Tebow ad another reason pro-choice is losing

Pam Tebow had a choice, but one choice included the possibility of being charged with a crime in the Phillipines in 1987 and going to jail if she had an abortion, which was against the law at that time.

This was not mentioned in the anti-abortion ad, was it? Let's have the facts on this and not a bunch of ideology.

'It amazes me the FORMER fetuses who were granted the gift of life. that support the end of life for others that just happen to be on the other side of womb.'

A typically disingenuous misunderstanding of the issue at hand. The issue being the reproductive autonomy of each and every woman to choose whether or not to give birth.

As other posters have said, it's hard to see why or how men even have a stake in the decision-making process, especially from a legislative standpoint.

Men are simply in no moral, ethical or biological position to force gestation and the birthing process on women - although they have done so for countless centuries.

It can't be put any simpler than that. If a fetus is never born, that fetus has never lived. The difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, should be strictly between women and their medical care providers.

If a woman chooses to carry an unwanted child to term with the idea of an adoption in mind, that's a personal decision - and hopefully will never again become legally mandated, with penalties attached.

Through Roe v Wade, the government has wisely decided to remain judicially neutral in the decision-making process, at least up to a medically reasonable point.

It is very questionable whether a good many state judiciaries would be quite that reasonable, given the political flux and neverending power cycles that rule state governments everywhere.

Frankly, the predominently male fixation with the morality and legalities of this issue as expressed in public venues, is somewhat mysterious.

It amazes me the FORMER fetuses who were granted the gift of life. that support the end of life for others that just happen to be on the other side of womb.

HYPOCRITES, all of you.

Many to include myself support homes such as the previously described Mothers' Home with our donations. Many also volunteer at these homes.

Dear Mr. Land,

Thank you for your comments.
While you advocate your position with vigor, your comment that pro-choice forces do not have "an effective counter-argument" to pro-life advocates is not true. Indeed, the arguments on both sides of the issue have improved over time, and both deserve respect. Indeed, counter- arguments have been made by others in this very blog.

Unfortunately, what Roe v. Wade effectively accomplished was to remove the decision of whether abortion should be legal, and, if so, at what point during a woman's pregnancy, from the various states' legislatures, where each side's position could be weighed and measured by the people's elected representatives, and who would enact laws accordingly. Each side would then be free to advocate for changes in those laws. What we now have, instead, is an impoverished and polarized intellectual debate because the Supreme Court took away our right to engage in the legislative process about abortion.

You only add to this impoverished intellectual debate by using charged and polarizing language such as, "If the 'pro-choice' forces think they have an effective counter argument to justify the continued wholesale killing of unborn Americans, then they should . . . make their case." You know full well that pro-choice advocates do not believe that abortion is the "wholesale killing of unborn Americans."

Your charged language shows the stridency and intolerance that atheists are often accused of harboring. This language is not helpful. While we can agree to forcefully fight for each other's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, even while admittedly we often times do not, in some respect, "respect" each other's views, we can agree to engage in a civilized debate about our views.

Finally, Tim Tebow, by wearing his religious views on his sleeve, and literally his face, has invited a vigorous debate on religious issues. But he can't have it both ways, both publicly and stridently proclaiming his only views, but complaining about a strident response. I imagine, in fact, he does not want it both ways and welcomes the debate. If so, good for him.

Yeal, posting an ad for a home for unwed mothers doesn't answer the questions I posed to you.

The Mission of the Mother's Home

"As a residential shelter, Mothers' Home provides a safe haven for vulnerable, pregnant women in a crisis who choose life as a sacred gift.

We encourage our mothers to celebrate the joy of new life and help them prepare for their future and the future of their child.

We focus on physical, emotional and developmental needs including positive life skills, parenting, and job preparation.

We strive to assist our mothers to reach their goals of independence and self sufficiency.

About Mothers' Home

Located in Darby, Pennsylvania, Mothers' Home is a safe-haven for pregnant women and their children.

Hope through empowerment. Mothers' Home provides hope for up to 22 young adult women struggling to give birth in spite of rejection and abandonment. Mothers' Home is an opportunity for empowerment as the expectant mothers receive counseling, childbirth and parenting classes, job preparation programs, assistance in finding independent housing, and much more. Each year, approximately 40-50 new mothers come to live at Mothers' Home and most return with their babies after delivery."

http://www.mothershome.org/donate.aspx

How many of those unwanted children are you personally helping to support, dear? Can we assume you are willing to have your tax dollars pay for the welfare of all those women you want to force to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, and for the babies born to them? What about the medical care of the infants born to women like Mrs. Tebow that aren't as fortunate as she was? Do you have the disposable income to pay for the special education severely disabled children will need? How about their group homes when they are left without parents and yet are unable to live on their own?

You anti-choice zealots are all about the "bay-bees", but where are you when those children and their families need help?

A suggested ad for the 2011 Super Bowl:

The pill fails to protect women 8.7% during the first year of use (from www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html)

Doing the math using the data from the above reference:

0.087 (failure rate in decimals)
x 62 million (# child bearing women)
x 0.62 ( % in decimals of these women using contraception )
x 0.306 ( % in decimals of these using the pill)

= 1,020,000 unwanted pregnancies
during the first year of pill use.

For male condoms (failure rate of 17.4 and 18% use level), there are approximatel 1,200,000 unwanted pregnancies during the first year of male condom use.

The Guttmacher Institute (same reference) notes also that the perfect use of the pill should result in a 0.3% failure rate
(35,000 unwanted pregnancies) and for the male condom, a 2% failure rate (138,000 unwanted pregnancies) .

The annual USA abortion death rate (CDC) is approximately one million/yr meaning there are over one million unwanted children born alive every year in the USA but it appears the USA citizenship continues to thrive. See a list of some famous unwanted children at:

http://www.parents.com/parenting/adoption/stories/famous-adoptees/

Mr. Land:

>...Entitled "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life," ...

The fotf CULT does NOT "celebrate" all families, just WASP heterosexual ones. They do NOT "celebrate" glbt families, or families with single parents, as you very well know. See the excellent documentary, "For the Bible Tells Me So" about what "dr" dobdork did to a family with a gay son who simply wanted to give him a letter.

THAT is why progressive, DECENT people, glbt or straight, Christian or not, are against the fotf CULT's false advertising.

I would limit legal abortions to the hard cases, like rape or incest, and to extreme economic hardship. All other abortions should be illegal.
-------
So you're not really concerned about protecting a fetus, then, if one conceived through rape or incest is expendable as far as you're concerned. It's not fetuses you care about at all. It's your ability to punish and control women who don't live according to your beliefs.

As for the claim the author makes that pro-choice is "losing": hogwash. Has Roe v. Wade been overturned? Has the decision gone back to the states? Have ALL of them banned abortion? No? Then the right to choose stands. As it has for 37 years, despite all the anti-choice zealots have done to try to overturn it.

'Thou shalt not kill/murder defenseless children or any other endangered species in or outside their wombs, eggs or larvae.'

The human embryo is not emblematic of an endangered species - quite the contrary.

Global over-population alone is either directly or indirectly responsible for untold misery & and the slow agonizing death of disease, malnutrition, lack of necessary medical treatment, and other assorted conditions related to abject povery - for countless thousands, and perhaps millions, every year. Humans continue to be born into these conditions at an alarming rate. Obviously too many anti-choicers are focused exclusively on the situation in the USA alone.

Even so, there are many here that suffer that same impoverished fate as those born into third world countries. In Mississippi, the poorest state in America, abortion has all but been eliminated by religious fundamentalists posing as politicians - the same fate could befall many other states, if Roe v Wade is ever overturned.

The red herring of this being a state's rights issue is a theme both overtly and covertly supported by the religious right.
Hopefully voters will continue to see this for what it is - a blatant attempt at the religious takeover of fundamental human rights.

Thou shalt not kill/murder defenseless children or any other endangered species in or outside their wombs, eggs or larvae.

Somebody asked, what will be the consequences of a woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy in a Christian Taliban America, i.e., jail them, execute them and what about the doctors? Well, the method is plain to see: intimidation and in multiple cases, murder of OB/GYN doctors like Dr. Tillman, in Kansas. These anti-abortion thugs will do whatever it takes to prevent women from making independent choices regarding their health. The whack-jobs and sickos in the Catholic Church march around holding their posters of aborted (or still-born) fetus and embryos. Meanwhile, the priests and cardinals are having homosexual relations with young boys in their care. It is madness. These anti-choice sociopaths need to be chained up. Then, we have the über-fascist Evangelical Christian, right-wing stormtroopers like Rev. Land. These jackboots are an existential threat to our social fabric. These folks are the Christian Taliban in suits. There is no difference between the Muslim Taliban and these Christian extremists who murder people in the name of Jesus, like this Roemer psycho, who murdered Dr. Tiller. These are dangerous people and the FBI needs to keep them on a short leash. Murder in the name of Allah or Jesus, same thing. It is a mental illness.

Question: How many unwanted children have been adopted by Land and his followers? The crack babies, the mentally and physically challenged child, the teen-ager who has been tossed from foster home to foster home"

How many times has he or one of his followers baby-sat for a single parent so that parent could go to an appointment or go grocery shopping or go to classes? How many times has one of the "pro-lifers" provided transportation so the parent could take a child to an appointment? How many times has Land or one of his followers even transported one of these families to church?

BTW - at the time of Mrs. Tebow's pregnancy, abortion was ILLEGAL in the Phillipines, where she was living. She and the physician could have been charged and jailed if she had decided to have an abortion.

Go look at the World Economic Form Survey results cited - the reason for the high ranking of Ireland & the Phillipines is that the have had a number of woman as their head of State. Ireland gets much higher marks than the US for woman's health care - and has a much higher percentage of woman using contraception than in the U.S. Top countries in the survey - Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden , New Zealand - are all countries where women have "choice" over abortion. What's wrong here is the moronic ways the anti-abortion right-wing fanatics (they are not pro-life) distort and lie to make their point. Like giving a fetus special protective rights born children don't have and telling us they care about children.

Richard Land makes the same mistake others do about the difference between pro choice and pro life. Pro Choice is NOT pro abortion. It is just pro choice. The pro life advocates would compel all women to carry pregnancies to full-term. How would this work? Build more jails? Prosecute? This used to be the law of the land, but abortions happened anyway. The rich are never bothered by which way the law reads. They just jump on a plane to say, Canada, or some other country and obtain an abortion. The poor face the choice of an illegal abortion under questionable medical conditions possibly putting their life in danger.
No, Pam Tebow had a choice. Her doctors recommended an abortion. She CHOSE not to. That is all pro choice advocates. That women have the choice in this most sensitive of matters. As awful a choice as that is to make, the government is the last place that decision should be made. Making abortion illegal again might make some like Richard Land feel more holy, but it won't stop them.

Here we go again, another old white guy telling me about the evil & immorality of abortion.

People, you can not discuss such an issue with someone who honestly believes that the earth was created in 7 days. That it is only 4 thousand years old, and the first humans lived in the Garden if Edan. This is not someone you can rationally discuss anything with. Sorry, religion is a mental illness. You need help man. Personally, I wish you would all shut up and stay out of political issues. You are holding this country back with your backward beliefs and intolerance of anything other then this simple minded Christian crap. Im not stupid enough to pretend to believe I know what the origin of life is, but I am fairly certain it isnt that nonsense you read in the bible, or any other book we have.

As a pro-choice advocate, I am glad Pam Tebow was able to make a decision that she felt was right and could live the rest of her life knowing she made the correct decision based on her faith and the medicial advice she was given by her doctor. That's what being pro-choice means, I support a woman's right to choose abortion, adoption, or "life". What I don't support is being lectured by Pam and her son, that the choice she made is the best choice for every woman facing a medicial complication during pregnancy. Pam Tebow made her choice 24 years ago, despite having four children already in her care, she made the choice to put her life at risk for her fifth child and risk potentially leaving her other children motherless. That was her decision. I'm not sure I would have made the same choice, but the point is it was HERS to make and no one else's. That is what it means to be pro-choice. The Tebow add is not "pro-life" it's anti-choice!

Foe every Tebow, there are thousands of babies born unwanted by their mothers who will add to America's prison population or our drug abusing population because of parental abuse or neglect.
I like freedom to choose.

My body, my choice - no one decides what I
do with regard to my body.

Pro-choice all the way!

By the way, why is it that all of the anti-abortion people are too old to reporduce?

Makes you wonder why they think they should
make decisions regarding the choice of others who are of reproductive age.

Just a bunch of backwater hicks who need something to crusade against.

The reason so many people such as myself are up in arms over this proposed ad is not - as you so apparently believe - the content, but the advocacy. The Superbowl has a long established history of not accepting advocacy ads for the game regardless of what's being advocated. There are *so many* worthy causes out there and a sporting event is not the venue to air *any* of them - and that's before considering the fact that $2.5 million dollars is a lot of money to spend on an ad that doesn't offer any new insights or information.

I know that I personally think far less of an advocacy group that misspends their resources, and I think this is a gross misspending of their resources.

The protest isn't about the content, it's about the waste of money. I know that I will never donate to this group because I can't trust them to spend my donation wisely.

Do those of you who oppose abortion rights think that a woman in Mrs. Tebow's position, facing the possibility that continuing the pregnancy is likely to result in a severely disabled baby or damage to her own health, should be prevented from choosing to terminate the pregnancy?
If so, why?
Posted by: notation
--------------
Should we not ask what "abortion rights" mean?

Are we talking early abortion or late abortion?

Are we talking about abortion out of need, whether ill health or extreme poerty, or are we talking about abortion for convenience, like the baby coming at a time when there is a party you want to go to?

Pro-choicers will often say, "No one ever has an abortion except in dire emergency, and you have NO right to ask why people have abortions because it is a private matter."

These two positions do not fit together too well. It is like Bush saying, "I am only keeping prisoners in Guantanamo because it is absolutely necessary for security and you are not allowed to ask about any prisoner what they are accused of."

Such an argument, "We have good reasons for what we are doing, and you have no right to ask what the reasons are" smacks of hypocrisy.

But actually there IS a survey of reasons why people have abortions. And here are some details:

"Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons."

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

I would limit legal abortions to the hard cases, like rape or incest, and to extreme economic hardship. All other abortions should be illegal.

But illegal abortions should not be punished as if they were murders. They should be treated the same way we treat speeding, or DWI, or a medical error by a doctor. A speeder is not put to death, or even imprisoned for a first offence, but neither do we say that speeding is "OK".

It is unlikely that we can eliminate all abortions, and in some cases the abortion is necessary so we should not even try. But we SHOULD try to sharply cut down on the number of purely elective abortions.

And this is my prayer to my Christian friends. PLEASE do not try to eliminate all abortions. Just try to limit abortions to cases of dire necessity. That way of compromise is the way to success.

May Roe v Wade and the right to choose ever remain the law of the land. Unfortunately this inalienable right is threatened by the current make-up of SCOTUS.

No one has the right to define/shape laws that require women to forcibly give birth to an unwanted child.

Yet another sphere where religion and it's politically subjective values needs to be side-lined in lieu of established secular laws.

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

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

Do those of you who oppose abortion rights think that a woman in Mrs. Tebow's position, facing the possibility that continuing the pregnancy is likely to result in a severely disabled baby or damage to her own health, should be prevented from choosing to terminate the pregnancy?
If so, why?
Posted by: notation
--------------
Should we not ask what "abortion rights" mean?

Are we talking early abortion or late abortion?

Are we talking about abortion out of need, whether ill health or extreme poerty, or are we talking about abortion for convenience, like the baby coming at a time when there is a party you want to go to?

Pro-choicers will often say, "No one ever has an abortion except in dire emergency, and you have NO right to ask why people have abortions because it is a private matter."

These two positions do not fit together too well. It is like Bush saying, "I am only keeping prisoners in Guantanamo because it is absolutely necessary for security and you are not allowed to ask about any prisoner what they are accused of."

Such an argument, "We have good reasons for what we are doing, and you have no right to ask what the reasons are" smacks of hypocrisy.

But actually there IS a survey of reasons why people have abortions. And here are some details:

"Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons."

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

I would limit legal abortions to the hard cases, like rape or incest, and to extreme economic hardship. All other abortions should be illegal.

But illegal abortions should not be punished as if they were murders. They should be treated the same way we treat speeding, or DWI, or a medical error by a doctor. A speeder is not put to death, or even imprisoned for a first offence, but neither do we say that speeding is "OK".

It is unlikely that we can eliminate all abortions, and in some cases the abortion is necessary so we should not even try. But we SHOULD try to sharply cut down on the number of purely elective abortions.

And this is my prayer to my Christian friends. PLEASE do not try to eliminate all abortions. Just try to limit abortions to cases of dire necessity. That way of compromise is the way to success.

If you believe that CBS has every right to show this 'pro-abortion' ad, then why did they have the right to ban the ManCrunch ad? Posted by: phorse | February 5, 2010 8:13 AM
=======================================
Because the vast majority of football fans are heterosexual men and we think it's gross and icky and don't want to see it. Broadcasters who do not sicken or gross out their audiences perform better in the ratings.

"It is perfectly possible for a country to ban abortion or limit it (the second is my own preference) AND treat women well. "

Would it be possible for a country to respect men and treat them well, and at the same time demand that any time a man's child needs his blood or organs, he must give, whatever the consequences to himself short of death? (Possibly short of death. A lot of anti-choicers are perfectly willing to see women die in childbirth or botched abortions, after all. Women are either virgins or worthless trash whose only value lies in producing innocent (virginal) babies, right?) Even if he never intended to conceive a child, took precautions to avoid doing so, or never even knew the child was his?

You don't treat women well by treating them as someone else's property - even if that someone else is their child. I love my son- of my own free will (and free choice) I will give him anything he needs, even my life. But I am not his property, nor my husband's, nor the government's.

I think it is legal for this ad to run and it is not unreasonable to ask for equal time if one is willing to pay for it. But I also think it is a turnoff for the Super Bowl as a program. Who wants to see a debate or a political discussion at a party? Nobody. It is impolite. I don't care to watch that, and I will probably pre-record the program and fast forward through all the ads anyway!

And I do not buy the anti-choice claim that every fetus is a person. About 50 to 75% of conceptions spontaneously abort due to chromosome anomalies and other genetically and environmentally determined, natural causes. Fertilization is a lottery ticket, not a guarantee.

Whether the ad is appropriate or inappropriate in this context has nothing to do with abortion itself. One can be pro-life and oppose issue ads for such events, and one can be pro-choice and favor the issue ads.

Do those of you who oppose abortion rights think that a woman in Mrs. Tebow's position, facing the possibility that continuing the pregnancy is likely to result in a severely disabled baby or damage to her own health, should be prevented from choosing to terminate the pregnancy?

If so, why?

For that person that keeps stating that Ireland has high gender equality because it is anti-abortion, what a load of kaka! I lived in Ireland for nine years and this has NOTHING to do with it. In fact, many women go to England for abortions. Ireland is a catholic country where mothers are highly respected. It is part of their culture.
And, if you want equality in this country, why don't you get your conservative senators (*cough* McCain *cough*) to vote for equal pay and the equal rights ammendment???
Posted by: phorse
-----------------
I NEVER said that Ireland has more gender equality BECAUSE it bans abortion. I was merely pointing out since Ireland rates higher than the US, that banning abortion is not a matter of oppressing women and tying them to their beds until they have their baby. It is perfectly possible for a country to ban abortion or limit it (the second is my own preference) AND treat women well.

As for the ERA: here are examples of some reasons for opposing the ERA.

"ERA would take away women's traditional exemption from military conscription and also from military combat duty. The classic "sex discriminatory" laws are those which say that "male citizens of age 18" must register for the draft and those which exempt women from military combat assignment.

"ERA would take away the traditional benefits in the law for wives, widows and mothers. ERA would make unconstitutional the laws, which then existed in every state, that impose on a husband the obligation to support his wife."

So one reason for opposing the ERA was that it would eliminate discrimination against men.

If you do respond, I would ask a favor. Please do not misquote me. I did not say that Ireland had higher gender equity BECAUSE it bans abortion. Indeed Iceland rates higher than Ireland and Iceland does not ban abortion.

My point was simply that a ban on abortion can perfectly well go along with decent treatment for women.

For that person that keeps stating that Ireland has high gender equality because it is anti-abortion, what a load of kaka! I lived in Ireland for nine years and this has NOTHING to do with it. In fact, many women go to England for abortions. Ireland is a catholic country where mothers are highly respected. It is part of their culture.
And, if you want equality in this country, why don't you get your conservative senators (*cough* McCain *cough*) to vote for equal pay and the equal rights ammendment???

If you believe that CBS has every right to show this 'pro-abortion' ad, then why did they have the right to ban the ManCrunch ad? I think banning an ad for a gay dating site is just as controversial as allowing a supposed 'family values' ad. When is CBS going to join the 21st century and stop dictating what is 'suitable' for use to view? If you are going to make me suffer through a sappy 'family values' ad (*GAG*), then I think that you should make all the homophobes suffer through the homosxual dating ad. I think that it would be quite comical....

"You know, of course, that the nearest equivalent to an unborn child is an unconscious person on life support, who is likely to recover if only no one pulls the plug."

That equates a pregnant woman to a life-support machine. A life-support machine is a thing to be used - its consent, its feelings, any consequences to it of being used, don't matter, because it's a thing. A woman is a person, a full human being, no matter how you anti-choicers attempt to argue that a woman's human status ends upon her conceiving a child.

If one human being is living inside another and using her body parts and her physical resources to survive, then that other person has the continuing right to say no. That four-year-old who may die if she doesn't get your kidney or blood donation - is that kid less human, less able to speak or talk or think because you have the right to say no to her use of your body parts?

"Men are not oppressed when they cannot beat their wives, and women are not oppressed when they cannot kill their babies."

If a woman needs her husband's organs or blood supply to live, is _she_ oppressed because he has the right to say no? Is she murdered if he does, for whatever reason?

As for women's rights in Ireland and elsewhere, those are based on many factors, of which abortion is only one.

Douglas Barber, you prove your claim. Prove that abortion is used as "birth control". Go ahead. I'm sure everyone will be happy to wait. The number of abortions is irrelevant. You have no clue as to why anyone chooses to terminate a pregnancy, nor should you. If it's not your pregnancy, it's none of your business. Women choose abortion for many reasons, and will continue to do so. Your approval isn't necessary. Never has been. Men like you, who will never face an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy should butt out and keep your pants zipped. Women don't impregnate themselves. Go preach to your own choir.

There is a recent survey of gender equality by the World Economic Forum. Ireland, where abortion is illegal, ranks number 9. Abortion is illegal in the Phillipines. It ranks number 6. By contrast, The US where abortion is legal ranks number 31.

So both Ireland and the Phillipines rank much HIGHER than the US. Even after governor Palin's campaign, people are still pretending that objecting to abortion on demand is the same as oppressing women. It isn't.

Also, people may not be aware that abortion is much more restricted in much of Europe than in the US. Through most of Europe, when abortion IS legal, it is restricted to the first trimester. In the US, Dr. Tiller who performed third trimester abortions, is a hero to many.

Recent research shows that babies can hear in the womb, and babies arrive in the world, already knowing the rudiments of the mother's language.

Think about what you are doing when you defend non-emergency abortion as "Just the mother's choice."

This guy wants to know why pro-choicers don't buy their own super-bowl ad? Because the networks WON'T LET THEM. The United Church of Christ, PETA and MoveOn.org all tried to buy Super Bowl ads and the networks turned them down. Suddenly, when somebody wants to push conservative issues, "advocacy ads" are okay.

This is hypocrisy plain and simple. If the media suffers from such awful liberal bias, why can't liberal views get on the air?

Ithink it is unfortunate in a way that Mr. Land is given this podium by the Washington Post. Not because he is wrong, he is right. But by being who he is, he is discrediting his cause. Abortion is not a religious issue and you do not have to be a fundamentalist Christian or a Catholic to find abortion on demand horrifying. You do not have to be a religious person to object to war or to executions or to vivisection. These are secular moral issues. Same for non-emergency abortions.

There are groups like feminists for life, and atheists for life, which also object to abortion. But they are not getting enough public space.

The fact that we prolife atheists are being kept out of this debate means that pro-abortion people can then claim that objecting to abortion on demand is the same as a religious dictatorship. It isn't.

I think if them women didn't want to have a baby, they shouldn'ta been looking so hot when we God-fearing (and responsibility-fearing) men got them buggered up. They should sit back like God meant it and get barefoot and pregnant and, for crying out loud, get back to making us some bacon and some beans. You women had your day in the sun, now get back to raising our illegitimate children and begging for handouts from the true superior race. Men. Stop taking our jobs and stop talking back to us when we holler at you and smack you around a bit. Didn't God tell you to serve us, no matter what? Heathens of the devil you women are, I tell you.
Posted by: steveboyington | February 5, 2010 6:27 AM
------------------------
LOL Thanks Steve for making me laugh.

I think if them women didn't want to have a baby, they shouldn'ta been looking so hot when we God-fearing (and responsibility-fearing) men got them buggered up. They should sit back like God meant it and get barefoot and pregnant and, for crying out loud, get back to making us some bacon and some beans. You women had your day in the sun, now get back to raising our illegitimate children and begging for handouts from the true superior race. Men. Stop taking our jobs and stop talking back to us when we holler at you and smack you around a bit. Didn't God tell you to serve us, no matter what? Heathens of the devil you women are, I tell you.
Posted by: steveboyington
-------------
I assume the point of your sarcasm is that banning abortion is the same as oppression of women and making them subserveint to men.

But abortion is illegal in Ireland, and according to a recent survey by the World Economic Forum, Ireland rates much HIGHER in gender equality than the US does. What do you think about that? Abortion is legal in the US, illegal in Ireland, and Ierland has MORE gender equality than the US.

What do you think about the fact that Sarah Palin, no matter how much Democrats dislike her, is both prolife and a feminist?

Reminding women that they have the responsibility not to kill the life in their wombs is no different from reminding men that they cannot beat their wives.

Men are not oppressed when they cannot beat their wives, and women are not oppressed when they cannot kill their babies.

Being responsible is not the same as being oppressed.

This is all about enslaving women, a favorite of EEEEEvangelicals since time began. The article is full of lies and wishes written by another of these endless hucksters of the brain dead.

Mr. Land,
You will never convince women that they should be sent to jail for having an abortion, that they should be tied down in a bed and forced to carry a child to term, that they should have less rights than a ball of cells which is the potential human growing inside them.
Posted by: Fate1 |
=====================
There are lots of countries where abortion is illegal or much more restricted than in the US. Most European countries restrict abortion to the first trimester. This is in contrast to Dr. Tiller who performed abortions in the third trimester.

But there are no developed countries where women are "tied down in a bed and forced to carry a child to term". You are raising a false alarm.

Seondly it is true that the zygote, at conception, is just a bunch of cells. But that situation does not remain for long. Even a 12 week old foetus is quite well developed. Take a look at:

http://www.paternityangel.com/PicsAndPhotos/FoetalDevelop/1stTrimester_2.htm

You need to face up to the reality of life in countries where abortion is illegal or restricted, and to the reality of the development of the foetus in pregnancy.

Then you will stop ridiculing prolifers. You do not have to BECOME a prolifer, but you should treat them with respect. They are no different morally from people who protest killing in war.

All of human civilization has depended on avoiding killing as far as possible. We have replaced it in America with an "anything goes" mentality rather than "abortions only in emergencies."

I think if them women didn't want to have a baby, they shouldn'ta been looking so hot when we God-fearing (and responsibility-fearing) men got them buggered up. They should sit back like God meant it and get barefoot and pregnant and, for crying out loud, get back to making us some bacon and some beans. You women had your day in the sun, now get back to raising our illegitimate children and begging for handouts from the true superior race. Men. Stop taking our jobs and stop talking back to us when we holler at you and smack you around a bit. Didn't God tell you to serve us, no matter what? Heathens of the devil you women are, I tell you.

RE: "[Abortion] is a public health issue."

No, it's mostly a lifestyle issue. For a few thousand women a year, it might truly be a matter of health. On the back of that, a huge industry has been built which has the most tenuous of connections to "health." Being pro-choice doesn't mean people have to be pro-falsehood.

Pro-choicism is faltering because its most ardent apologists are becoming intellectually dishonest, cardboard characters bent on stifling information. That's not progressive, it's retrograde.

You and your fellow travelers foment terrorism on US soil, and I have no respect for you. I'll be happy if someone truck bombs your "mega church" silencing some of your "mega lies".

And it doesn't matter if "a fetus is a human" or not. That's not even the point. Abortion should forever stay legal. It's a public health issue.

Now let's get real.
Personally, Id rather not have some of the irresponsible people having kids anyway. We got enough messed up kids and families already. Society is better off for it.

There are some very intelligent posts in this thread.

I'm pro-choice when it comes to shooting people who cut me off in traffic.

You know, of course, that the nearest equivalent to an unborn child is an unconscious person on life support, who is likely to recover if only no one pulls the plug.

Yes, Pam Tebow did have a choice. Had she wanted to abort the baby she would have flown home to the United States where it would have been safely done.

Her choice was to have the baby. She chose to nurture the baby because she wanted the baby.

Pro choice means just that. One gets to choose what one wants to do. NOW seems to think that pro choice means pro abortion. It does not.

Re Abortion in the Philippines:
Wikipedia:
The act is criminalized by the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which was enacted in 1930 and 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.

Proposals to liberalize Philippine abortion laws have been opposed by the Catholic Church, and its opposition has considerable influence in the predominantly Catholic country. However, the constitutionality of abortion restrictions has yet to be challenged before the Philippine Supreme Court.

The present Constitution of the Philippines, enacted in 1987, pronounces as among the policies of the State that "[The State] shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception." (sec. 12, Art. II) The provision was crafted by the Constitutional Commission which drafted the charter with the intention of providing for constitutional protection of the abortion ban, although the enactment of a more definitive provision sanctioning the ban was not successful. It is also notable that the provision is enumerated as among several state policies, which are generally regarded in law as unenforceable in the absence of implementing legislation.

We're bothered by the commercial for obvious reasons. The Religious Right has been coopted into turning our political processes into a referendum on a few religious issues - abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research. Using those issues, you succeeded in electing an Administration that made mincemeat of our Constitution, started an illegal war, wrecked our economy, and bred rampant corruption. You've allowed people of faith to be used as pawns for an elite class that have no real interest in their welfare, no real interest in your issues. Protest abortion peacefully if you must, but don't destroy our country in the process again. This ad simply perpetuates the divisiveness that has already done more than enough damage.

HCBerkowitz, I don't need to read Ayn Rand to realize that selfishness is the characteristic human affliction. I need only take an honest look at myself and my dealings with others. If that weren't enough, I could scan the globe, or survey history.

In general, I'd venture to guess that law insists, not on selflessness, but on reciprocity.

I seem to recall reading that the NFL was involved in ditching the UCC ad.

I'm the odd individual who regards unborn and gay humans as equally challenging to the ordinary human desire to bull ahead knocking all obstacles out of the way and regarding all people who question time-honored assumptions as evil.

I appreciate your thoughtful posts, though I disagree with them in parts.

Decent folk are sick of being lectured on morality by self-styled holy Christians, from public toilet stalls, and dens of adultery by promise-keeping perverts.

Pam Tebow did not have any choice. Abortion has been illegal in the Philippines since 1930. This entire thing is an opening for Timmy's ministry, to fulfill the dreams of his father the missionary. You can go to their personal pages and see.

Tebow is lying about a "choice" she never had, in order to DENY that choice to everyone else. It is just more conservatives hypocrisy, like Family Values.

Mr. Land,
You will never convince women that they should be sent to jail for having an abortion, that they should be tied down in a bed and forced to carry a child to term, that they should have less rights than a ball of cells which is the potential human growing inside them.

I never here from the pro-life folks just what laws they would have in place in a perfect pro-life world. How would abortions be stopped? Would punishments be involved? etc.

The reality is there is no mention of a pro-life vision because there is none. The issue is only a visceral one, meant to stir up conservative votes. If you or others who claim to be pro-life, who advocate the pro-life agenda, who want a pro-life world, would just write down how it will be achieved, what laws would be written after Roe-v-Wade is abolished, I'd really like to see it. And because it would have to have harsh punishments for "killing a child" I would use it to help defeat every pro-life candidate. Face it, no one wants a world without choice.

Abortion will never be abolished. It existed in back alleys for eons and if you have you way may put it there again. So please, tell us all how you plan to restrict abortions, assure all pregnancies are carried to term, that no woman is allowed a choice when she becomes pregnant. What are the steps and laws you advocate to see the world you dream of come into reality?

Thanks, DouglasLBarber. Regarding the UCC ad, and the detailed timeline of what CBS (I hadn't even thought of the NFL, but you may be right) decided, is something that I haven't seen well-reported. Are you listening, Washington Post?

Was it a simple business matter that some executive decided to sell one controversial slot and, randomly, Focus on the Famiy got it? Seems unlikely. If that was the case, and business interest was paramount, CBS could have auctioned the spot to the highest bidder. I'm a little dubious that the NFL would care all that much about a player who hasn't taken a snap in an NFL training camp. On the other hand, there have been the Maras and the like who were far more influential than Tebow.

DouglasLBarber,

Truly, I like the shotgun analogies, but the concluding points, "But it's best our laws should temper our urge to 1) favor self and 2) not attach sufficient value to the lives of others", less so.

I'll take these in reverse order. May I assume given this context you are speaking of fetuses? Now, if you are speaking of war or capital punishment, that's another matter. Both, incidentally, I regard as sometimes the least bad choice. If you are speaking about preventive medicine and health care for the born, again, a quite different matter to someone, such as myself, who does not regard a fetus as being a human being.

Laws favoring self are also a slippery slope, but they get into the proper role of government. I probably burned out of Ayn Rand by my mid-30s; while _The Virtue of Selfishness_ is probably on a back bookshelf, it's not something I take all that seriously.

As far as the proper balance of self, perhaps one neopagan saying comes closer: "an it hurt none, do what thou wilt." Greed, in a financial trader who is compensated for shifting wealth rather than creating it, creates economic instability for society. On the other hand, there are a great many useful scientific discoveries that came from people essentially following their own curiosity and not thinking of any social goods.

But enforcing selflessness? I have trouble with that. I'm a volunteer in some emergency services organization, and I might be a bit insistent about being preferred to do a radiation survey over someone younger. This isn't heroics, this isn't selflessness, but contributing to a society. I don't plan to have children, so it's better I am exposed to radiation than a younger person whose reproductive health is a concern. Greater experience might also lower my risk.

HCBerkowitz, your point about the UCC (direct descendants of the Puritans!) ad being turned down while the Tebow ad was not is well taken.

Was CBS the actor there? I was under the impression that the NFL was calling those shots.

wturecki asked, "Why is it all dissimulating evangelical preachers feel they have to dye their hair"?

If this were a serious question I'd make a reply concerning Joe Biden. But it's not so I won't. (Oh wait, I just did).

wturecki also wrote, "Southern Baptists- weren't they the ones that believe Catholics are the anti-christ?"

Nice try. When you can't win an argument you can always try to divide and conquer the people who disagree with you. Might've worked before Roe v. Wade.

1973 was 37 years ago. We've come a long way, baby.

SavingGrace, I was not saying Roe v. Wade was good or bad law when I responded to the argument that "If the "pro-choice" forces think they have an effective counter argument..." My first point was that the suggestion was being made that the situation was wide open and somehow the pro-choice people had to justify themselves to the anti-choice people--or, more accurately, corporation.

If CBS had changed its policy from when it refused the United Church of Christ ad dealing with accepting humans into a loving context -- love, after all, has been used a lot in a "family" context-- and publicized the change BEFORE signing any advertising contract, there would be a much better argument about putting up opposing views. At this stage, however, CBS gives the appearance of preference. I'd be much less annoyed if the first the public learned of this was after Friends of the Family had a contract.

As to your comment "Depriving developing babies of life seems a high price to pay for the convenience of a woman's "choice"." Well, from my perspective, it would be, if any babies were being killed. From my personal ethical perspective, and that of many others, a fetus is not a human being with an independent life. Call that faith based -- which takes it back to law.

Nevertheless, the first reason I support keeping abortion as a private medical matter is not the "convenience" argument, but first and foremost for situations involving the health of the mother, or where the fetus is unlikely to survive. You might question "unlikely", and that is, indeed, a broad spectrum. Suffice it to say that I consider both anencephaly and confirmed Tay-Sachs to be adequate demonstrations of no hope for meaningful life of any quality.

"just as Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin put a human face on the 3 million slaves in America, thus hastening their liberation"
______________________
Gee Richard, tell us, how did your Texan forefathers hasten the freeing of the slaves?

SavingGrace, ah! Data! Thank you!

Richard Land Named one of “The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America” by Time, Land has worked as a Southern Baptist pastor, theologian, and public policy maker.
______________________
Love this preamble to Mr. Lands posts. Why is it all dissimulating evangelical preachers feel they have to dye their hair (Peter Popoff is the best!)? Southern Baptists- weren't they the ones that believe Catholics are the anti-christ?

Roe v. Wade is, as of this writing, the law of the land. It is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that bad laws survive in our Federal code.

From a November 2008 report, the CDC reported that: " Approximately one in five U.S. pregnancies have ended in abortion, according to the most recent estimates from NCHS (31). Inconsistent method use of oral contraceptive methods (75.9%) and condoms (49.3%) were the most common reasons that women became pregnant and obtained abortions (22). Unintended pregnancy is a pervasive public health problem for all population subgroups and women of reproductive age."

So, does this mean that 75.9% of abortions occurred because of sloppy contraception? That's what it sounds like, which to me, translates into abortion being a matter of "convenience" rather than the health of the mother. Depriving developing babies of life seems a high price to pay for the convenience of a woman's "choice".

Notation, according to the best statistics I can find, in 2005 there were over 850,000 abortions in the USA.

Perhaps you can explain some of the reasons for these abortions, since, to hear you tell it, not one of them was a "birth control" abortion.

And spare me the incest and rape stuff.

If it were legal to carry shotguns in automobiles and kill people who ignore "merge right" signs, race to the front and cut you off in traffic, we'd probably have more shotgun murders on our highways. On some days this seems like a great idea, and undoubtedly would be an economical means of enforcing term limits in government.

But it's best our laws should temper our urge to 1) favor self and 2) not attach sufficient value to the lives of others.

Some poster wrote that abortion is "used by many as birth control". This is a fallacy put forth by right-wing anti-choice zealots. Ask any woman who's had an abortion whether it's easy, painless, or simple. It's none of the above. NO ONE but the desperate resorts to it as "birth control" and the only people who believe that tripe are brain-washed nuts who'd believe anything their extremist ministers told them. Figure it out, simpletons: no one would choose abortion as a first resort.

Please help me out here. Why does society need ANOTHER football player? If you were to tell me that Albert Einstein's mother was considering abortion, maybe then you'd get my attention.

ernesthua,

I agree with this post, I think having experienced making (for me ) the wrong choice, was partly because we where not mature enough to realize that because you have the choice to abort due to an inconvinient pregnancy and did, it was not the right thing to do, it was not the moral thing to do ( given our circumstances) I wish we would have been counseled on different aspects of the choice we were about to make Before we made it.

We can't always go through life making selfish choices just because we can. I realize there is a great big shade of gray in this issue. like you said with technology the way it is now there is no excuse for unwanted pregnancies to be taking place, in an Ideal world that is.

It is a pleasure to chat with someone who is not obnoxious discussing an issue, thanks

I believe they know they are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans, especially those 37 and under, the post-Row babies.
-----------------
The statistics such as 1400 young women and men were protesting in Houston, TX in front of an abortion clinic means nothing, because most of those 1400 protesters were coerced or bribed to protest.

Look at the facts, US Army is doing away with Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy - A major blow to Extremist Conservative Christian movement.

Extremist Conservative Christians have too many battles on their hands, so sooner or later the fatigue will set in. I hope that does not happen, because Conservative Christians have the capability to some good.

They should play a commercial with George W. Bush in it to demonstrate the flip-side of the argument and remind people why we need legal access to abortion. If George Bush were never born, I would not have lost 50% of my retirement savings.

greenstheman,

Whether you (or your friends) regret your decision(s) or not, you still had a choice to make.

The problem is that there are plenty of people here who think that no matter what the circumstances, the woman needs to just tough it out and have the baby. No promises of support. No promises of holding the man responsible.

If you have ever been pregnant, there is a good chance you know how hard life is just before and for a long time after the birth. And while you are struggling to keep diapers on your baby, you are expected to go to court to fight for every month's payment from the guy who impregnated you? Get real!

As I have said already, resources matter.

And I will add to that: 2 parents matter.

It is simply too hard for one parent to suffer the full impact of the child rearing. You could do it, but as Chris Rock said, "you could also drive with your feet if you want to, but that does not mean it is to be done."

Now I'm with those who say that there appears to be an increasing number of people who use abortion as casual birth control. My feeling is that even one abortion used as casual birth control is one too many.

Technology is such that there should be no such thing as "an accident" any more. Every single woman should be on the pill, and every single man should have several fresh condoms in his wallet. (Yeah, yeah, I know all the exceptions, but you get my drift.)

This implies that every person acts responsibly and is forward thinking enough. What do you think are the chances of that? Look around at your friends who are 15 to 25 years old and ask yourself how many of them are that good? I'm not talking about the exceptions; I'm talking about the common case. How many of them really take into account the consequences of all of their actions?

Some people are just not ready to be parents, and, frankly, I am not interested in forcing them to be parents. I don't want their kids to rob me in 20 years.

The "species chauvinism" argument as advanced by commenters like leybrabear at 6:59 and 7:14 PM has a superficial appeal, striking as it does all the right "green" notes to appeal to the modern American ear.

However, further examination of the issue is in order.

Nature has clearly endowed us naked apes with a powerful dose of selfishness. We have no counteracting sympathy for snail darters or grey wolves or gorillas. We *do* have a counteracting sympathy for suffering when we see it happening to our own kind, and especially when we see it happening to our own infants.

Our pursuit of individual self-determination has enabled our powerful endowment of selfishness to overcome our somewhat weaker endowment of sympathy for the suffering of fellow humans and, notably, inconvenient infants. (Side argument: the vast majority of abortions slay unborn children who are in the way of their mothers' plans. Rape and incest pregnancies are less than a tiny minority of all pregnancies that end in murder).

I can think of *no* reason to believe that this unfortunate development has been accompanied by a heightened human sympathy for other forms of life. What you have in the purported love pro-abortion humans express for non-human species is essentially selfish hobbies masquerading as a breaking-out from the confines of speciescentrism.

I'm reminded of a very wise crack someone once made about people who make a big deal out of demonstrating in the streets against war: many of them are eager to govern the world yet can't bring about peace in their own kitchens and bedrooms.

With bible verses painted on his face, Tebow looks like Charles Manson.

Ernesthua,

To your,

"No female I know of is having sex just to see if they can get an abortion. An unwanted pregnancy is the result of a series of very poor decisions, pure and simple. Solving the problem of abortion involves tackling those problems at the source, not at the end of the long chain when the woman is desperate.
If you don't want that series of poor decisions to end up aborting a child, make the early alternatives a lot more attractive. Making the abortion costly isn't going to prevent the pregnancy."

I agree with this statement, there is no one answer to all the issues that lead people in general, young and old to make bad decisions.

Nobody likes abortions, especially the woman who has to have one but these religious freaks would push abortion underground with the horrors of young women bleeding to death after being butchered.

But I guess the religious a**holes would prefer that to a safe and LEGAL procedure.

"But isn't this just YOUR prediction that the problem will simply shift elsewhere? Your prediction may deserve consideration, but does not make it a fact."

Perhaps you don't understand ...

1. the nature of teenagers with raging hormones?

2. increasingly poor standards and practices for teaching kids contraversial subjects?

3. peer pressure and other local cultural elements?

4. effects of poor education combined with poor economic circumstances?

5. that many girl/women are raised to think that the only value they have is their ability to attract a man?

I have been a teenager with friends who are rich and friends who are poor, and I was well aware of the micro and macro effects of culture around them.

I am an adult who know several people who have had abortions, and I know why they did it and under what circumstances.

A law prohibiting abortion would have had zero effect on those teenagers who ended up choosing to have sex. It also would not have had any effect on my adult friends who ended up pregnant.

You might has well pass a law banning sex. It would do as much good.

No female I know of is having sex just to see if they can get an abortion. An unwanted pregnancy is the result of a series of very poor decisions, pure and simple. Solving the problem of abortion involves tackling those problems at the source, not at the end of the long chain when the woman is desperate.

If you don't want that series of poor decisions to end up aborting a child, make the early alternatives a lot more attractive. Making the abortion costly isn't going to prevent the pregnancy.

ernesthua,

Yes I grew up poor, my whole family lived in a small apartment in South America, I do know about being poor, I have also in a previous marriage took part in making that regretable decision.

There is a mental consequence for living with that decision, no one can tell me that it never comes back to haunt you years after the fact,at least for me it did.

I do know a person that refused to have an abortion due to incest, and believe it or not she can't picture her life without her child, she did not let a bad situation dictate her choice, those are her words not mine.

I am pro life. I would welcome seeing a 30 second ad paid for by those who believe that abortion can be a good choice for women who have unplanned pregnancies. I am sure that CBS would take your money for the ad. Let's see both ads side by side.

"the issue is, is it morally right to get an abortion. Aside of a medical lifethreatning condition I don't believe there is, that is my opinion."

Have you ever been:

1. A 14-year-old girl raped by your own father? (This is not some made up corner case. Rape by relatives is a fairly common.)

2. Poor? (Not, as in "I wish I could buy that 60 inch plasma TV"; I am talking "poor" as in "I am not sure if I can afford to eat today".)

3. Accustomed to being subservient to your father/husband/fiance/boyfriend? (This is not made up either. If you think every woman is taught to grow up being strong and independent and assertive, you live in a dream world.)

The set of rights enjoyed by the wealthy, the educated and the strong are very different than that which is accessible to the poor, the uneducated and the weak.

If we are all Bill Gates, then we can all talk about a very different utopia. But we are not all so lucky, and it is unreasonable for Bill Gates to legislate morality to people who are not nearly so empowered.

The point has been made and repeated, "If the "pro-choice" forces think they have an effective counter argument..."

Yes. Roe v. Wade, as a start. The ad is directed at changing law, not supporting the existing decision.

"to justify the continued wholesale killing of unborn Americans"

Never met an unborn American. For that matter, never encountered an unborn citizen of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Japan, Brazil or Nigeria. Citizenship is available to human beings. If one does not accept humanity begins until birth, which is my considered belief, it's equally impossible to kill an unborn human being or the Tooth Fairy.

"then they should pay their money and make their case."

They did. In the Supreme Court of the United States, and in state legislatures.

"I suspect they know they don't have such arguments and so they descend to the tactic of seeking to silence the arguments of their opponents."

Suspicion is useful, innit? Doesn't prove much. "Round up the usual suspects!"

Hypocrisy among influential Evangelicals. Shocking. Soon, you'll tell me there is gambling in Rick's Cafe.

I do not believe a reasonable person would be opposed to a woman that has a life threatning medical complication due to pregnancy, having to end the pregnancy, do so.

I think many people are opposed to abortion because it is used by many as part of birthcontrol. Got an unwanted pregnancy at an inconvinent time in your life?? "well I'll just get it taken care of " that is what I am opposed to.

People need to be sexually responsible so that they do not put themselves in a bad situation, the issue is not that it's legal to get an abortion, the issue is, is it morally right to get an abortion. Aside of a medical lifethreatning condition I don't believe there is, that is my opinion.

Yes, and if she had made a different choice, SHE would still be alive, but HE wouldn't - he would be dead. So do you want to say that one human being should have the right to decide if another human being lives?

Would you like someone else to have the "choice" to decide if YOU live?

Posted by: rohitcuny | February 4, 2010 6:40 PM

rohitcuny,

Isn't that what insurance companies and your "death panels" are for? To choose who lives and who dies.

As HCBERKOWITZ indicates you probably take nonsensical positions on most issues you talk about excepting this one is more insane than normal..

You sir, simply don't get it. Your wrong.. Will always be wrong on this issue and people that believe like you should take a message from the trial results last week when one of your like-minded was CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER in the George Tiller case. Maybe you can follow your pal to the SuperMax for comfort. Tyrone is waiting for you both !!

When Land and the rest of the evangelical cultists in America, put their money where their sanctimonious mouths are, then they can offer their opinions. They really don't give a darn about those fetuses once they arrive on earth, just while they are in the womb. I will lend my ear to them when they make sex outside the bonds of marriage a felony offense for all men. Until then these religious frauds should start earning their money honestly and stop stealing from those they dupe into believing they can only get to heaven if they give up their money. Preachers are a dime a dozen because it is easy to dupe the innocent into giving up their money for salvation.

"If the "pro-choice" forces think they have an effective counter argument to justify the continued wholesale killing of unborn Americans, then they should pay their money and make their case. I suspect they know they don't have such arguments and so they descend to the tactic of seeking to silence the arguments of their opponents."

A point that bears repeating.

Somebody wrote: "For what could be more important - more sacred - than even a single human life?" Herein lies the unrealistic, ego-centered thinking of the human species in relation to biodiversity which is how this planet was designed to have any life exist at all.

So pro-lifers want to shoot for another couple billion sacred individual human lives and wait to see what happens. These people need their heads examined.

Now, I hear an 'argument' that there is nothing wrong with a propaganda ad by a bunch of Human Being Murdering Religious Zealots.

Who besides me understands that social tolerance of religious bigotry is what turned Serbia into a genocidal enclave of mass murdering Christians?

Somebody wrote: "For what could be more important - more sacred - than even a single human life?" Herein lies the unrealistic, ego-centered thinking of the human species in relation to biodiversity which is how this planet was designed to have any life exist at all.

So pro-lifers want to shoot for another couple billion sacred individual human lives and wait to see what happens. These people need their heads examined.

Sorry Land. Most of the nation has repeatedly identified who they believe to be losers. You would be on that list along with Mullah Robertson, meth-snorting gay-prostitute paying Pastor Ted Haggard, and your friends anti-choice terrorists Scott Roeder, Randy Terry and the Army of God. Regarding cleric James Dobson, it is amazing that he even allows his face and name to be out in public. He has the eternal shame of child sexual abuse at his Christian youth camp, but still wants to subvert democracy and dictate policy for all.

Ms. Tebow made a choice for vacuous religious reasons and got lucky. Her choice to bring to term a high-risk pregnancy in a high-risk setting first of all risked depriving her four existing children the care of a needed parent. While such choices are certainly within her right, they hardly seem wise.

Incidentally, it is likely that where she was at the time she was doing more harm than good. There were already well-established religions in the region, and it seems unlikely they needed another one, which is what she was importing. In fact, it is reasonable to argue that doing so simply introduces additional points of conflict into a world that already has them aplenty.

'Why not just pay for a commercial of their own advocating the "pro-choice" position? Isn't the free-speech answer to speech you don't like, more free speech, advocating a different view?"

The "free-speech answer" depends on whether one's "different view" is different than your theocratic bullying. I'm sure an ad for Mancrunch, a gay dating service, is different from your views but it's not appearing during the Superbowl, is it?

The gall to call yourself "pro-life" when you are in lock-step with radical right wing extremists who think America's priorities should be pre-emptive war, torture andcapital punishment and who also believe health care and education are "socialist".

Anti-abortion? Don't have one. But let adults make their own choices.
Posted by: ravensfan20008
----------

So, can adults choose if children get to live?

How about, "Don't want to beat your wife? Then don't do it - just don't tell ME what to do."

We interfere in wife beating, and no one says, "Keep the state out."

The question is whether this logic applies also to killing foetuses.

If foetuses are human beings, then it is not just a "personal choice" of the pregnant woman.

First, I would like to say that I am pro choice, just to get that out of the way. I don't think there is anything wrong with the commercial. This is a choice that his Mom made and that is the point of pro choice, isn't it. Now, if they were trying to show graphic images to talk me out of a choice, that would be different.
Posted by: YUTZ
------------
Yes, and if she had made a different choice, SHE would still be alive, but HE wouldn't - he would be dead. So do you want to say that one human being should have the right to decide if another human being lives?

Would you like someone else to have the "choice" to decide if YOU live?

If Roe v. Wade forced people to have abortions the first time they got pregnant, I'd be with you. Unfortunately, you're talking about some people trying to take away rights from others.

Anti-abortion? Don't have one. But let adults make their own choices.

"Some 4375 Americans have died in Iraq to date, SINCE 2003. But four times as many Americans are aborted EVERY WEEK. Try and wrap your mind around that fact."
That's nice. What do you intend to do about this massive problem?
Making abortion illegal is not going to stop the unintended pregnancies and will simply shift the problem elsewhere.
-------------
But isn't this just YOUR prediction that the problem will simply shift elsewhere? Your prediction may deserve consideration, but does not make it a fact.

After all, making smoking in restaurants and theatres illegal has had tremendous effect, good for the comfort of non-smokers and good for the health of smokers.
So it worked!!

Making something illegal has to be done intelligently, after all, prohibition had a rather unpleasant consequence.

But making things illegal does often work -do wrap your mind around that fact! :)

The point is that it is extremely unlikely that extreme prolifers, who regard every abortion as murder, are going to get their way. America is just not going to go that far. But America may institute, say, a system of tough fines for having a purely elective abortion late in the pregnancy.

And that may decrease the number of abortions quite substantially. Currently the number of abortions runs to a million a year. It may be quite realistic to seek to push it down to a hundred thousand, partly through education, partly through better help for mothers, and IN ADDITION through the fear of punishment.

First, I would like to say that I am pro choice, just to get that out of the way. I don't think there is anything wrong with the commercial. This is a choice that his Mom made and that is the point of pro choice, isn't it. Now, if they were trying to show graphic images to talk me out of a choice, that would be different.

"Some 4375 Americans have died in Iraq to date, SINCE 2003. But four times as many Americans are aborted EVERY WEEK. Try and wrap your mind around that fact."

That's nice. What do you intend to do about this massive problem?

Making abortion illegal is not going to stop the unintended pregnancies and will simply shift the problem elsewhere.

There are some recent indications that at least some of the abstinence programs might have useful results. How about starting there? What is the point of debating abortion when you can head off the unwanted pregnancies in the first place? How about mandatory safe sex training?

Did you know that some of the religion-based abstinence training actually ended up increasing the likelihood of oral sex and anal sex among young girls?

There are bigger picture problems here that both sides have avoided because they weaken the marketability of their slogans, and both sides are entrenched in trying to push their answer to the late question of abortion.

But it never seems to bother either side that addressing abortion is far too late in the game!

It is ludicrous to lecture a 40-year-old homeless guy about how he should have studied in high school and gotten a useful degree. Writing new laws to put him in jail for being homeless solves nothing.

These anti-choice folks always talk about how their faith helped them MAKE THEIR CHOICE. And that is the essential political issue. Who gets to make that choice? Nothing else. Does the government force every woman to carry every pregnancy to term? What about the mother, like one of our fanily friends, who found at five months that the hemispheres of the brain did not divide? She went to Kansas for a late term procedure because it was the least risky thing to do, and the medical choice that gave her and her husband the highest probabiltiy of having healthy children in future and not ending with ehrsterility. (They have two wonderful kids now) So anti-choicers woul label this couple murderers. Or people who have several kids and find themselves with a whoops and then find it has Downs or some other condition that will take the entirety of the famaily resources to deal with. THEIR decision not yours, not mine, not the governments especially. Sometimes there are bad and worse decisions, not good v bad. Anti-choice is people shoving their meddling noses into the business of people they don';t know, have not walked in their shoes, and yet would make the most life altering decisions for them because IT MAKES THEM FEEL SELF RIGHTEOUS. See-- if you can pretend you are doing what God wants you too then it makes you super de dooper special.

It's a little hard to listen to pro-lifers who will speak of their belief in the sanctity of human life, but who also are supporters of the 2nd IRAQ War. I have to ask, how many of those who have stood in front of medical clinics to protest abortion, have also participated in public protest against this war, which easily left tens of thousands of civilians dead as a result of the invasion. I suspect not many.
You can't be a pro-lifer part of the time. . .
Posted by: kenhyde | February 4, 2010 5:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
-----------
So your "suspicion" becomes a fact just because you think it?

The truth is that fewer than 5,000 Americans died in the second Iraq war (and its aftermath). Some 50 million Americans have been aborted since 1973. There is a HUGE difference in numbers.

Richard Land,
it faintly seems that you want a reversal of Roe vs Wade but you don't have the gut to clearly say it. It's terrible to be so unclear, terrible.

Pro-choice is losing ground because anti-choice forces have done such a great job of obscuring the actual issue. Everyone is "pro-life" excepting sociopaths. Even dick cheney is nominally pro-life, so long as the life is white and rich.

The POLITICAL issue is not one of life, it is of who gets to make the most private and life altering decisions of our adult lives. Anti-choice folks want the government to force every woman to carry every pregnancy to term whether she wants to or not. Circumstance and life situation are irrelevant. THAT is a gross violation of personal freedom. Period. And don;t feed me that nonsense about "speaking for the fetus." BS. If you are advocating for the fetus then you take care of it once it is born, regardless of expense, regarldelss of the medical conditions it is born with.

There is a REASON there are a battery of rpenatal tests that pregnant women usual have performed. It is not just so you can get a cute little blurred picture of a lima bean to stick on the fridge. I know married couples who have had to endure the wrenching decision of whether to try to carry a pregnancy to term. It is THEIR decision, just as it would be for my wife and I if we faced the same. It is not your decision, not some git from the NFL, not sarah a whole palin, not your minister, not mitch mcconnell -- it is our decision.

So -- the reason pro-choice is losing is because the anti-choice folks have better marketing and are relying on people being too intimidated to tell the truth about abortion. It is not some poor 15 year old brown girl in the ghetto, as many anti-choice folks like to play as the mental image many people have, it is every woman of childbearing years, their families and the spouses and partners. Keep you interfereing, nothing better to do, nit wit ideas out of my life decisions. You want to follow Jesus example and be a holier than thou martyr??? Give up all your material wealth to the poor and go live in Calcutta and minister to the truely sick and needy.

What Land and other misogynists always lie about is that, if abortion really is "murder", then, by their own logic, they must support either imprisoning or executing the woman aborting her pregnancy.
If they don't support such actions, then they can't claim abortion is "murder".
Of course, since this country would never again go for imprisoning or executing women in this circumstance, the lack of truth from the anti-choice crowd is understandable, hypocritical, yet understandable.
Posted by: kingcranky | February
-------------
There are lots of women who oppose abortion. Are they misogynists too? And why should men not have a say? Aren't men fathers? Weren't men also foetuses at one time? Of course men are involved too. Half the foetuses killed are male.

I agree with you that treating all abortions as murders is impractical. So we have to find milder ways to deter abortions. That does not mean that we should do NOTHING against abortions.

In Iraq, a very large number of Iraqis were members of the murderous Baath party. It was impractical to punish them all. But that does not mean you do nothing. The ones who committed big crimes against the Iraqi people were punished.

And that is how it should be. Many many Germans were involved in the crimes of Nazi Germany. You could not execute millions of Germans. But no one said, "Therefore Nazism is OK."

Your idea that something is not wrong if many people do it, you need to rethink it.

"Truly courageous women such as Mrs. Tebow risk everything to save a life. For what could be more important - more sacred - than even a single human life?"

Hurray for Mrs. Tebow. Of course, if I was married to a pro athlete, I think I would have far more choices and opportunities in life than the average woman.

Holding up Tebow up as an moral example has that wonderful feel-good quality to it, but it is the same as saying that we should all follow Paris Hilton's example and buy a small lap dog that fits in our purse. Some people cannot afford that choice and have much more everyday problems to worry about like "how am I going to feed my child when I don't have a job and the father is already long gone?"

As I said before, if any of these pro-life organizations would step up and make it mandatory that all fathers stay around to raise the child (yes, I know, it is way more complicated than just that, but, hey, you guys are the ones arguing for carrying the fetus to term), then many of us in the middle will be more than happy to switch sides.

Until then, I don't see how a change in abortion law will fix anything.

First it was Ms Walker, now it is Land.

I object to:

1 - the statement about "wholesale killing". The Guttmacher Institute put out information in July 2008 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html) that states that 2% of women between the ages of 15-44 have abortions. That does not sound like "wholesale killing" to me. 50% of those were under the age of 25. Poverty is a factor and many used contraceptives inconsistently. The bottom line is that there are many factors at work when a woman faces an unintended pregnancy. However, the rate of abortions, and the number, has been dropping.

2 - Pam Tebow had a choice and made it within the framework of her strong, pro-life, Christian views. Not every woman shares those views and some might make a different choice when faced with the same set of facts. The state needs to stay out of that decision.

Those who have concluded that they cannot participate in abortions are free to act in accord with their beliefs and conscience. Those who have concluded that they will continue to participate are also acting in accord with their beliefs and conscience and should be left alone.

Mr. Land may choose to demand that every pregnancy be carried to term, regardless of outcome, but he needs to limit that requirement to his wife, assuming she is in agreement.

I'll repeat part of what I said to Ms Walker - When we deny choice then we deny that women are independent moral agents capable of managing their own lives, and we return to treating them as morally incompetent, requiring a guardian to decide for them, in this case the state. I won't stand for it.

"There's always somebody around telling you that simply killing the innocent will improve your personal comfort level."

No one has ever told me that.

Where are you getting your information?

America has murdered millions for useless immoral and downright stupids wars.
Tens if not 100 of thousands die in America every year for lack of access to health care.
You are Pro Life? Really??
Posted by: Chaotician
-----------
Some 50 million abortions have taken place since Roe v Wade. That is far more American dead than died in ALL the 20th and 21st century wars.

You think that opposition to abortion is religious fanaticism, but I am an atheist and I dislike the inhumanity of abortion on demand, just as I dislike the inhumanity of other crimes against mankind.

Wake up and see what REAL prolifers are like, they are not the "monsters" of the imagination of prochoicers who see an ogre any time someone says "Save that baby".
Saving babies is not a crime.

Some 4375 Americans have died in Iraq to date, SINCE 2003. But four times as many Americans are aborted EVERY WEEK. Try and wrap your mind around that fact.

There's always somebody around telling you that simply killing the innocent will improve your personal comfort level.

Tom1 is factually adverse to reality. You said yourself that the evangelical care for the scared and poor pregnant women, yet most are abandoned after they give birth. I had a strange talk with Joseph Scheidler of Pro-Life Action group, an extremist anti-choice org in Illinois. He said, outright and without a hint of irony, that after the fetus is born, they do not feel responsible for the mother or infant in any way. Sick. These people are all mentally ill. Please keep your demented, twisted and self-righteous noses out of other people's business.

"It is simple."

Nothing is ever as simple as you think.

"Abortion is murder. Baby killers are murderers. Mothers who abort their children are murderers."

Soldiers murder, too, but we give them a pass since they are doing "our government's bidding" or "our nation's bidding". Are they really murderers (in the legal sense)? After all, they signed up for the job, just as abortion doctors sign up for the job. If our country say the killing is legal, why are you still making these rhetorical gymnastics?

The problem is far more complicated than a one-line slogan.

If it is that simple, then simply abolishing abortions should end the problem. You know it, as well as anyone else, that that won't fix anything.

Therefore, these word tricks might help your marketting, but it does not solve any problems.

"Scott Peterson killed Laci and her unborn child (Conner) and was convicted of two counts of murder. Murder=the killing of another human being. I don't understand. I shall go back to sucking my thumb. I did that in the womb, so I'm told."

If this is a serious question, instead of a sarcastic one, the answer is that the law is created by years of legislative and judicial compromises.

There isn't anything called "The Law". There is a jumbled pile of messes, most of which we do not fully understand, and they mostly do not directly apply to us. Occasionally, some odd situation show up like this.

The totality of marijuana laws is one example. You can possess in some places, but you can never really get it from any sources, so it has to magically fall into your lap.

In the case of an unborn child being killed, it is still presumed that that child is entitled to full rights, so killing an pregnant woman is still two murders. Abortion performed by a doctor under normal circumstances is not murder (in the legal sense) because current federal laws defines it that way. The law does not have to be contradiction-free in appearance as long as it is contradiction-free in practice.

What Land and other misogynists always lie about is that, if abortion really is "murder", then, by their own logic, they must support either imprisoning or executing the woman aborting her pregnancy.

If they don't support such actions, then they can't claim abortion is "murder".

Of course, since this country would never again go for imprisoning or executing women in this circumstance, the lack of truth from the anti-choice crowd is understandable, hypocritical, yet understandable.

If I thought half of the ProLifers actually cared and were consistent in their so-called pro-life rants; then I would be sympathetic...but I just don't believe they are! At best they have decided for some bland religious unthinking feels good notion that killing unborn babies for any reason must be bad; and most are just hyperbolic hypocrites ranting for the pure joy of being a ranting fool! In case anyone has noticed; there are 130 Million births each year and only 54 Million deaths giving us a net gain of close to 80 million each year and this is growing! There are an estimated 40 Million abortions and another 50 Million spontaneous pregnancy terminations each year in the world. Over 10 Million births die before the age of 5!

Millions of Americans are forced to live long after they want to because of political and religious cowardice.

America has murdered millions for useless immoral and downright stupids wars.

Tens if not 100 of thousands die in America every year for lack of access to health care.

You are Pro Life? Really??

It's a little hard to listen to pro-lifers who will speak of their belief in the sanctity of human life, but who also are supporters of the 2nd IRAQ War. I have to ask, how many of those who have stood in front of medical clinics to protest abortion, have also participated in public protest against this war, which easily left tens of thousands of civilians dead as a result of the invasion. I suspect not many.

You can't be a pro-lifer part of the time. . .

It's a little hard to listen to pro-lifers who will speak of their belief in the sanctity of human life, but who also are supporters of the 2nd IRAQ War. I have to ask, how many of those who have stood in front of medical clinics to protest abortion, have also participated in public protest against this war, which easily left tens of thousands of civilians dead as a result of the invasion. I suspect not many.

You can't be a pro-lifer part of the time. . .

When is a fetus a viable human being?

When is a pregnancy a human being?

When can my right to medical privacy be invaded by the state legislature?

When does your moral view of when a morula or a fetus becomes a fully human being trump my scientific and legal view of that issue?

I thought the Supreme Court spelled much of this out in Roe v. Wade.

Another classic example of opposing sides ignoring the real reasons behind a particular argument, in favor of spinning an unrelated rant geared towards demonization.

I have a problem with CBS' decision to air the commercial and it has nothing to do with which side of the abortion debate I fall on.

CBS has touted their reputation for being non-partisan and fair, most notably in their rejection of clearly biased and/or controversial advertising. This particular ad vocalizes a clear side of the abortion rights movement. That, in and of itself, I would consider to be controversial. In addition, the association with Focus on the Family, a group known for spreading messages of ignorance and intolerance towards groups they consider to be "non-traditional," seems to condone that kind of behaviour. Why accept ads that convey an idea that people are so divided on when they reject requests for airtime from groups like PETA (which is not to imply that PETA is any better or worse)? This does not at all sound like the impartial status the CBS claims.

What this particular issue boils down to for me is the hypocrisy being demonstrated by CBS and their unwillingness to acknowledge it. I feel as though they are making an exception, in this case, because there is a major sports star involved. If they wish to open the door to advocacy groups, that is all well and good, but they need to provide an equal opportunity and consideration to ALL groups requesting ad space.

So, in the future Mr. Land, why not stick to the facts? I don't think anyone appreciates the apparent manipulation that you appear to be engaging in. I'm sure there are pro-choice groups who do appose the ad on the grounds that the opposing side should not be provided the opportunity to express themselves. However, I think that generally people are more upset at the contradictions that CBS has entangled themselves in.

"When is a person considered alive?"

When that person is not dead.

THE REAL problem is the ignorance of people who still hang on to Dark Ages dogma instead of actually investigating and understanding the SCIENCE and reality of the physiology of the human, and indeed, mammalian life cycles.

The Vatican dogma that a fertilized human egg or embryo without brain, heart, lungs, nervous system is a human BABY with a human Soul is, in a word, STUPID.

Carry it further...every human OVUM is ALSO a POTENTIAL human being....so...Every time a fertile human female fails to have sex and get pregnant at ovulation, she has murdered a human "BABY". Geeze!

Pro-life is not anti-choice. It is simply pro-life.

Just as you may argue that pro-choice is not anti-life.
---
As a pro-lifer I don't see how men and women deserve the "choice" to spare or take a life. This great country provides so many freedoms - so many choices. Why do we need the choice to murder another human being? Because we can't afford to care for him or her? Because we wanted a boy and got a girl? We don't have to explain WHY we're killing this person... not to anyone else, anyway.

One more point and then I'll leave you to your name-calling antics: Most pro-life advocates understand and accept that certain medical conditions exist where the mother may have to sacrifice a baby to save herself. Truly courageous women such as Mrs. Tebow risk everything to save a life. For what could be more important - more sacred - than even a single human life?

This era of infanticide will shroud our days in history. As we question how the German people allowed the Holocaust, our successors will demand atonement for the stench of death permeating the air all over our country - in the name of women's rights.

1. The problem isn't with the Tebows. It is squarely with FOTF and CBS--FOTF for pretending like this kind of decision is always right all the time (it's not), and CBS for politicizing what was historically one of the few apolitical cultural events Americans take part in. They've turned down other potentially controversial ads, even when the companies could pay. They even turned one down this year for a gay dating service, even though the ad was not explicit at all. It's obnoxious on their part. It would be equally obnoxious if it were a pro-choice ad.

2. This is getting lost in the debate: Pam Tebow had a choice, but not a legal choice. She was pregnant in the Philippines, where abortion is illegal and has been since 1930. They don't make exceptions for the mother's life. If her doctor had advised an abortion, the doctor could have gone to jail. If Mrs. Tebow had gotten an abortion, she could have gone to jail--if she had lived through the illicit abortion to begin with, which was probably not likely given the nature of the medical issue she faced.

So her options were this: have an abortion, possibly go to jail; have an abortion, die; don't have an abortion, die, with or without the child living; don't have an abortion, possibly live, with or without the child living. If you have nearly equal chances of dying whether you had an abortion or not, you'd probably choose not to have one. For FOTF to present her choice as though the abortion would have been the "easier" choice when it really wasn't is disingenuous.

Absolutely bizarre rant. Mr. Land may be sipping cough syrup, which isn't a good thnig to do. Messes with your head.

A Southern Baptist talking about Uncle Tom's Cabin and the human face of slavery. I'm gonna puke!

"If the "pro-choice" forces think they have an effective counter argument to justify the continued wholesale killing of unborn Americans, then they should pay their money and make their case."

So it would be OK to abort non-Americans? Or what?

"I suspect they know they don't have such arguments and so they descend to the tactic of seeking to silence the arguments of their opponents."

I don't think it's up to the "pro-choice" side to provide an argument. It's up to the "anti-choice" side to explain the morality of forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term that either she doesn't want or can't provide for.

Shall we keep them strapped to a bed until they give birth to prevent them from going the old back-alley abortionist route? How many unwanted babies have YOU adopted, Mr. Land?

It's amazing the lengths people will go to to force their religious beliefs on others--and the rationalizations they stretch for to justify it.

"Why should such a story so threaten the "pro-choice" forces in America that they do not want the vast audiences watching the Super Bowl to see it?"

Because it's kind of like saying that since occasionally someone wins the lottery, everyone should spend all their money on lottery tickets. Furthermore, the organization behind the ad would like to make it mandatory to buy lottery tickets.

When is a person considered alive?

What about masturbation and all those millions of precious sperm cells that have been murdered? I would wonder how many lives Mr.Land has indeed taken himself.

Hey, Richard, do you think Focus on the Family, God Hates Fags & other "Christian" groups would be upset if an ad were running about gays getting married? How about if a gay couple were profiled showing how discrimination hurts them? Or, do you think conservatives generally would go off if there was an ad showing a family with an ill child who has been denied coverage for a life-saving procedure by their insurance company. Then, we see the family losing their house and the kid dying. Ms. Tebow was fortunate -- she had a choice. It was hers to make.

So, LeeH, are you going to be consistent and announce that all women who have miscarriages should be investigated and charged with manslaughter? Anything less, and you'd be a hypocrite - not that that's stopped you in the past.

More and more converting to anti-choice because of humanity of non-humans?

I don't think so.

I think without numbers to back that up, the more likely answer is more and more providers are withdrawing in the face of terrorists like Randall Terry whose organization provided the stalking data to Dr. Tiller's murderer.

Since the unjustice department refuses to prosecute Operation Rescue for material support for terrorism, we all know just how much power the lawless pro-slavery forces have.

It is simple.
Abortion is murder. Baby killers are murderers. Mothers who abort their children are murderers.
Murderers are tried in court, and if found huilty, are given life in prison or execution.
Mothers who abort their children should be tried for murder. If found guilty or premeditated homicide, they should be executed.
Anyone who says less cannot be against abortion.
--------------------

News flash, moron - abortion is LEGAL - deal with it.

Pam cited her strong pro-life Christian beliefs for her decision to have her baby over the doctor's objections.
----------------------------------

Ah, that's a good message - 'Don't listen to your doctor - you don't need that operation ore medicine, Your faith with get ya through' Eventually when all the christian right die of minor infections normalcy will return.

Bruce19's comments are completely, totally factually incorrect, as well as full of infantile name-calling. A few rich televangelists do not represent the majority. It is the compassionate pro-lifers who spend more time helping the scared and pregnant woman, just like they run the soup kitchens, most shelters, many hospice facilities, & who started the hospitals and orphanages. But then again, most people who research the data already know this.

Is LeeH1 serious or just being ironic, that women who have abortions should be tried, convicted, and executed?

Just how would this be done? In certain African and Middle Eastern countries, "sinner" women are stoned to death in the public square. Should we do that in America? Who is going to keep track of the pregnancy status of all young women? The Government through some new bureaucracy? Would pregnant women be under Government house arrest, forbidden to travel abroad?

The Southern Baptists lust for a Christian version of Sharia - religious law supplanting civil. Before long, women will just be slaves. I recommend a book called "The Handmaid's Tale." It can't happen here?

I note that the Washington Post gives right wingers of all stripes the opportunity to be printed in the Post.
I wonder if The Reverend's publications would let, e.g., an N.O.W representative place a piece in defense of abortion rights into one of their publications?
I think I know the answer.
I grew up in a strict religious tradition and they do NOT want other points of view expressed.
Who are the Real Americans here?
Fundamentalist religion is the greatest threat to human freedom that there is. And it is unAmerican. It harms our science and our freedoms.

Winning and losing. That's the way it is always framed by anti-abortion activists like the author of this piece. Never about the lives of women or the lives of children after they are born. It's all just a big battle to hard hearted, self-righteous evangelicals. Framing everything in terms of war forgets the real casualties.

You can claim that your heart bleeds for fetuses who are aborted, but you never ever say one word about what would have prevented them from being conceived in the first place -- contraceptives. Your message is really anti-woman because if you were concerned for the health and lives of women, than you'd be 100% behind them making responsible choices like using birth control so they could avoid abortion altogether. But that would stand in the way of your opportunities to pass judgment on them.

Every day there is some new tripe from anti-abortion activists lauding Tebow's mother for the CHOICE (operative word here) to bring her son into the world. But you never mention the private doctor they hired to insure the mother's health and a safe delivery. That is the kind of health care that is available to less than one percent of the U.S. population.

And you conveniently leave out the other results that could have occurred after she made her CHOICE -- she could have died, leaving her four other children to grow up without a mother. Her death (and the death of the child she was carrying) would have also prevented her from having more kids if she CHOSE to do so. That's the reality facing women who can't afford private doctors. They have enough sense to do what they have to do to stay alive for the kids they already have. But instead of support, all so called Christians like you give them is condemnation and judgment.

And once and for all, anti-abortion activists answer this question -- what should the penalty be for having an abortion? Should a woman spend time in jail because you think she is a murderer?

Land, like most Corporate-Fascist Evangelicals, sees only his fantastical views on life, death and a woman's rights. Land, et al, possess a child-like view that God or Jesus will make it all better. What is really happening here, is a money grab. This abortion issue is settled law in the US Courts. However, it raises enormous amounts of cash through donations from Christian groups and excited Christian faithful who are riled up by images of fetuses and embryos.
This huge cash infusion goes to these high-power Televangelists and Mega-Ministers who rake in millions of tax-free, unregulated funds. Then, they build giant monuments to themselves and drive fancy cars and fly around in private jets. The money rarely goes to help the poor, single mother who took the advice of the Anti-choice Minister. It is all about money and power, not care for a fetus or mother. These charlatans could not care less about the poor, the disaffected or downtrodden who cannot afford child care or medical care. They ONLY care about the "un-born" because it fits their fantasy-world view.

Secondly and this bears repeating, the constant, near sociopath militant anti-abortion stance makes it highly likely that women who may medically require an abortion for their own health, will avoid the procedure and put themselves at risk for future health risks such as infertility,chronic high blood pressure or even, death. The Anti-choice movement, by ignoring the health risks, put all woman in danger.

It is simple.

Abortion is murder. Baby killers are murderers. Mothers who abort their children are murderers.

Murderers are tried in court, and if found huilty, are given life in prison or execution.

Mothers who abort their children should be tried for murder. If found guilty or premeditated homicide, they should be executed.

Anyone who says less cannot be against abortion.

All women face he possibility of death during childbirth so perhaps they should have a say in the matter?

Obviously the non pro-choice people simply want to control the lives of others. It's a natural thing among fundamentalist (not all evangelical) preachers. Does this clown also tell women which kinds of clothes are sinful?

If Christianity was seen as killing this moron would be part of the pro-choice(Christian or not) group. This boy is a facist in (somewhat) Christian clothing.

Scott Peterson killed Laci and her unborn child (Conner) and was convicted of two counts of murder. Murder=the killing of another human being. I don't understand. I shall go back to sucking my thumb. I did that in the womb, so I'm told.

Why are various pro-choice groups and people upset over this ad? Because it's hypocritical. Focus on the Family applauds Mrs. Tebow for making a deliberate choice based on all the information she had available at the time, but the group wants to take that same right away from women.

Pro-choice means just that: being in favor of allowing women to make the choice that's best for her, with the help of anyone she wants to involve, like her family and her doctor, and no one else.

No one wants to increase the number of abortions performed, but at least pro-choice groups are working toward decreasing them by increasing access to information and, yes, birth control. I've never understood why anti-choice also means anti-birth control. Work on decreasing the problem, not outlawing a medical procedure. As was seen before 1973, criminalizing the procedure doesn't stop abortions. It only makes them more dangerous.

Wow...so what your saying is that she CHOSE??? And choice is on the losing side? That doesn't make sense....nice try.

Here's my problem with the ad: Tebow's mother had a placental abruption. This is a very dangerous, potentially fatal condition for both the mother and the fetus. It kills thousands of women and their fetuses every year. So you "choose life" and now two lives have been lost, a man has lost his wife/girlfriend and children that you've already had are without their mother.

Tebow and his mom survived unscathed, but that result is rare, a statistical outlier. You shouldn't use the least likely outcome to argue your case, especially when lives are at stake.

In addition, I find that religious pro-lifers are almost always vehemently opposed to sex education and birth control. They don't want women having abortions, but don't want them preventing pregnancy either.

Clearly most people are anti-Tebow more than anything.

It is no small point, but one too often conveniently overlooked in this story, that Pam Tebow was offered and made a "choice." That she chose to bear the child in the face of great risk is a heartwarming story and one that both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" camps should applaud.

But rather than stop there, we are confronted with arguments such as this that take Ms. Tebow's "choice" and use it as a rationale to deny women the right to make that choice, or not. In Rev. Land's world, apparently, no woman could ever make the same "choice" Ms. Tebow made.

It is as weak an argument as those which the pro-choice community make in calling for a ban on the ad.

Every women should have the choice...get it? The operative word here is CHOICE.What is is about the word CHOICE that you don't understand?

Wow! Now I can't wait to see this Super Bowl ad. I will record it just in case the liberal, femi-nazis, who hate free speech, manage to get it banished from TV.

The ad will be well received by the majority of Americans. It will be a breath of fresh air.

The issue of an ad for or against abortion rights is short term. (This particular ad is reprehensible because it only gives the best case scenario, not the average case. It is like claiming everyone should go to Las Vegas because everyone would win the jackpot.)

No one in the pro-Choice camp advocates "pro-abortion". They are advocating "pro-choice", meaning that it is the woman's decision, not society's. And they only advocate this position because it is the best (of many bad choices) that an outsider can do to help. (No one is interested in paying to help the mother support the fatherless child; not even the staunchest pro-Life candidate.)

That said, there is a muddled middle here that no one in the pro-Choice camp wants to address, which is the inevitable progress of technology:

Eventually, it will be a piece of cake (and cheap, to boot) to remove the fetus and still keep it alive and viable for full term, "normal" development.

That day is not that far away.

When it arrives, you will have to ask if you really want to kill it so you can avoid the responsibility of being an unwilling parent, or are you keeping to your story of just not wanting to be an unwilling host to another living being.

Boys, you are not left out of the technology question either. If you get a girl pregnant, the technology is already such that you can be identified.

Now, the question is:

Where is the legal infrastructure to hold the boys responsible for their halves of the parenting? (That day will eventually come, too, but it will arrive sooner when more women are elected to positions of power.)

If you ask the single mothers, the infrastucture does not exist in any meaningful way.

THAT is why the pro-Choice movement is fighting so hard to keep abortion rights.

If the pro-Life movement wants to fix this problem once and for all, it must make the laws such that it is nearly impossible for the father to escape full responsibility (not just financial).

I don't see the pro-Life movement lifting a finger to do this part of it, and that is why I am siding with the pro-Choice side, even though I firmly believe it is murder to abort.

Both sides have much larger big-picture problems they are not willing to discuss, so those of us who want a practical solution can only go with the compromise position.

Your side want our support, show us that you have thought thru all the problems, not just the narrow one you feel emotionally tied to.

Unbelievable quote: Being pro-choice isn't necessarily being for abortion.

Of course being pro-choice is being pro-abortion. They go hand in hand. Its impossible to have one without the other. How can you be pro-choice if the only choice you allow is to have the baby. Uh, duh, that would be the pro-life position. A little honesty, logic, and truth would go a long way to destroying any argument for pro-choice.

You know what offends me Mr. Land?

When religious thugs like you, Donald Wildmon, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell hide behind fuzzy words like "Liberty" and "Family"!

"Against abortion? Have a vasectomy."

Right, because no women are against abortion, AM I RIGHT FOLKS? Or men who have sex responsibly - they're all pro-choice too, yes?

The pro-choice movement would be a lot stronger if it weren't for idiots like the poster who posted that thoughtless spew.

It seems that Land's and the Tebow's positon is this: If your doctor says you have a medical condition that may kiil both the fetus and the mother, and therefore the doctor recommends abortion, you should ignore your doctor's advice and carry the preganancy to term anyway.

What could the potential results be?
1) the fetus dies, but mom is fine.
2) the fetus dies, and mom can no longer have children.
3) the child lives, but mom can no longer have children.
4) the child lives, but the mother dies leaving the child motherless.
5) the child lives, but the mother dies leaving both this child and her other children motherless.
6) the child and the mother both die, leving the child's siblings without a mother.
7) the mother and chid both live happily ever after.
Wow, it seems like I would want my doctor, not Rev. Land or any of the Tebows involved in that kind of decision.

I reckon they are afraid their kids will have sex if there is sex education and birth control.... esp the birth control

The bottom line is that abortion is legal in the United States and it is absolutely the right of any woman to make the choice to have an abortion. Period.

It would be nice to see Evangelicals focus on helping the unwanted, unloved children that are born into poverty every day and help support birth control education and distribution in the USA to help slow the rate of unwanted pregnancy. But no, they can get all rabid and frothy mouthed by opposing abortion from the safety of their church pew and feel good about themselves without ever getting their hands dirty.

P.S. If you get snipped, use a backup method until tests certify that your semen is void of sperm. It could take a few months and does not happen overnight.

A little pain/discomfort is normal.

I am tempted to. I feel coerced into having kids if and when I get married.

I knew it. The baby killers don't have a response and resort to ad hominem and spelling attacks.

Against abortion? Have a vasectomy.

What arrogance! Such disregard for anyone who disagrees with them. Being pro-choice isn't necessarily being for abortion. The point here is the freedom to take a path of one's own choosing. This is what the so-called pro-family group is against. It's their way, or the highway.

So what?

You can outlaw abortion but that won't put a stop to it.

Women who want to terminate a pregnancy will try many different ways even though they would be illegal. Many more will die than do today.

I'm sure your okay with that though because they are "sinners."

Studies around the world have shown that when abortion is legal fewer women seek them and much fewer women die or endanger their ability to have children at a later time.

But why go by facts when it is more fun (for you) to assert your power over helpless young women, most of whom live in poverty and do not often get the attention of self-serving politicians as you do?

The more serious objection to the ad is that it may indeed influence a woman to go AGAINST her doctor's advice and try to go full term. More often than not, this results in seriously deformed babies, dead babies, and - too often - dead mothers and babies. I cannot imagine a doctor recommending an abortion unless the risk was so great that the mother and/or the baby could possibly die.

Another man talking about abortion!
It's like a Southern White talking about Race.
Keep your theology off womens' bodies.

Why don't you use your energy for those walking around in need of help?

Did JC says anything about abortion--I mean directly, not your idiot interpretation.

I know I'm probably pissing into an old wind here but you never know.

No one ever comments or replies to the following;

Anti-abortion arguments invariably revolve around the proposition that abortion is the killing of a human life. Therefore the practice should be proscribed by law. If the a prior assumption is true then how do you explain the following.

Throughout all known history the inter societal killing of large numbers of human beings has been preceded by the same political developments (emergence of an authortarian rule) and produced the same effects upon the practicing society (atomization of the polity, destruction of the culture and retardation of the severe ecomomy). These precedents and effects have been the same without regard to temperal, cultural or geographic variables. One is invariably led to believe they are universally applicable.

Since 1974 there have been some 30-40 million abortions in the US. Why have these "killings" not been preceded by or effected any of universally applicable precedents or effects?

Since I do not expect to be able to find this link again please e-mail me any thoughts. Please no references to other peoples works or writings. Just your thoughts.

kchses@yahoo.com. Subject:Abortion.

Quoting from the article, "Why not just pay for a commercial of their own advocating the "pro-choice" position? Isn't the free-speech answer to speech you don't like, more free speech, advocating a different view?"

There are two distinct issues here. One is whether opposing groups had a fair chance to offer their positions. One is the substance of the ad.

You say "then they should pay their money and make their case. I suspect they know they don't have such arguments and so they descend to the tactic of seeking to silence the arguments of their opponents." Unless you can document that other groups had equal opportunity to buy advertising, before finding out from the FOAF announcement, Sir, I call you a liar and hypocrite.

I don't especially disagree with that position. It is, however, disingenous. Previously, as with the United Church of Christ ad welcoming gays, CBS had rejected "controversial" ads.

Hint to the Washington Post: a bit of reporting about the timeline of CBS changing its policy and accepting the Focus on the Family ad would not be amiss.

So, you'd hear much less objection from me if, when CBS changed its policy, presumably before it signed the contract for this ad, it made a clear public statement that it had done so. At that point, other groups might, indeed, have tried to buy time.

Now, the second matter: the issue itself. Sorry, I haven't responded to other Guest Voices here in quite the same manner, but they haven't been quite as manipulative and dramatic.

I'm sorry, but I consider "unborn child" an oxymoron -- a dramatic one, but nevertheless one that is faith-based and not supported in law.

Sir, I have escorted women through lines of protesters, into abortion provider facilities. I did so with the full knowledge that a medical procedure called an abortion was to be performed. Protesters attempted to block our way. Gently, I suggested they move. One suggested he might fall to the ground, and I assured him I had good balance and didn't mind walking over him. If he wanted to take more active steps to stop me, he certainly could try.

So how about you? I've faced guns and knives threatening human beings -- a class in which I do not include fetuses. If it was necessary to kill the attacker, I would have done so, and, under the circumstances, I believe the judicial system would call the act justifiable homicide.

So where are the courage of your convictions at your abortion clinic protest? Are you going to kill the woman? Seems counterproductive. Are you going to kill me as the escort? Just where are you going to go with "insisting?"

Perhaps the courage goes with your spelling? The case was Roe v. Wade, not, as you describe it, Roe. Of course, there is the suggestion that Dan Quayle thought "Row versus Wade" were George Washington's tactical alternatives for crossing the Delaware. Did you have that in mind?