices or taking action to prolong and preserve their own life. If your actions cause your own death, I have less pity for you than I do an unborn child who does not and cannot act to cause their own death...or take measures to prevent it. You need not agree with that distinction having merit, but it is a real and actual disctinction nonethless. And please consider that our society makes these types of distinctions all the time. Consider children, the infirm of mind, and criminals. I value freedom to come as go as I please, to vote, to own firearms, etc. Must I also then oppose the jailing of violent felons and the revocation of their right to vote and own firearms because I value freedom? Of course not. Actions have consequences. Is jail or fines a deterrant? No more so than the death penalty. Crime continues to occur.By the same measure, I am A-OK with protecting children, the old and the mentally handicapped from exploitation and harm that they cannot prevent to themselves. We do this by limiting their ability to enter in contracts and engage in risky behavior which they may not fully be capable of evaluating. We do so because we recognize that they are defenseless in that regard. So we manufacture a defensive scheme to protect them (no drinking under 21, for example) and we punish those take advantage of their naivete (statutory rape, for example). So, with respect, no, not all lives are equal in their rights in our society.I approve of the death penalty in the abstract but I do question whether or not innocent people are subjected to it. So I cannot say I am pro or anti, I'm still coming to terms with it. The thought of executing an innocent is abhorrent to me. As for serious contradictions...how about those that oppose the death penalty, even for the truly guilty, yet support abortion? Let's save the murderers. The unborn? Meh.Enjoying the dscussion, though.

The question is not: Does a child = a murderer? The question is: Is life sacred? And apparently the answer is "Not if we can satisfy our need for vengeance." (call it justice if you must).That's all the death penalty is, vengeance. It's not a deterrent it's only more death.I am not sure if you are a Christian man James, and I know some Christian people try to defend the opposite of my next statement, but I am pretty sure that Jesus would not support killing in the name of vengeance. And the Pope agrees. I have done my research on this so you don't need to site chapter and verse to show how he may have thought otherwise, I know much of the opposing viewpoint. This is another one of those debates, like abortion, that will not allow for a consensus to be met.

Im not a fan of the death penalty really but Im pretty sure God wiped out nations for their sins. Kind of sounds like the death penalty. I believe God has no problem with a death penalty, but maybe the issue is that its no ones decision besides God's who lives and who dies. That goes for in and outside the womb.And on the contrary, there are people who are pro-choice who arent for euthenasia or assisted suicide. People think its ok for a mother to decide death for their baby at the beginning of their life, before they even have a chance. But yet, someone who has lived a full life cant even make that decision for their own life. Doesnt make any sense. People say let life run its course and it should go both ways.

 

[az_prof]

Explain to me how killing a born human is less nuanced than killing an unborn human.Because you may want the cover of nuance to defend your position which you already admit is partially uncomfortable does not in fact make the issue one of nuance.

A foetus is not human. It's not viable. Beyond that, you are simplifying this into an either/or: either it is human or it is not; if it is human (implied) it is murder. Yet, our society endorses murder in several instances where we see a compelling interest. In capital punishment we value the pain and suffering of surviving victims and their desire for the ultimate revenge above life. However horrible those who die from capital punishment may be, they are still human. But we weigh two interests and we say that it is worth it in this case to take human life. In war we tell our soldiers to kill other humans in the name of our national interest. In many cases, those who die and are killed we know are not soldiers--they are civilians. We do it because we weigh other factors and in the end we decide that our national interest is more important than our value for human life. The enemy (civilian and military) are humans; but we kill them.This is why in the case of abortion we give the greatest deference to the choice of the mother. The foetus is part of her body. And she above all people will have to live with the consequences of her choice.

 

[az_prof]

Yep, its a total crap story by her. I just talked to several Philipina women (and they are currently talking to their friends and family, my question created quite a storm on the "tsismis/rumor" front)- abortions simply do NOT happen with any Doctor/Hospital/Clinical oversight. Unless Mrs Tebow did her "coma" recovery in a back alley. /sarcasm

Its a big part of why Manilla has 11million people (and actually sports 20 million in the the Greater Manilla area... putting it close to being the most populated city in the world).

Big reason for this? No abortion for any reasons. And low incomes and education for many of the masses.

wiki-

The act is criminalized by the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which was enacted in 1930 but remains in effect today. Articles 256, 258 and 259 of the Code mandate imprisonment for the woman who undergoes the abortion, as well as for any person who assists in the procedure, even if they be the woman's parents, a physician or midwife. Article 258 further imposes a higher prison term on the woman or her parents if the abortion is undertaken "in order to conceal [the woman's] dishonor".

There is no law in the Philippines that expressly authorizes abortions in order to save the woman's life; and the general provisions which do penalize abortion make no qualifications if the woman's life is endangered. It may be argued that an abortion to save the mother's life could be classified as a justifying circumstance (duress as opposed to self-defense) that would bar criminal prosecution under the Revised Penal Code. However, this has yet to be adjudicated by the Philippine Supreme Court.

This is really interesting and a great fact to introduce. I was suspicious myself. We can't know for sure--it is possible that a doctor risked imprisonment to advise her to have an abortion but it seems unlikely. To those who call Chaka cynical for supposing that the story is exaggerated and made up, I would say that a movement which threatens and murders doctors in this country as the anti-choice movement has would certainly be willing to stretch the truth. I doubt Teebow would know about it, but it isn't hard for me to imagine his missionary parents and/or anti-choice organizations taking advantage of him to promote their ideas.

In case you forgot about what the anti-choice movement is capable of: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1902120,00.html

 

[Chaka]

Yep, its a total crap story by her. I just talked to several Philipina women (and they are currently talking to their friends and family, my question created quite a storm on the "tsismis/rumor" front)- abortions simply do NOT happen with any Doctor/Hospital/Clinical oversight. Unless Mrs Tebow did her "coma" recovery in a back alley. /sarcasm

Its a big part of why Manilla has 11million people (and actually sports 20 million in the the Greater Manilla area... putting it close to being the most populated city in the world).

Big reason for this? No abortion for any reasons. And low incomes and education for many of the masses.

wiki-

The act is criminalized by the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which was enacted in 1930 but remains in effect today. Articles 256, 258 and 259 of the Code mandate imprisonment for the woman who undergoes the abortion, as well as for any person who assists in the procedure, even if they be the woman's parents, a physician or midwife. Article 258 further imposes a higher prison term on the woman or her parents if the abortion is undertaken "in order to conceal [the woman's] dishonor".

There is no law in the Philippines that expressly authorizes abortions in order to save the woman's life; and the general provisions which do penalize abortion make no qualifications if the woman's life is endangered. It may be argued that an abortion to save the mother's life could be classified as a justifying circumstance (duress as opposed to self-defense) that would bar criminal prosecution under the Revised Penal Code. However, this has yet to be adjudicated by the Philippine Supreme Court.

This is really interesting and a great fact to introduce. I was suspicious myself. We can't know for sure--it is possible that a doctor risked imprisonment to advise her to have an abortion but it seems unlikely. To those who call ChakaChoke cynical for supposing that the story is exaggerated and made up, I would say that a movement which threatens and murders doctors in this country as the anti-choice movement has would certainly be willing to stretch the truth. I doubt Teebow would know about it, but it isn't hard for me to imagine his missionary parents and/or anti-choice organizations taking advantage of him to promote their ideas.

In case you forgot about what the anti-choice movement is capable of: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1902120,00.html

Fixed.I'm the one who thinks Tim Tebow is not credible as a spokesperson for this issue.

I don't think the Mama Tebow issue that Choke is going about is a big deal. I find it entirely plausible that a doctor in the Philippines could have suggested that she return to the U.S. for an abortion, instead of offering to perform the abortion.

 

[Chaka]

Let me clear it up for you both as best I can. Unborn life is innocent, defenseless life. The life of a murderer is not innocent life and most adults are capable of making choices or taking action to prolong and preserve their own life. If your actions cause your own death, I have less pity for you than I do an unborn child who does not and cannot act to cause their own death...or take measures to prevent it. You need not agree with that distinction having merit, but it is a real and actual disctinction nonethless. And please consider that our society makes these types of distinctions all the time. Consider children, the infirm of mind, and criminals. I value freedom to come as go as I please, to vote, to own firearms, etc. Must I also then oppose the jailing of violent felons and the revocation of their right to vote and own firearms because I value freedom? Of course not. Actions have consequences. Is jail or fines a deterrant? No more so than the death penalty. Crime continues to occur.By the same measure, I am A-OK with protecting children, the old and the mentally handicapped from exploitation and harm that they cannot prevent to themselves. We do this by limiting their ability to enter in contracts and engage in risky behavior which they may not fully be capable of evaluating. We do so because we recognize that they are defenseless in that regard. So we manufacture a defensive scheme to protect them (no drinking under 21, for example) and we punish those take advantage of their naivete (statutory rape, for example). So, with respect, no, not all lives are equal in their rights in our society.I approve of the death penalty in the abstract but I do question whether or not innocent people are subjected to it. So I cannot say I am pro or anti, I'm still coming to terms with it. The thought of executing an innocent is abhorrent to me. As for serious contradictions...how about those that oppose the death penalty, even for the truly guilty, yet support abortion? Let's save the murderers. The unborn? Meh.Enjoying the dscussion, though.

The question is not: Does a child = a murderer? The question is: Is life sacred? And apparently the answer is "Not if we can satisfy our need for vengeance." (call it justice if you must).That's all the death penalty is, vengeance. It's not a deterrent it's only more death.I am not sure if you are a Christian man James, and I know some Christian people try to defend the opposite of my next statement, but I am pretty sure that Jesus would not support killing in the name of vengeance. And the Pope agrees. I have done my research on this so you don't need to site chapter and verse to show how he may have thought otherwise, I know much of the opposing viewpoint. This is another one of those debates, like abortion, that will not allow for a consensus to be met.

Im not a fan of the death penalty really but Im pretty sure God wiped out nations for their sins. Kind of sounds like the death penalty. I believe God has no problem with a death penalty, but maybe the issue is that its no ones decision besides God's who lives and who dies. That goes for in and outside the womb.And on the contrary, there are people who are pro-choice who arent for euthenasia or assisted suicide. People think its ok for a mother to decide death for their baby at the beginning of their life, before they even have a chance. But yet, someone who has lived a full life cant even make that decision for their own life. Doesnt make any sense. People say let life run its course and it should go both ways.

Old Testament G-D is all about vengeance and fire and brimstone but that is not the God of the New Testament. The Old Testament G-D is not the God preached by Jesus.

 

[Devine Intervention]

Let me clear it up for you both as best I can. Unborn life is innocent, defenseless life. The life of a murderer is not innocent life and most adults are capable of making choices or taking action to prolong and preserve their own life. If your actions cause your own death, I have less pity for you than I do an unborn child who does not and cannot act to cause their own death...or take measures to prevent it. You need not agree with that distinction having merit, but it is a real and actual disctinction nonethless. And please consider that our society makes these types of distinctions all the time. Consider children, the infirm of mind, and criminals. I value freedom to come as go as I please, to vote, to own firearms, etc. Must I also then oppose the jailing of violent felons and the revocation of their right to vote and own firearms because I value freedom? Of course not. Actions have consequences. Is jail or fines a deterrant? No more so than the death penalty. Crime continues to occur.By the same measure, I am A-OK with protecting children, the old and the mentally handicapped from exploitation and harm that they cannot prevent to themselves. We do this by limiting their ability to enter in contracts and engage in risky behavior which they may not fully be capable of evaluating. We do so because we recognize that they are defenseless in that regard. So we manufacture a defensive scheme to protect them (no drinking under 21, for example) and we punish those take advantage of their naivete (statutory rape, for example). So, with respect, no, not all lives are equal in their rights in our society.I approve of the death penalty in the abstract but I do question whether or not innocent people are subjected to it. So I cannot say I am pro or anti, I'm still coming to terms with it. The thought of executing an innocent is abhorrent to me. As for serious contradictions...how about those that oppose the death penalty, even for the truly guilty, yet support abortion? Let's save the murderers. The unborn? Meh.Enjoying the dscussion, though.

The question is not: Does a child = a murderer? The question is: Is life sacred? And apparently the answer is "Not if we can satisfy our need for vengeance." (call it justice if you must).That's all the death penalty is, vengeance. It's not a deterrent it's only more death.I am not sure if you are a Christian man James, and I know some Christian people try to defend the opposite of my next statement, but I am pretty sure that Jesus would not support killing in the name of vengeance. And the Pope agrees. I have done my research on this so you don't need to site chapter and verse to show how he may have thought otherwise, I know much of the opposing viewpoint. This is another one of those debates, like abortion, that will not allow for a consensus to be met.

Im not a fan of the death penalty really but Im pretty sure God wiped out nations for their sins. Kind of sounds like the death penalty. I believe God has no problem with a death penalty, but maybe the issue is that its no ones decision besides God's who lives and who dies. That goes for in and outside the womb.And on the contrary, there are people who are pro-choice who arent for euthenasia or assisted suicide. People think its ok for a mother to decide death for their baby at the beginning of their life, before they even have a chance. But yet, someone who has lived a full life cant even make that decision for their own life. Doesnt make any sense. People say let life run its course and it should go both ways.

Old Testament G-D is all about vengeance and fire and brimstone but that is not the God of the New Testament. The Old Testament G-D is not the God preached by Jesus.

Well the God preached in church is both the God from the new and old testimates. They are the same God. Jesus preaches about that same God. Unless Im missing something there is only one of them.

 

[Tanner9919]

I am a liberal , but I have no problem with the ad as long as it is not "demeaning", which the group is saying it will not be. The only thing I worry about is Tebow, himself. It took me a long time to see both sides of life and gain my own thoughts and beliefs. Maybe some do it differently, but I find it strange someone has had such strong views (and is now becoming the national face of those views) at such an early age. It almost reminds me of Todd Marinovich and his being bred to be uber-QB (in this case Tebow is uber-Christian). I certainly have no qualms about him feeling so strongly, I just hope for his case that he has had an opportunity to explore what is out there or else he has the potential to go the other way. Basicaly I hope the "machine" behind Tebow is not as strong as it was for guys like Marinovich and Josh Hamilton.

so is the entire CBS Network..in no way would they have allowed a Pro-Choice ad on their network,primetime,during a SB..

no way..

the hypocrisy with CBS's executives is what makes me laugh...as long as it's a left-leaning liberal ad, it's OK...



I wonder if they would have allowed the NRA to run a Ted Nugent-led ad that talks about guns ?



that's why this whole thing is a farce, imo..

Tebow's agenda meets CBS' agenda of in-your-face liberalism

 

[Chaka]

Old Testament G-D is all about vengeance and fire and brimstone but that is not the God of the New Testament. The Old Testament G-D is not the God preached by Jesus.

Well the God preached in church is both the God from the new and old testimates. They are the same God. Jesus preaches about that same God. Unless Im missing something there is only one of them.

I am not suggesting there is more than one God I am saying that the human interpretations of God from the OT and NT could not be any more different.

 

[Chaka]

I am a liberal , but I have no problem with the ad as long as it is not "demeaning", which the group is saying it will not be. The only thing I worry about is Tebow, himself. It took me a long time to see both sides of life and gain my own thoughts and beliefs. Maybe some do it differently, but I find it strange someone has had such strong views (and is now becoming the national face of those views) at such an early age. It almost reminds me of Todd Marinovich and his being bred to be uber-QB (in this case Tebow is uber-Christian). I certainly have no qualms about him feeling so strongly, I just hope for his case that he has had an opportunity to explore what is out there or else he has the potential to go the other way. Basicaly I hope the "machine" behind Tebow is not as strong as it was for guys like Marinovich and Josh Hamilton.

so is the entire CBS Network..in no way would they have allowed a Pro-Choice ad on their network,primetime,during a SB..

no way..

the hypocrisy with CBS's executives is what makes me laugh...as long as it's a left-leaning liberal ad, it's OK...



I wonder if they would have allowed the NRA to run a Ted Nugent-led ad that talks about guns ?



that's why this whole thing is a farce, imo..

Tebow's agenda meets CBS' agenda of in-your-face liberalism

Focus on the Family = LiberalWait...wat?

Am I missing your ?

 

[JamesTheScot]

We all understand (or most of us here do) that there is more to the commercial than the basic notion that "Your unborn child is the next Tim Tebow" but that does not mean it isn't the message they are pushing. And I question how many people will truly see any deeper than the surface message.

I think you are way off base with this post.First, if they are sending a message that most of us here can understand, why would you then presume that they are pushing that message because they think it will be misunderstood by others?

Second, you are being pretty elitist with the red statement. It really takes on an "I'm smart enough but many people are too stupid to understand it" feel. Interestingly enough, those same people that you think are too stupid to understand that the odds are slim that their unborn child will be the next Tebow are nonetheless smart enough to make the call on whether or not to abort. Why don't YOU make that more important decision for them since they obviously can't be trusted to handle the simple matter of applying rational thought to a 30 second television ad.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Let me clear it up for you both as best I can. Unborn life is innocent, defenseless life. The life of a murderer is not innocent life and most adults are capable of making choices or taking action to prolong and preserve their own life. If your actions cause your own death, I have less pity for you than I do an unborn child who does not and cannot act to cause their own death...or take measures to prevent it. You need not agree with that distinction having merit, but it is a real and actual disctinction nonethless. And please consider that our society makes these types of distinctions all the time. Consider children, the infirm of mind, and criminals. I value freedom to come as go as I please, to vote, to own firearms, etc. Must I also then oppose the jailing of violent felons and the revocation of their right to vote and own firearms because I value freedom? Of course not. Actions have consequences. Is jail or fines a deterrant? No more so than the death penalty. Crime continues to occur.By the same measure, I am A-OK with protecting children, the old and the mentally handicapped from exploitation and harm that they cannot prevent to themselves. We do this by limiting their ability to enter in contracts and engage in risky behavior which they may not fully be capable of evaluating. We do so because we recognize that they are defenseless in that regard. So we manufacture a defensive scheme to protect them (no drinking under 21, for example) and we punish those take advantage of their naivete (statutory rape, for example). So, with respect, no, not all lives are equal in their rights in our society.I approve of the death penalty in the abstract but I do question whether or not innocent people are subjected to it. So I cannot say I am pro or anti, I'm still coming to terms with it. The thought of executing an innocent is abhorrent to me. As for serious contradictions...how about those that oppose the death penalty, even for the truly guilty, yet support abortion? Let's save the murderers. The unborn? Meh.Enjoying the dscussion, though.

The question is not: Does a child = a murderer? The question is: Is life sacred? And apparently the answer is "Not if we can satisfy our need for vengeance." (call it justice if you must).That's all the death penalty is, vengeance. It's not a deterrent it's only more death.I am not sure if you are a Christian man James, and I know some Christian people try to defend the opposite of my next statement, but I am pretty sure that Jesus would not support killing in the name of vengeance. And the Pope agrees. I have done my research on this so you don't need to site chapter and verse to show how he may have thought otherwise, I know much of the opposing viewpoint. This is another one of those debates, like abortion, that will not allow for a consensus to be met.

I reject your premise that justice = vengence or that they are interchangeable. Given that foundational disagreement, I think you can see how I take issue with the rest of your post. Suffice it to say, Jesus spoke about the heart of the individual Christian and actually spoke very little on secular government and social institutions like, say, slavery. But I have no problem with a Christian (or anyone else) taking an anti-death penalty position from a "life is sacred" perspective.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Explain to me how killing a born human is less nuanced than killing an unborn human.Because you may want the cover of nuance to defend your position which you already admit is partially uncomfortable does not in fact make the issue one of nuance.

A foetus is not human. It's not viable. Beyond that, you are simplifying this into an either/or: either it is human or it is not; if it is human (implied) it is murder. Yet, our society endorses murder in several instances where we see a compelling interest. In capital punishment we value the pain and suffering of surviving victims and their desire for the ultimate revenge above life. However horrible those who die from capital punishment may be, they are still human. But we weigh two interests and we say that it is worth it in this case to take human life. In war we tell our soldiers to kill other humans in the name of our national interest. In many cases, those who die and are killed we know are not soldiers--they are civilians. We do it because we weigh other factors and in the end we decide that our national interest is more important than our value for human life. The enemy (civilian and military) are humans; but we kill them.This is why in the case of abortion we give the greatest deference to the choice of the mother. The foetus is part of her body. And she above all people will have to live with the consequences of her choice.

And this is why philosophical discussions always degenerate into linguistics.Our society does not endorse "murder". Execution of a convicted criminal is not "murder". The same way that in Jewish law, there was lethal punishment for certain transgressions yet they had the Commandment not to murder.Without delving into all the theological basis for everything, the snapshot version is that God cannot murder because the killing of the guilty is not murder. So when God gave the law to the Israelites, those things he demarcated as deserving death are not murder.Similarly, the death of a civilian by a bomb that missed its target or that found its target when the civilian was not known to be there is not murder because the death of that civilian was not intentionally caused. While some challenge that disctinction, the same disctinction is present in our civilian justice system when we demarcate different outcomes for deaths caused by negligence and those caused by malicious and intentional pre-planning.So while you may choose to call the death penalty "murder", I can just as easily and with just as much authority say that it is not murder.Same as your assertion that a fetus is not human, or that viability has anything to do with that analysis. You asserting it as fact does not make it so.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Yep, its a total crap story by her. I just talked to several Philipina women (and they are currently talking to their friends and family, my question created quite a storm on the "tsismis/rumor" front)- abortions simply do NOT happen with any Doctor/Hospital/Clinical oversight. Unless Mrs Tebow did her "coma" recovery in a back alley. /sarcasm

Its a big part of why Manilla has 11million people (and actually sports 20 million in the the Greater Manilla area... putting it close to being the most populated city in the world).

Big reason for this? No abortion for any reasons. And low incomes and education for many of the masses.

wiki-

The act is criminalized by the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which was enacted in 1930 but remains in effect today. Articles 256, 258 and 259 of the Code mandate imprisonment for the woman who undergoes the abortion, as well as for any person who assists in the procedure, even if they be the woman's parents, a physician or midwife. Article 258 further imposes a higher prison term on the woman or her parents if the abortion is undertaken "in order to conceal [the woman's] dishonor".

There is no law in the Philippines that expressly authorizes abortions in order to save the woman's life; and the general provisions which do penalize abortion make no qualifications if the woman's life is endangered. It may be argued that an abortion to save the mother's life could be classified as a justifying circumstance (duress as opposed to self-defense) that would bar criminal prosecution under the Revised Penal Code. However, this has yet to be adjudicated by the Philippine Supreme Court.

This is really interesting and a great fact to introduce. I was suspicious myself. We can't know for sure--it is possible that a doctor risked imprisonment to advise her to have an abortion but it seems unlikely. To those who call Chaka cynical for supposing that the story is exaggerated and made up, I would say that a movement which threatens and murders doctors in this country as the anti-choice movement has would certainly be willing to stretch the truth. I doubt Teebow would know about it, but it isn't hard for me to imagine his missionary parents and/or anti-choice organizations taking advantage of him to promote their ideas.

In case you forgot about what the anti-choice movement is capable of: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1902120,00.html

Should we roll out the pictures and the death toll for what the anti-life movement is capable of?