Pro-choice doesn't mean that we think EVERY pregnancy should be aborted.
I happen to be the pro-choice parent of a beautiful, talented, kind-hearted daughter hell-bent on saving the world one stray animal at a time.
Pro-choice simply means that we want BOTH options - deliver or terminate - available to EVERY pregnant woman to CHOOSE as SHE sees fit, depending on HER life circumstances.
So-called pro-life would make only one of those options possible.

I am very much for the position, as I think most pro-choicers are, that "pro-choice" means "choice".

However, I wonder what would happen if we had a law that required the father to raise a child if the mother did not want it. Not just pay child support, but find a way to raise a child. No choice involved, it is his by default if she decides that she does not want the child. Because the truth that most religious folks will not admit is this: that religious men (our brother, fathers, and sons) are just as culpable, if not more so than non-religious men, in pressuring women to have sex. Then they move on to new lives and careers, I think those things that Walker was calling "selfish", with no intent or unfulfilled promises to support children. You need not look any further than the pew nearest to you.

Let's take the focus off of women and how their lives might be affect. Change the child support laws to paternity sustenance laws. Garnish the father's wages, and allot HIM a limited living wage and let the rest go to his children. I assure you that most male "pro-lifers" will change their tune faster than they can say "Focus on the Family". There will also be a new push towards indigestible male contraceptive.

In terms of the female pro-lifers, I have no quarrel with them. I just think that they acknowledge their privilege when they believe that they can make rules for others. Has it ever crossed their minds that the majority, not all, of their fellow protesters, are white, middle-class, married, stay-at-home women? I am sure that Tebow's family falls in this group. Do you dare speak for women who are not like you and do not share your privilege?

Realistically, no one here is advocating for death of another, least of all a child. But, let's also get real. If you are coming to this discussion from a religious point of view, get your house in order, first; otherwise, your arguments sound vacuous, self-serving, colonalistic, and self-righteous. No one wants her rights take away any more than you do - that argument cuts both ways.

You choose life and another's choice is to end it. Either way you will both stand before God and give an accounting - an accounting about which He will know more details than protesters standing in front of a clinic. As someone said before, put your money, time and resources where your mouth is and provide for the children, who you feel should be born, in ways similar to your own (although we know that your group is the first to protest against the welfare and government assistance that father-abandoned children need).

The vast majority of us -- including the Catholic Church I believe -- who are "pro-life" support the right to an abortion if the life of the mother is in jeopardy so raising that issue is a red herring.

The real issue here which "pro-choice" advocates are willfully ignoring is that their choice has consequences, consequences which they want everyone else to ignore too. Those consequences are that decent, productive human beings like Tim Tebow will forever be denied their one chance at existence because of a decision which was made while they were forming in utero.

Excellent article. It's obvious what is happening with the Super Bowl ad. It's not merely hearing one person's story, the ad is a slick endorsement for a theocratic religious leader who has made fortunes fighting against freedom. His organization continued even after a child was sexually abused at his Christian youth camp. Dobson is just as extreme as Robertson. Their policy ideas are appealing to the Taliban, but not for a nation of democracy and diversity.

Posted by: revbookburn | February 6, 2010 6:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One of the mor0ns I was talking about in my post. Pro Choice. Tebow chose life. This is considered an an attack on freedom by revdumb@zz. LOL

Pro Choice is about having the ability to choose. It doesn't mean you have to chose an abortion but it sure sounds like this is what the Pro Choice crowd thinks. If you chose not to have an abortion then you have sold them out??? Do you really want to be associated with a group like this?? No one has the right to murder. You have a choice when having sex and if chose to have unprotected sex and get pregnant then oh well. Unless your life is at risk you should not be allowed to abort the baby. It's called responsibility....

Excellent article. It's obvious what is happening with the Super Bowl ad. It's not merely hearing one person's story, the ad is a slick endorsement for a theocratic religious leader who has made fortunes fighting against freedom. His organization continued even after a child was sexually abused at his Christian youth camp. Dobson is just as extreme as Robertson. Their policy ideas are appealing to the Taliban, but not for a nation of democracy and diversity.

My, it would have been nice if the parents of you militant pro-abortion (sorry, pro-choice) had followed your own advice. Clearly, you all were born into ideal circumstances with no complications at birth, no burden to your parents, etc. Such a blessed event you all were.

"

If Ms. Tebow wants to crow about her experience, that's fine in the context of her sphere of knowledge and experience. BUT, hooking up with a whack-job organization like Focus on the Family AND now CBS to air her beliefs to an audience of BILLIONS of people is over the top of decency and common courtesy.

I truly don't care what she thinks and don't want her belief system aired in my presence. This is a classic propaganda technique from the old eastern bloc era and I want no part of it..."

Wow, the above is really whackjob and over the top. A person going on television and telling their experience and how it turned out for them, in the hope of persuading someone else of their point of view, reminds you of classic communist propaganda? You must not watch much television, because most ads, commercial and political, involve a person telling their experience and trying to persuade others to their point of view. Try reading the First Amendment some time.

'Banning abortion treats a living being as a thing, as property whose body may be doled out to another's use without her continuing consent, regardless of what happens to her as a result'

or you could have said "abortion treats a living being as a thing, as property whose body may be doled out to another's use without her continuing consent, regardless of what happens to her as a result"

"Would someone who is "pro-life" be that supportive of a young woman who already had four children and felt that she could not deal with one more because of her own health problems, economic difficulties, or an abusive husband?

Posted by: justforposting | February 6, 2010 10:29 AM"

Perhaps they would give her this link below, or one like it from her state if she wasn't from New York, get her a pen and the appropriate phone numbers to call, and even help her dial if that was necessary. And she wouldn't have to experience those difficulties because the baby would wind up in the house of someone else who can't have their own child yet who still wants children. Problem solved.

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/forms/surrogates/adoption.shtml

How long before he hear about Tebow's love child? It's bound to happen you know, these pompous holier than thou bible thumpers almost always turn out to be frauds. Almost every month we hear about another famous fallen angel. Yawn......

This always amazes me. So many "Pro-choice" advocates have no tolerance for people who exercise their choice NOT to have an abortion, or at least they don't want to hear about it. Yet, these same people demand respect for their view on "reproductive rights." Well, Mrs. Tebow exercised her reproductive rights, she exercised her choice not to have an abortion, and Tim Tebow is just one example of the outcome of one of that choice. What is threatening, demeaning, restrictive, or wrong about that? Honestly, I feel that if people have some kind of issue with Mrs. Tebow deciding not to have an abortion and talking openly about it, the problem isn't really with Mrs. Tebow, her decision, her son, or the platform they've chosen to talk about it. Being "Pro-Choice" means giving women the power to make the choice that's best for THEM, not what makes everyone else feel good about their political stance. If you have an issue with Mrs. Tebow, turn the channel when the commercial comes on, and stop this silly argument about what this woman chose to do with her body.

To bobmoses - I am politically moderate and an independent. I find it ironic that you can take your statement about liberals and just substitute the word conservative and it fits! You conservatives are just as intolerant of other people's views and think your way of thinking is the only way.

Killing a human life is Murder, its unacceptable, it should not be tolerated !!!=========================

I will bet that you are one of those people who are AGAINST healthcare reform, where 45,000 people are MURDERED every year because they cannot afford healthcare???

Do you stand up for these people like you do for the elderly and the unborn??
Thought not.

Catken1, why don't you visit Abortionno.org or Priestsforlife.com and look at a few videos and try to deny that a life is being destroyed. But I'm sure you won't, you prefer to ignore the obvious, ugly, truly evil truth about abortion-that it the killing of innocent life.

Abortion is the high sacrament of the church of liberalism. The great enabler of the sexual devolution... So, you go girl! Have illicit sex! Climb that corporate latter!

This is a biblical reference to fathers to watch their daughters.

Ecclesiasticus 26:12 "She will open her mouth, as a thirsty traveller when he hath found a fountain, and drink of every water near her: by every hedge will she sit down, and open her quiver against every arrow."

It is clear that women of today are certainly taught to open their quiver as a matter of course and protection is not a party to the word, discretion.

Choice commeth before a fall

How about a television commercial featuring a heart warming story of a woman and her family when she joins the 4800 women of United States that each year die from complications in childbirth?

Being pro-choice means recognizing that love, courage, selflessness and dignity demand that we value every pregnant woman's ability to decide what's right for herself and her family.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thank you Ms. Donovan. This is exactly why I am pro-choice.

"Amen, US-Conscience, abortion kills another living being...

why can't you pro-"choice" people admit it? Because you're selfish, worldly people, that's why."

Banning abortion treats a living being as a thing, as property whose body may be doled out to another's use without her continuing consent, regardless of what happens to her as a result.

Why can't you anti-choice people admit it? Because you're judgmental, self-centered people who care more about a blastula without nerve endings or brain cells (but who, after all, might be male and therefore valuable) than about its living, thinking, feeling mother. After all, she's had sex, and everyone knows that a non-virgin woman is a piece of trash to be used and thrown out, right?

And anti-choice males are even more selfish. You're perfectly willing to demand that a woman sacrifice her autonomy and humanity for her child, but God forbid the goverment try to lay hands on YOUR sacred right to choose what goes on in and with your own body.

"Do we put selfish women aborting for selfish reasons, and women in trouble, aborting for serious reasons, in the SAME BOAT? Do they both have the "right to choose" which amounts here to "the right to kill"?"

Well, do we put selfish men refusing to donate blood for selfish reasons in the same boat as men who can't donate for serious and important reasons? Do they both have the "right to choose" to kill someone who needs their blood to survive?

When it's your body being used by another, it's your choice. Period.

And anyway, who gets to be in charge of deciding what reasons are "selfish?" There are plenty of people in this country who believe that any woman who isn't a virgin and doesn't want to bear child after child until she dies of exhaustion is selfish. There are others who believe that anyone who bears more than two children is selfish. There are those who believe that a mother of existing, born children who continues a dangerous pregnancy is selfish for risking her children's only mother. There are those who believe that a mother who chooses an abortion to save her own life is selfish. Who decides?

Better leave the decision in the hands of the woman, whose body is being used and affected and permanently changed by the pregnancy, whose life will be changed irrevocably either by giving birth or by having an abortion.

"Purposefully killing a 20 year old is Murder. Purposefully killing a 15 year old is Murder. Purposefully killing a 10 year old is Murder. Purposefully killing a 5 year old is Murder, and purposefully killing an unborn child is Murder."

Refusing the use of your body or body parts to a 5, 10, 15, or 20-year-old who needs it to live is not murder. Even if that person happens to be your child, or even if you caused their injury through your own carelessness. Why is it murder when it's an unborn child?

"I wonder how many woman have Murdered their unborn child because : they didnt want to ruin their figure, or didnt want to hamper their carear, or didnt really love the guy ( and were not married ) or what ever the reason...."

I wonder how many men have murdered innocent children or vulnerable adults because they thought giving blood was too inconvenient, or were scared of needles, or thought it wasn't important enough to take a day off work, or whatever the reason...Aren't men just so selfish and inconsiderate? How DARE they view their bodies as their own property, instead of belonging to anyone in need?

And giving blood costs a hell of a lot less, in time and energy and pain, than pregnancy does. Believe me. I've done both. (Never had an abortion, but in the hopefully unlikely event that I find myself in a bad pregnancy situation, I want to be making that choice, not government.)

Tebow was in a country where there is no choice. The Philippines is a regressive society where only rich women have a "choice". Taking advice from third world physicians as a basis for any decision making is iffy at best.

Interesting article. But I worked in the health field 40 years, and I saw many mothers to whom yet another pregnancy was a tribulation, because of illness, poverty or incredible abuse. Tebow's mother is advertising her choice out of pride. See what I did, everybody! I want partial credit for that Heisman Trophy!

"I don't really have the right to judge and condemn women because I will never know their circumstance other than being married to one for twenty-eight years who had abortions on demand for her convenience because she didn't want to stop smoking during her pregnancy."
Sounds like you're judging all women all right, insisting that because your wife was careless and selfish, Posted by: Catken1
-----------
Actually he did NOT say that ALL women are selfish, only that SOME are. When you say, "you're judging all women" you are putting words in his mouth and that is not a good way of arguing.

So the question still remains. Some women are in serious trouble and have strong reason to abort - maybe rape, maybe serious health problem for themselves or the baby. OK, fine, we understand that.

But some OTHER women are selfish and abort for selfish reasons. And American society needs to ask, "Do we also give selfish women the power of life and death?" Do we deny all rights to both the foetus and the father?

Do we put selfish women aborting for selfish reasons, and women in trouble, aborting for serious reasons, in the SAME BOAT? Do they both have the "right to choose" which amounts here to "the right to kill"?

Against abortion? Don't have one.

Dear Megan Donovan,

Thank you so much for writing such a thoughtful, well-written piece in response that infuriating garbage produced by Ms. Walker!

For a moment, let us accept the pro-life viewpoint that an unborn child has the same rights as a thinking, vibrant, plans-and-dreams woman. It seems to me that the "pro-life" viewpoint is about forcing one person to sacrifice for another. The woman is FORCED to take a risk for the unborn child. Forced to risk blindness, in the case of Alicia Tysiac, forced to risk permanent health damage or even death.

If, according to the pro-life viewpoint, people should be forced to sacrifice for other people, why isn't organ donation mandatory? In the case of a brain-dead person on total life-support, why aren't their kidneys and hearts automatically put up for donation? Especially brain-dead children, whose organs are particularly needed?

Why aren't traffic tickets punishable by forced blood or bone-marrow donations? THINK OF ALL THE LIVES THAT WE COULD SAVE, and I am not kidding!

But of course, everyone with two eyes and a brain of their own can see that a thinking, feeling, dreaming woman is completely different from a vacuous embryo wriggling around in her stomach.

They aren't the same, they don't have the same rights, and the woman should not be required by law to sacrifice for the fetus.

Ah, the pro-lifer says, but the woman allowed herself to become pregnant (never mind how) and therefore nature should take its course.

And that is the scariest position of all... that medical care should be allotted selectively, and given only to people who can prove they deserve it.

utahreb.....Americans in the Philippines can get an abortion if they want one....

Freedom of Religion = some women believe that life is a sperm hitting an egg...others do not...it is that simple! Morning after pills will be used by women who need/want them and we are moving toward better birth control methods.We have religion and science in this question...you take your religion and I will take mine...and both of us can worship in our own, private way. Also, men who do want to be stuck with child support must work hard to get better methods of birth control for themselves...just do it!

Amen, US-Conscience, abortion kills another living being...

why can't you pro-"choice" people admit it? Because you're selfish, worldly people, that's why.

Purposefully killing a 20 year old is Murder. Purposefully killing a 15 year old is Murder. Purposefully killing a 10 year old is Murder. Purposefully killing a 5 year old is Murder, and purposefully killing an unborn child is Murder.

I wonder how many woman have Murdered their unborn child because : they didnt want to ruin their figure, or didnt want to hamper their carear, or didnt really love the guy ( and were not married ) or what ever the reason....

I'm sure every person who committed armed robbery had their reasons too, but that doesnt make what they did acceptable.

Killing a human life is Murder, its unacceptable, it should not be tolerated !!!

If Ms. Tebow wants to crow about her experience, that's fine in the context of her sphere of knowledge and experience. BUT, hooking up with a whack-job organization like Focus on the Family AND now CBS to air her beliefs to an audience of BILLIONS of people is over the top of decency and common courtesy.

I truly don't care what she thinks and don't want her belief system aired in my presence. This is a classic propaganda technique from the old eastern bloc era and I want no part of it...

"I don't really have the right to judge and condemn women because I will never know their circumstance other than being married to one for twenty-eight years who had abortions on demand for her convenience because she didn't want to stop smoking during her pregnancy."

Sounds like you're judging all women all right, insisting that because your wife was careless and selfish, the rest of us are too. I guess you want to be judged by the (thankfully very small minority of) men who beat their wives and lock their children in closets to starve? Oh, right, men are individuals to be judged on an individual basis, but it's all right to make group generalizations about women based on one evil woman that you know.

"I ended it by getting a vasectomy which the feminists now seem to demand of all men as if we are to be subservient to their special form of misandrist fascism."

Oh, poor widdle baby, are those mean ol' feminists out to castrate you? Sheesh, talk about paranoid fantasies. You might want to see a therapist about that, and about your unresolved anger issues. Women are not your enemies because one woman was mean to you.

""Being pro-(life) means recognizing that love, courage, selflessness and dignity demand that we value every conceived human's right to live. "

Are you prepared to give up your right to control who may or may not use your body in order to protect another human's right to live?
You are indeed expecting selflessness of a woman when you tell her that her crime of not remaining virginal means that she is now the property of her fetus, to be used with or without her consent, regardless of any consequences to her, regardless of any change in her circumstances or in the pregnancy over nine months. But you're not loving her, nor are you according her much dignity.

This is the difference, as I perceive it, between people who are "pro-life" and "pro-choice": As a woman who favors choice, I would never dream of trying to impose my views on someone like Pam Tebow. If she were my sister, my neighbor, my friend, I would do everything I could to support her through a difficult pregnancy - make casseroles for her family, help watch her other kids if she was on bed rest, etc. I have done it. It would never occur to me in a million years to write my congressman to have the law changed to force her to follow her doctor's advice and have an abortion, even if I personally did not agree with it because it could have resulted in four small children being left motherless.

Would someone who is "pro-life" be that supportive of a young woman who already had four children and felt that she could not deal with one more because of her own health problems, economic difficulties, or an abusive husband?

This is the difference, as I perceive it, between people who are "pro-life" and "pro-choice": As a woman who favors choice, I would never dream of trying to impose my views on someone like Pam Tebow. If she were my sister, my neighbor, my friend, I would do everything I could to support her through a difficult pregnancy - make casseroles for her family, help watch her other kids if she was on bed rest, etc. I have done it. It would never occur to me in a million years to write my congressman to have the law changed to force her to follow her doctor's advice and have an abortion, even if I personally did not agree with it because it could have resulted in four small children being left motherless.

Would someone who is "pro-life" be that supportive of a young woman who already had four children and felt that she could not deal with one more because of her own health problems, economic difficulties, or an abusive husband?

For one, from what I hear, neither Tebow nor his mother seem, in this upcoming ad, to be advocating that a woman not be able to choose. They seem to be advocating a particular choice be considered by women and telling how that choice turned out for her. Advocating that a person choose Option A in a decision situation does not violate their right to possibly choose Option B.

On the other matter, a separate issue from abortion:

I am in favor of preemptive war because I want to protect innocent lives. If a man with a bone to pick with somebody picks up a gun and chooses to go murder a bunch of people in public somewhere, in a shooting spree, he is acting disrespectful toward others right to live. If another man sees him with his gun approaching, and learns of his intent, and preemptively draws his gun and shoots him so he can't engage in the shooting spree, that second man is acting in defense of life. Likewise one who engages in preemptive war against the bad guys.

Hello, dear ladies and gentlemen, http://www.coolforsale.com
Buy now proposed a "New Year's gift '. A rare opportunity, what are you waiting for? Quickly move your mouse bar. commodity is credit guarantee, you can rest assured of purchase, coolforsale will provide service for you all, welcome to 1. sport shoes : Jordan ,Nike, adidas, Puma, Gucci, LV, UGG , etc. including women shoes and kids shoes.
2. T-Shirts : BBC T-Shirts, Bape T-Shirts, Armani T-Shirts, Polo T-Shirts,etc.
3. Hoodies : Bape hoody, hoody, AFF hoody, GGG hoody, ED hoody ,etc.
4. Jeans : Levis jeans , Gucci jeans, jeans,
Bape jeans , DG jeans ,etc. NHL Jersey Woman $ 40NFL Jersey $35 NBA Jersey $ 34MLB Jersey $ 35 Jordan Six Ring_m $36 Air Yeezy_m $ 45 T-Shirt_m $ 25Jacket_m $ 36,Hoody_m $ 50 Manicure Set $20
Free to pay freight, For details, please consult : http://www.coolforsale.com

I think that every pro-Life protester should be made to sign a contract to support "$$" every baby they save from abortion for the next 18-20 years. Pro-Life is only for the Birth then it stops.

From the story, with one small change:

"Being pro-(life) means recognizing that love, courage, selflessness and dignity demand that we value every conceived human's right to live.

But beyond that, America needs to move away from "abortion by choice" and move towards "abortion only from necessity."
--------
Why? Because you say so? I don't see this "need" at all. If a woman is pregnant and does not wish to be, her reasons have nothing to do with you and are, indeed, personal. The minute her choice to do something affects your rights or those of another person, then you have a say.

It is absurd on its face to state that the reason for an abortion must figure into the decision as to whether a woman be allowed to make that choice for herself. Who is going to determine what a woman's real reason is, if some arbitrary standard is going to be applied? And why should any third party have the right to tell her that only their selected list of reasons is good enough for her to have the right to make her own medical decisions?

It be a lot more honest here to call one side "anti-choice" and the other "pro-killing' except for the fact that most "anti-choice" Huckabees are "pro-killing" as well, just in other ways.

Abortion was ILLEGAL in the Phillipines in 1987. If Pam Tebow had chosen to have an abortion, both she and the physician would have been prosecuted.

So - this is the choice - choose abortion and go to jail.

Chatard:

Pardon me, but where in the piece does the author criticize "Faith and Christianity?"

The piece talks about choice, not moral posturing....something you seem to have a monopoly on.

I love the term "pro-life", as if anyone who supports capital punishment and pre-emptive war supports "life"

An underlying theme of women writing about pro-choice is their martyrdom that they were born a woman, as if it were the fault of men. I suppose I'm supposed to be sorry and guilty I was born a man and they were born women. Personally, I think abortion is killing, which is contrary to the Christian's Sixth Commandment, but I don't really have the right to judge and condemn women because I will never know their circumstance other than being married to one for twenty-eight years who had abortions on demand for her convenience because she didn't want to stop smoking during her pregnancy. I ended it by getting a vasectomy which the feminists now seem to demand of all men as if we are to be subservient to their special form of misandrist fascism.

People on both sides of this issue are extremely hypocritical.

Suppose a woman has been raped or she has a baby which is very defective and could not have a good life or her own health is at risk from the pregnancy. To me these are the easy cases - it seems to this writer at least that abortion should be a choice.

But suppose this is not the case. Maybe the pregnancy comes at an inconvenient time. Or perhaps she is in a relationship and her boyfriend objects to a baby. In such cases, she would suffer from having a child but her life would still be OK. It might be somewhat worse but OK. Does she have the right to kill?

Does the "right to choose" in THAT case imply the right to kill the life within her womb?

Many who defend the right to choose do not want to consider the reason why the abortion is sought. It is a "private matter" they say. Sure, and Bush thought that keeping people prisoner without bringing charges was also a "private matter". But it isn't a private matter when you want to kill or harm someone.

For most of us, those who are not religious fanatics, or fanatic feminists, the reason for an abortion is most important.

And statistically we KNOW the reasons. 98% of American abortions are non-emergency abortions. Should they be allowed because of a "constitutional right" which is not even stated in the constitution?

I believe that abortion should always be permitted in an emergency. I also believe that there should be no restrictions on day after pills which can be used when there is not yet a foetus to protect. Many people are sexually active and they do need a safety net.

But beyond that, America needs to move away from "abortion by choice" and move towards "abortion only from necessity."

Shouldn't that organization be renamed to be more accurate? How about "Focus on the Men"

Once again, Quinn and Meacham use this "On Faith" forum to invite left-wing femiNazis in to trash Faith and Christianity. These are the same people who tell you if you don't like smut on TV, change the channel, but they all have to chime in on the Tebow commercial, don't they? "center for Reproductive rights"??? Who is denying this twit her right to reproduce? Nobody. But who WANTS to deny it? Secular 'progressives'.

A woman does not have to choose between having a child and graduating from college. Both can be done. It makes it a challenge, but not impossible. Many college campuses have on-site daycare for parents.
There are plenty of services to help young moms, single moms, young dads, single dads, to improve their lives and the lives of their children.
Achieving a college degree with or without a child, is hard work. It can be done. Abortion doesn't need to be the only option, 'the right choice'. Ask for help, you'll find it!!!

"But let me guess. Because you are a liberal you take your views to be intrinsically correct and that those who dare not share those intrinsically correct views are just being obstinate in their refusal to take on your intrinsically correct views as their own.
That's liberal "tolerance" for you."

Hey Bobmoses - people who start complaining about strawmen really shouldn't go around creating strawmen of their own - know what I mean? There's this psychological thing called "projection"...

"firm-pro-abortion outlook", Bob?

I sincerely don't understand what you think it means to be pro-choice.

To me pro-choice means I am in favor of women having the option to choose carrying a pregnancy to term or to choose to have a legal abortion.

What does "firm pro-abortion" outlook mean?

I wonder if you are, coincidentally, pro death penalty? Some of those who are pro-all-life including the lives of convicted murderers would say killing anyone is a sin against their god. Are there valid arguments against what they believe their god demands of all of us? Is abortion the only issue where right and wrong is absolute?

Hmm. How many straw men arguments can you fit into one column:

"Do I think their story somehow proves that a woman in Mrs. Tebow's situation should be told that she has no choice but to continue her risky pregnancy?"

"To suggest that their stories are devoid of love, courage, selflessness, and dignity is to enter into a world of value judgments about other people that I am not willing to make; a world that, quite frankly, scares me."

"But that wouldn't be an argument for forcing women with risky pregnancies to have abortions."

I love the term "pro-choice", as if anyone who does not have a firm-pro abortion outlook is opposed to "choice".

Too bad the gun lobby didn't hop on this "pro-choice" charade before the pro-abortion crowd did.

"POSTED BY: ARANCIA12

A nice rebuttal to Ms. Walker's op piece. I doubt it will make a bit of difference to the anti-choice group, however."

About as much difference as the Tebow ad will make to the pro-abortion crowd.

But let me guess. Because you are a liberal you take your views to be intrinsically correct and that those who dare not share those intrinsically correct views are just being obstinate in their refusal to take on your intrinsically correct views as their own.

That's liberal "tolerance" for you.

A nice rebuttal to Ms. Walker's op piece. I doubt it will make a bit of difference to the anti-choice group, however.