What might be, What can be
If you have not been living under a rock like Junior Moron or Dino, I am sure you have heard about the controversial advertisment that will be shown during the Super Bowl featuring Tim Tebow and his mother. This ad will tell how Tim’s mother, a Christian missionary at the time, had been advised to abort Tim because of an illness she was suffering during her pregnancy. Yes, she ignored her doctor’s recommendation and followed what her heart said and look at the result. But, many people do not see it that way. They feel telling this story of a loving family will lead to other pregnant women ignoring their doctors advice and carrying their babies to term.
Well a coalition of dozens of advocacy groups called for CBS not to air the ad. One person, Jehmu Greene, president of the Women’s Media Center has gone as far to say “An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event.” My question is simple, divide what? How about looking at the ad as educational and that it offers another position on the abortion issue.
The controversy of this ad has also reached the talk shows. The following clip is from The View:
What kind of drugs is Joy Behar on? Tim Tebow could easily have been “Rapist Pedophile”? Does she not realize that any child born might become a “Rapist Pedophile”? They also might become the person who discovers the cure for Aids or Cancer. Another might become a mass murdered or a hero fireman. Those unborn children could become anything that they want!
One of the arguments that pro-choice advocates use to justify abortions is that woman who become pregnant outside the bonds of marriage can choose to abort the fetus and not be forced into a marriage that might not be prudent. That argument might sound good to them, but one case might get them to reconsider that viewpoint.
How about if a woman, going to college in Hawaii became pregnant from a visiting foreign exchange student. What if, instead of marrying that foreign exchange student, only to divorce him two years later, she had decided to abort that fetus? Well folks, if that had happened, the worst president in the history of the United States would never have been elected. That president, for those who have been labeled by Raul Emanuel as mentally challenged is, THE GREAT OBAMA.
“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Barack Hussein Obama
Rich,
As a lone voice abortion rights supporting Conservative, I think that it is perfectly, 100% legitimate for a pro-life group to take out the ad – but I also understand (while disagreeing with) the opposition voiced by abortion rights supporters to the ad.
Supporting a woman’s right to choose means respecting any choice a woman might make – including carrying the fetus to term. A right to choose that is limited to a single choice is nothing more than an illusory choice that uses language to conceal its dictatorial nature.
Part of accepting that a woman has a right to choose to carry a fetus to term includes allowing information to be disseminated about how to exercise that particular choice. Freedom of speech means nothing if you are only allowed to air a single viewpoint.
However, it should not be lost in the debate that the proponents of the ad favor not just the choice of life, but also eliminating the choice of abortion. That is not the apparent subject of the ad, nor should the Family Research Council have any obligation to disclose that fact – but I do think it is legitimate for abortion rights supporters to shine a light onto that particular fact themselves.
I have no objection to the ad – but I think it is fair to publicize the fact that the FRC is not really an advocate of a particular choice, but is instead using the language of choice to advance an agenda that eliminates choices with which it disagrees.
February 5th, 2010 at 3:16 pmI’ll just betcha Joy(less) Behar is glad her OWN mother didn’t believe in abortion!
February 5th, 2010 at 3:28 pmJust because a person supports abortion rights does not mean that person believes all babies should be aborted. Joy Behar’s mother may well have supported abortion rights – the fact that she carried her baby to term in no way proves that she opposed abortion rights.
February 5th, 2010 at 4:06 pmEd Mazlish Says:
Then I’ll just betcha Joy(less) Behar is glad that she’s one that her mother chose to have rather than abort.
February 5th, 2010 at 4:13 pmLOL Trevor…fair enough.
February 5th, 2010 at 4:17 pmI think pro choice groups should ask to run the same ad as proof that Tebow’s mother was free to make a choice after she received advice from her doctor.
I think this is an example of freedom of choice, personal beliefs and dedicated parenting.
Free to make her own decision, Tebow’s mother chose life. I don’t think this pressures other women in the same situation to choose life. I think it may give them food for thought though.
February 5th, 2010 at 5:52 pmI’m watching the Puppy Bowl with my kids instead of the stupid Super Bowl and have to expose myself to alot of rightwing claptrap.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:17 pmHey Millicent Fensick Moron:
Go watch paint dry for all I care, you moron. For the record, are your children normal, or are they like you?
“A word to the wise ain’t necessary — it’s the stupid ones that need the advice.” Bill Cosby
February 5th, 2010 at 6:40 pm“For the record, are your children normal, or are they like you?”
I teach my kids to ignore reactionary propaganda like that idiotic Stupid Bowl commercial sponsored by those James Dobson-inspired wingnuts at Focus on Fascism.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:58 pmYeah, you teach your kids Saul Allinsky’s Rules for Radicals instead. You constantly apply Rule #13, which commands “Alinsky rule #13: identify, isolate, freeze and escalate.” That’s the theme for all of your attacks on Conservatives.
February 5th, 2010 at 7:09 pmEd:
I think the reaction of the leftist abortion-on-demand crowd to this ad says more about them than pro-lifers.
Quite plainly, they expose themselves for not really being about choice at all. If they were, they’d say, “Good for Mrs Tebow. She made a choice and I’m ok with that.”
If it were a full blown, in-your-face ad, condemning abortion I would understand them reacting as they have here.
February 6th, 2010 at 12:37 pmMike,
I agree completely. I fully respect Ms. Tebow’s choice. I said that in my initial comment #1.
But I also think that it is disingenuous to not acknowledge that the people who created this ad advocate eliminating the other choice. It’s not like the ad says “we support a woman’s right to choose, and hope that all women choose to carry every fetus to term.”
Instead of opposing the ad, abortion rights supporters should have joined Focus on the Family in embracing choice, and left it to Focus on the Family to clarify that they are not really for choice. Because abortion rights supporters did not do that, they look incredibly stupid and intolerant, and they have rightly lost this public relations battle.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:07 pmHow is it disingenuous for a pro-life group to not say they are opposed to choice? It is understood by virtue of the fact that they are pro-life.
The burden is on the “pro-choicers” to prove they really support choice by saying they have no problem with someone who chooses life.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:42 pmNo, Mike. You can be personally opposed to abortion and also be pro-choice for other people. The disingenuousness stems from the fact that this ad pretends to be about “choosing” life, when in fact the people putting out the ad support prohibiting any other choice.
It is analogous to the SEIU putting out an ad that extols the choice of joining a labor union. On its face, there is nothing wrong with such an ad – but anyone who knows what the SEIU represents knows that they are not about “choice” at all – they are about forcing everyone into a union.
All that being said, I have no problem with the ad and I respect those who choose to carry all fetuses to term. I also think that the “disingenousness” is not a reason to censor, ban or otherwise punish the ad, nor do I think it is a reason that CBS should have used to refuse to air the ad – I’m glad CBS has chosen to run the ad because it has led to a very positive discussion of the issue (including this one here).
I think abortion rights supporters completely missed the boat on this one – like I said above, they should have used the oportunity to reach out and find some common ground on one of the most divisive issues in America today.
February 6th, 2010 at 2:19 pmEd:
As you already know I am Pro-Lifer, but also a realist. I realize that Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. You know I have always favored education to prevent the situations that would require an abortion in some people’s minds.
That said, I offer this for your consideration, I believe that this commercial does something else, it offers hope. A Pro-life ad like this offers that hope to people that there can be something better tomorrow, like a healthy, happy baby. That hope is best summed up by the wise man who offered this idea. “What is a baby?” “It is God’s way of telling you there is a tomorrow.”
On the other hand, a Pro-choice commercial offers nothing but despair. A mistake has been made and a wrong has to be rightened. The product of that wrong has no hope, has no value, has nothing. A sad, but very true summation of the choice option.
February 6th, 2010 at 3:08 pm“You can be personally opposed to abortion and also be pro-choice for other people.”
I’ve always been fascinated by that logic. One can oppose abortion but essentially be OK with other people doing it. Makes sense.
“The disingenuousness stems from the fact that this ad pretends to be about “choosing” life, when in fact the people putting out the ad support prohibiting any other choice.”
Let me take one step back because I’d like to see the ad again and can’t find it anywhere. But my guess is the ad is attempting to persuade to choose life not acting like the group extols choice. If so, I don’t see how that would be disingenous.
“find some common ground on one of the most divisive issues in America today”
How so?
February 6th, 2010 at 3:15 pmRich,
First off, I have said several times already that based on what I have heard I think this is a welcome ad. You know that I support abortion rights, but I have no problem whatsoever with people who personally opose abortion – and in fact, I strongly oppose using government money taken from opponents of abortion to fund abortions. I think that is wrong on principle for the same reasons that I think most government spending is wrong on principle.
However, I do not think the pro-choice position “offers nothing but despair.” A while back I wrote about the close friends of mine who were informed at the end of the 5th month of a pregnancy that there was no chance that they would have a healthy baby (the fetus had no arms or legs and was determined to have no chance of survival outside the womb). When they went for a seconfd opinion they were informed that the first diagnosis had come from the top neonatologist in the State of New Jersey. They were told that nature oredinarily would have cleansed the pregnancy through a miscarriage, but for some reason that did not occur. Had the couple carried the fetus to term, they would have been planning a funeral not a birth celebration even though they had done everything properly. I do not see how the choice of a late term abortion in that situation is somehow a “mistake” or something that has “no hope, no vale, has nothing” but that a law forcing them to have carried that essentially dead fetus to term is somehow a celebration of life.
I can understand trying to convince that couple to carry the fetus to term. But I cannot understand anyone who would criminalize their decision made in reliance on the top neonatologist in the state. But that is what the allegedly pro-life position advocates. I do not see how that is in any way “hopeful.”
And for the record – the couple conceived another child shortly thereafter and are now happy parents. They were heartbroken to have lost their first child, but they would have been even more distraught to have spent the last 4 months of that pregnancy planning a funeral rather than baby showers and a nursery.
February 6th, 2010 at 3:28 pmMike,
I wrote:
“You can be personally opposed to abortion and also be pro-choice for other people.”
to which you responded:
I’ve always been fascinated by that logic. One can oppose abortion but essentially be OK with other people doing it. Makes sense.
I’m not sure if you were being facetious here. If you are, I would say to you that I am personally opposed to using drugs, but I believe you should have the choice to use them. I don’t think that is an illogical position.
As for the ad – I do not think it has been released, which is why I don’t think you can find it. But based on everything I have heard, I would bet that I would strongly support the ad – I strongly support the narrative that has been released.
You wrote in #15 “The burden is on the “pro-choicers” to prove they really support choice by saying they have no problem with someone who chooses life.” I am happy to accept that challenge and tell you that I have no problem whatsoever with a person who chooses to carry a fetus to term – and I also have no problem with trying to convince others to make the same choice. I object to those who eschew persuasion in favor of a government imposed solution that eliminates the choice with which they disagree. And that goes for abortion rights supporters who want to suppress this ad just as much as it goes for abortion rights opponents who want to criminalize abortion.
February 6th, 2010 at 3:34 pmMike: Re what is the common ground:
To the extent that the ad is not disingenuous and there is no ulterior motive behind the advocacy of the choice to carry to term, I think that is a point of common ground that the two sides can work on. If the ad is not a subterfuge to advocate criminalizing abortion, but is in fact pure advocacy of the choice to carry to term, then it is entirely consistent with the pro-choice position. I would have liked for abortion rights supporters to accept that position at face value and build on the common acceptance of choice.
That is, if Focus on the Family truly accepts choice.
February 6th, 2010 at 3:38 pm“I’m not sure if you were being facetious here. If you are, I would say to you that I am personally opposed to using drugs, but I believe you should have the choice to use them. I don’t think that is an illogical position.”
Not being facetious. If you are OK with someone choosing drugs or killing the innocent, that is tantamount to supporting it.
Of course, there’s a big difference between destroying oneself and destroying the life of another.
“I am happy to accept that challenge and tell you that I have no problem whatsoever with a person who chooses to carry a fetus to term”
I’d confidently venture to say you are in the minority of “pro-choicers” in this regard.
“To the extent that the ad is not disingenuous and there is no ulterior motive behind the advocacy of the choice to carry to term, I think that is a point of common ground that the two sides can work on. If the ad is not a subterfuge to advocate criminalizing abortion, but is in fact pure advocacy of the choice to carry to term, then it is entirely consistent with the pro-choice position.”
So, it seems you are saying common ground is acquiescing to the pro-choice POV?
There appears to be a bit of cynicism from you in regards to this ad. Why can’t it be taken to face value as an attempt to persuade? Surely Focus on Family would like to see abortion outlawed – that is my assumption knowing what I know about the group.
But it doesn’t mean that they can’t simply try to change hearts in minds as well.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:53 am“You know I have always favored education to prevent the situations that would require an abortion in some people’s minds.”
The details, please. What education exactly do you favor? I hope it’s not abstinence-only sex ed.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:02 amHey Mazurak:
No, abstinence will never work alone. Birth control methods have to be taught and provided. Girls will be girls and boys will be boys. But, one other thing has to be included and that is the psychological ramifications of having an abortion have to be presented.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:39 pm“Birth control methods have to be taught and provided.”
Sould we give out needles, too, and tell them not to do drugs? Provide the tools and they will only be used.
Besides, who is going to teach and provide it? Public scools? Ha!
February 7th, 2010 at 2:23 pmMike P.: Re #20
“If you are OK with someone choosing drugs or killing the innocent, that is tantamount to supporting it.”
Mike – are you ok with the fact that I choose to be an atheist? Does that make you a supporter of atheism?
“So, it seems you are saying common ground is acquiescing to the pro-choice POV?”
Mike, as I have said more than once on previous ocassions, abortion is a “borderline case” because the definition of when human sperm that has fertilized a human egg transforms into a human being is subject to debate. Acknowledging that the border between “potential human being” and “actual human being” is not subject to universal agreement does not “acquiesce” to the other POV – it simply acknowledges the existence of the other POV.
“There appears to be a bit of cynicism from you in regards to this ad. Why can’t it be taken to face value as an attempt to persuade? Surely Focus on Family would like to see abortion outlawed – that is my assumption knowing what I know about the group.”
I am not being cynical, as evidenced by the fact that I said that I think abortion rights supporters should have accepted this ad at face value as an attempt to persuade. I would have preferred that they left it to Focus on the Family to disavow itself from choice and persuasion if they had subsequently chosen to do so.
But your accusation of me having cynicism and your acknowledgement that “surely Focus on Family would like to see abortion outlawed” corroborates the fears that have led to what I have argued are misguided responses from abortion rights supporters. Your two track approach is no different that Andy Stern’s (of SIEU) comment that
“[W]e prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn’t work we use the persuasion of power.”
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/06/seiu-and-the-persuasion-of-power/
As an abortion rights supporter, I do not fear Focus on the Family’s attempts to use the power of persuasion; as I said above, I applaud them for it. But I do oppose any strategy that uses the persuasion of power – which is what the attempts to outlaw abortion amount to. I think that as long as Focus on the Family refuses to renounce efforts to use the persuasion of power, abortion rights supporters have legitimate reason to question the motives of any advocacy they put out.
On an issue as controversial and divisive as abortion is, where people have very different religious and scientific beliefs as to when human life begins, I don’t see why my belief that everyone should rely on the power of persuasion is in any way cynical. I think it is a reasonable attempt to try to accommodate everyone on an issue in which it is not possible to accommodate everyone.
February 7th, 2010 at 3:28 pmMike:
You know my post on illegal drugs, decriminalize the damn crap and if someone wants to kill themselves, so be it. If you take the money out of it, crimes in the inner city will go away, Mexico will stop being a killing ground and al qaeda/taliban lose their source of funding.
You can’t stop young people from having sex Mike. What you can do is stop them from conceiving.
Have a great Super Bowl Sunday! Go Saints, Who Dat?
February 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pmRich,
I agree with both of your positions.
However, as long as schools are run by and supervised by the government, handing out birth control paraphenalia inadvertantly gives it an imprimitur of societal approval when the state is the one distributing them.
I sure as hell plan to teach my son about sexual issues when the time comes…but I would be uncomfortable with the government doing it for me under the terms and conditions that it decides.
The best long term solution is abolishing the public schools and institutionalizing personal responsibility.
February 7th, 2010 at 5:17 pmEd:
I agree with you 100% on government teaching v. parent teaching about sex.
Who Dat? Go Saints!
February 7th, 2010 at 5:23 pm“I agree with you 100% on government teaching v. parent teaching about sex.”
What “government” teaching? Government doesn’t teach kids anymore than guns kill people.
My kids are taught in public schools and they do a terrific job teaching math, ILA and other important subjects including health education.
My kids are performing alot better than I did when I was their age, and their health teacher does a great job dealing with sensitive topics in a highly professional manner.
And I’ve got to admit I learned alot more about “birds and bees” from my seventh grade science teacher who looked like Sharon Stone but talked like Joan Rivers, than I ever got from my parents.
February 7th, 2010 at 6:37 pmI agree with Ed and Richard on sex-ed, contraceptives, and drugs. Mike needs to realize that sexual needs are like all other needs – humans need to execute them. You can’t prevent youngsters from sleeping together, but you can prevent unplanned pregnancies. As for drugs, the reason why the Taleban and drug gangs sell them is that drugs are illegal. If they were legal, the Taleban and drug gangs couldn’t sell them because they could be bought from pharmacies. Once drugs are legalized, drug gangs will disappear and the Taleban will be defeated because they’ll be deprived of their source of funding.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:59 amBy the way…the ad that gave rise to this controversey turned out to be so innocuous that the hysterical shrieks of its opponents look embarrassing in retrospect.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:32 amEd,
I think the whole Focus on the Family sponsorship of the ad was what sparked much of the criticism.
As someone who is Pro-Life I have no problem with an anti-abortion ad (which this wasn’t even). However, I have many problems with Focus on the Family as an organization whose dealing with issues in the past have relied on lies, propaganda and mannipulation.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:02 amCurt,
I understand what you are saying, and some of that has been discussed above. But as you may recall in the discussions a week or two ago about the Citizens United case, I believe that all associations of people have the right to pool their resources and speak, even if they do so through a corporation to propagate a message with which I might not agree.
But I can’t even say that I disagreed with this ad – it was so innocuous, so harmless, that the opposition to the ad looks laughable to me in retrospect.
With respect to Focus on the Family’s motives, Mike Proto and I debated/discussed that above so I won’t repeat that again here, other than to say that as long as they are for the power of persuasion I support them but when they turn to the persuasion of power I oppose them.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:15 amEd,
Yes, the ad itself may look harmless but considering that the playful banter between a football star and his mother encouraged millions of viewers to go to Focus on the Family’s website which contains misleading and propagandic materials is what I have concern about.
Focus on the Family’s stance on issues are particuarily damaging to gay young people and their heavy sponsorship of such groups such as NARTH and EXODUS, which have been publically denounced by their founders, is particuarly appalling.
These programs are misleading and have been proven failures that teaching kids to surpress their homosexuality “through the power of prayer” is not only dangerous but leads to disastrous results and ruined lives.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:26 am