Tim Tebow and the anti-choice Superbowl ad

To read the mainstream media spin in the Tim Tebow / anti-abortion ad controversy, you’d think that we Hysterical Feminists ™ were at it again, getting whipped into a censor-happy frenzy just because some lady decided to have a baby.

The issue, though, isn’t that we disagree with Pam Tebow’s choice (although it’s worth pointing out that she had a choice she now wishes to take away from other women, and that the choice she made — to continue a pregnancy after she became ill while on a mission trip in the Phillipines — isn’t actually available to most women in the Phillipines, where abortion is illegal and most procedures happen clandestinely); it isn’t that we don’t think anti-choice ads should be allowed on the air; it isn’t that we think anti-choice views should be censored. It’s that CBS has, for the past few years, regularly rejected ads from left-of-center organizations — MoveOn.org, PeTA, and the United Church of Christ. CBS was clear that it did not accept ads on contentious or controversial subjects such as, apparently, democracy, animal rights and gay rights. But an ad about abortion, from Focus on the Family — one of the most radical, right-leaning organizations out there? Apparently totally fine.

That’s why pro-choice and lefty folks were angry and calling for this ad to be pulled. I personally think those calls were not the best strategy, and that we should have focused on trying to buy our own ad, but that opportunity has passed. Even though I don’t support CBS pulling the ad, I am floored at the hypocrisy of their shifting standards. It also adds insult to injury that this ad is being aired during the Superbowl — not a “man’s event” by any real measure, but an event that is widely perceived to be All About Men. It just feels a little shameless and extra offensive to run an ad that forwards an anti-woman political position at an event where the advertising has traditionally focused on Stuff Dudes Like (beer, trucks and titties, for the most part).

I don’t begrudge Tebow using his fame to forward his political views. I don’t agree with him, but go for it. I think CBS should play the ad (I also think they should have played the ads from MoveOn and UCC). I also think that “Look, a Heisman trophy winner’s mother could have had an abortion!” is a really silly and shallow anti-abortion argument, since any set of circumstances can lead one person or another to exist or not exist. The fact that my existence wouldn’t have happened without WWII and without Australia’s old policies of not allowing certain physically disabled immigrants does not make WWII or that policy good things; the fact that Hitler’s mom didn’t have an abortion doesn’t mean that abortion should be mandatory. The fact that I have friends who would not have existed if their mothers hadn’t had earlier abortions doesn’t make abortion a universally perfect choice. The abortion debate is not, and should not be, centered around the existence of potential future Heisman trophy winners. A turn in that direction is pretty easily smacked down, so I’m not convinced that feminists are just too scared to address the ad itself.

It’s the hypocrisy that is frustrating. It’s the fact that an admittedly tame anti-choice ad is considered mainstream enough to air, but an equally tame ad promoting the basic humanity of gay people (and God’s love of gay people) is controversial. It’s the fact that abortion — a woman’s most basic right to control the number and spacing of her children, and her most basic right to not have the government interfere and legally compel her to carry a pregnancy to term — is still one of the most hot-button issues in the United States. This isn’t just politics; it’s a human rights and a bodily integrity issue. And yes, some of us are a little salty about the fact that our claim to our own bodies is often spun as immoral and controversial, while it’s just peachy for others to purport that we exist as vessels to produce future Great Men like Tim Tebow.

CBS claims it has changed its policy and now allows more controversial ad compaigns, so it would have been interesting to see if they actually stood by that had a pro-choice group wanted to buy ad space. Of course, they did just reject an ad from a gay dating website and an ad for Dante’s Inferno (because it used the phrase “Go to Hell”), so maybe we have our answer.

In all of this controversy, though, there isn’t much mention of the fact that Focus on the Family spent $3 million on this ad — how much money do you think that organization spends on actually helping women? In honor of Tim Tebow and his mother — who, lucky for her, actually had a choice — I’ll be making a donation to the National Network of Abortion Funds, a network of more than 100 local organizations that helps low-income women cover the cost of abortion. I hope you will donate too. I have a feeling that if NNAF had an extra $3 million laying around, it wouldn’t be using it to compete for ad time with Doritos.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

About Jill

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
This entry was posted in Celebrity, Feminism, GLBTQ, Politics, Reproductive Rights, Sports and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Tim Tebow and the anti-choice Superbowl ad

  1. Thomas says:

    This was obviously done very late in the process to end-run attempts to buy a spot for a left-leaning issue ad. The test comes next year, when several orgs will have high quality commercials produced and read to go and will be lining up to buy issue ads.

    I predict that there will be a flood of attempts to buy issue ad space, and that CBS will say next year that their decision to change their policy has resulted in so many issue ad proposals for the Superbowl that they worried about inundating viewers, and so they will “reinstate” the “policy” against controversial ads. Which they’ll stick with until the next time they accept a conservative issue ad.

    Rinse, repeat.

    However, when this happens, the important thing is that someone challenges their license with the FCC. It won’t work, but it will keep the pressure on them, and maybe cause them to continue to reject right-wing propoganda.

  2. PrettyAmiable says:

    Like.

  3. Ben says:

    Given the centrality of SEC football to life in the Southeast, the ad might cause all of the other SEC teams’ supporters to become pro-choice.

  4. P.T. Smith says:

    Nailed it.

    (Particuarly a fan of taking apart the “logic” and the content of the ad and the way the money is being spent.)

  5. Abby says:

    Thank you for writing this and brining to light the fallacies in the arguments being made. I get so irritated when people say, “well you wouldn’t have been here if your mother would have had an abortion,” and usually they are quick to cite the famous people, criminals are on the other end of the spectrum. It is essential education is brought to the forefront. I have worked in child welfare and there are hundreds of mistreated kids in America. I worked with a woman who was denied an abortion, she then went on to use drugs, meth was the drug of choice, to try to abort on her own. The child was badly damaged because a woman’s right was taken away. Abortion shouldn’t be birth control, but if a mother knows she is not going to be able to raise a child then she should be allowed to make the best decision possible. Maybe it is abortion, maybe it is adoption.

  6. cacophonies says:

    Great post. This was one of the best breakdowns of this whole issue that I’ve read.

  7. Valentine says:

    Jill, this is fantastic. The last paragraph in particular. Thank you for writing it!

  8. Dawn. says:

    Thank you, thank you, thank you Jill, for outlining exactly what upset me the most about this Focus on the Family/CBS debacle. I was especially sickened when I heard about CBS rejecting the gay dating site’s ad. They were “debating” that issue last night on Larry King, (the man who runs the gay dating site was there) and I regret watching it. The fundamental issue CBS had with the gay dating site was that it wasn’t suitable for children, and the majority of the people involved in said “debate” agreed. Bullshit. The ad was just as tame as any chemistry.com or match.com ad. Any gay content, no matter how tame, is apparently “not suitable for children.” Heteronormative much?

    I’ll be making a donation to the National Network of Abortion Funds, a network of more than 100 local organizations that helps low-income women cover the cost of abortion. I hope you will donate too. I have a feeling that if NNAF had an extra $3 million laying around, it wouldn’t be using it to compete for ad time with Doritos.

    Excellent idea.

  9. Jenga says:

    My issue with the ad, even over the “controversial” controversy is that this ad can basically be translated, “You know how people talk about drunk driving being dangerous? Well f*** that noise, just do it, you’ll get home faster.”

    They extol the virtue of this woman, who decided to ignore her doctors advice, on a serious medical issue, and got INCREDIBLY lucky after that. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, that is an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible thing to promote.

    Furthermore, it’s basically the “You killed Mozart/Einstein” argument, which is easily countered with “Or did I kill Hitler/Dahmer?” (yeah godwin’s law)

  10. melancholia says:

    Thanks for tearing apart the ridiculous premise behind that ad. Somebody brought up this ad during a business lunch yesterday and I was biting my tongue the entire time.

  11. Jeremy says:

    Yes yes and more yes.

  12. Nena Simon says:

    The Super Bowel in not a place for this kind of ad. Abortion is a private issue. Once again the right wing buy their way into and out of everthing the mess up. I would rather see Janet Jackson’s boob than this idiot. Who cares what his mother did, he sucks as a player anyway, he’s a football player not the Dahli Lama or Mother Theresa. What a better world it would be if Osama Bin Ladin, Hitler and Cheney’s mother would have had an abortion, what a great world it would be. Why doesn’t CBS put that on the air as a commercial. Enough with the politics and sports, can’t we watch the game as a past time without having to hear this crap.
    CBS is now a station I will try to avoid at all cost, what they did to Adam Lambert was disgusting as well. And by the way I am not gay so don’t put that label on my comments.
    I know, lets put the Super Bowel on Fox, and have Beck speak all of his shit.

    A CBS Hater
    Nena Simon

  13. Jovan1984 says:

    Thanks, Jill. You perfectly described the reason why I wanted CBS to pull the ad.

    This was a six year confrontation in the making.

  14. Ursula L says:

    When someone throws Bible verses, throw back Ezekiel 23:20.

  15. Ruchama says:

    Great analysis.

    The LA Times citing the PETA ads is a bit disingenuous, though — for at least the last several years, PETA has submitted ads that were so sexually explicit that there was no way they’d get approved, and then, when the ads were rejected, PETA put them up on their website and got a lot of free “Too hot for the Super Bowl!” press.

  16. groovybroad says:

    Tebow can get bent.

  17. Robin says:

    Thanks for the insightful analysis. In my mind, as a gay man, Focus on the Family seems like the KKK or Taliban. I’m tired of the religious right cloaking their extremism in pseudo-Christianity. Game on, CBS. You now have no reason to turn down any ad favoring choice, human rights or animal rights. We’ll be watching.

  18. Another Laurie says:

    I would rather see Janet Jackson’s boob than this idiot.

    FTW.

  19. There is a powerful video that connects the acceptance of slavery, the Holocaust, and abortion that I have posted here.
    Once the value of human life is determined by a purely arbitrary
    decision by someone else, untold evil will follow. In each case:
    slavery, the Holocaust, and abortion, the humanity of the powerless hasbeen denied by those wanting control and power over others. Today’s pro-abortion Democrats are the philosophical descendants of those who argued for the ownership of slaves and the murder of Jews.

  20. Andrea says:

    Umm, excuse me? Why is Blue Collar Todd allowed to spew such trash on here? Just wondering. Although I do agree with him when he says “the humanity of the powerless has been denied by those wanting control and power over others.” Only thing is, we’re talking about different people. Guess what, Todd, I’ve had an abortion and I would do it again in a second without an ounce of remorse. See you in Hell.

  21. Andrea says:

    Humm, my last comment just kind of disappeared. Not sure what happened.

    Anyway, I have no idea why Todd would be allowed to come over here and spew his self-righteous trash. I move to ban him permanently and right now.

  22. @ Andrea,

    How open minded and tolerant of you. Liberal censorship exhibit A I would think. Maybe this is why Liberals are so out of touch with the rest of society? They only interact with those who agree with them. I have a Master’s Degree in the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics and can engage this issue on many levels. Instead of attacking me, how about articulating a response to my points?

  23. Q Grrl says:

    Maybe I’m the only one, but I think I missed your point Todd. Are you perhaps saying that the actions of men, vis-a-vis men killing untold millions of other men, are the doorways to greater evils? Or are you comparing individual women and their choice to discard a mass of their own cells to the systematic oppression of millions of humans at the hands of men?

    Oh, by the way, I make ham sandwiches and pizzas for a living, and I too can engage this issue on many levels. So, nyah!

  24. Andrea says:

    Todd, I hate to spell it out for you, but this is a LIBERAL blog for WOMEN’S rights. Sorry you’re too dense to see that. Sorry I’m not interested in your bigoted opinion.

    I have a PhD in history, so I out-degree you. I will not engage your “points” because I don’t owe you a tutorial on women’s rights. Censorship does not apply to private spaces, such as this blog.

    Don’t believe in abortion? Don’t have one. But don’t push your superstitious beliefs bound up in a system which is essentially mythology on me.

    Ban Todd, please?

  25. P.T. Smith says:

    Todd,

    Dude, I’m doubting you have a degree in anything, especially not philosophy, since you don’t know the meaning of the word arbitrary. Whatever the evils of slavery and the Holocaust, they sure as hell aren’t arbitrary.

  26. P.T. Smith says:

    I posted too quickly and lazily. There is clearly nothing arbitrary about those two evils, and there is also clearly nothing arbitrary about anyone’s decision to have an abortion. So right off the bat you’ve got a major flaw in your half-assed belief. Abortion is, in a lot of ways, entirely about deciding, and embracing the value of human life. I get really uncomfortable talking about abortion because it is an issue I’ve never had to really confront, and can’t hardly imagine, so I don’t want to say too much about the decisions around it, but that’s exactly it, I can’t say much about it, so do you know what I don’t try to do? I don’t try to have control and power over others. I don’t try to believe that I should have the right to decide how others should live, don’t tell women how to care for their own bodies, their own futures, and the futures of lives they may or may not judge themselves able and wanting to bring into the world.

  27. Let me thank the comment moderator for being more open minded and tolerant than some of the other comment leavers in here. I welcome dissent at my blog so if I do get banned, feel free to continue this there.

    @ Andrea,
    Todd, I hate to spell it out for you, but this is a LIBERAL blog for WOMEN’S rights. Sorry you’re too dense to see that. Sorry I’m not interested in your bigoted opinion.

    And a Liberal blog cannot handle someone questioning their views? Is not the purpose of blogging to engage in ideas and debate others? Maybe here it is just to affirm one’s belief and insulate from any questions.

    I have a PhD in history, so I out-degree you.. I will not engage your “points” because I don’t owe you a tutorial on women’s rights. Censorship does not apply to private spaces, such as this blog.

    Touche on the PhD. I am versed enough in woman’s rights to handle what you throw at me. And yes, Liberals like to censor people who disagree with them, you have proven that here.

    Don’t believe in abortion? Don’t have one. But don’t push your superstitious beliefs bound up in a system which is essentially mythology on me.
    Ban Todd, please?

    A relativistic response. I suppose I could say back to that: don’t believe in slavery, don’t own slaves, or don’t believe killing Jews, then don’t do that. Superstitious belief? Is any belief in God by your view superstitious? If there is no God then where does one’s value come from? That gets back to my main point in that is purely arbitrary, see comments below on that. And “ban” me again, if you are so educated then why does someone questioning your world view, your reality, threaten you so much?

    @Q Grrl,

    Maybe I’m the only one, but I think I missed your point Todd. Are you perhaps saying that the actions of men, vis-a-vis men killing untold millions of other men, are the doorways to greater evils? Or are you comparing individual women and their choice to discard a mass of their own cells to the systematic oppression of millions of humans at the hands of men?
    Oh, by the way, I make ham sandwiches and pizzas for a living, and I too can engage this issue on many levels. So, nyah!

    Thanks for at least addressing my point. Men are not always the sole source of evil, there were plenty of women Nazis who helped to kill Jews. The doorway to evil comes from rejecting the idea that each of us in intrinsically valuable apart from someone’s choice to the contrary. I ground our value in that I think we were created by God, which means every race and gender is equally valuable in God’s eyes. The reaction here and other Liberal sights I read seem to be intolerant of any choice the woman makes that does not end in the death of her unborn baby.

    To the crux of the debate, what is growing, living inside the woman. Not just a clump of cells but a new heartbeat, DNA, and brain. How can an action that stops a beating heart not be ending life? I think Liberals confuse dependence with identity. Just because the unborn baby is dependent and temporarily located inside it’s mother does it mean it has no identity and no value apart from the mother’s arbitrary decision. Newborn babies are just as dependent on their mothers, and even Peter Singer argues that infanticide is justified, at least he is being consistent.

    @P.T. Smith,

    Dude, I’m doubting you have a degree in anything, especially not philosophy, since you don’t know the meaning of the word arbitrary. Whatever the evils of slavery and the Holocaust, they sure as hell aren’t arbitrary.

    It is arbitrary because it based on the subjective decision of someone else. One just decides, from whatever motivation, that this or that class of human beings no longer has value or rights. If they are not arbitrary, then what are they?

    I posted too quickly and lazily. There is clearly nothing arbitrary about those two evils, and there is also clearly nothing arbitrary about anyone’s decision to have an abortion. So right off the bat you’ve got a major flaw in your half-assed belief. Abortion is, in a lot of ways, entirely about deciding, and embracing the value of human life. I get really uncomfortable talking about abortion because it is an issue I’ve never had to really confront, and can’t hardly imagine, so I don’t want to say too much about the decisions around it, but that’s exactly it, I can’t say much about it, so do you know what I don’t try to do? I don’t try to have control and power over others. I don’t try to believe that I should have the right to decide how others should live, don’t tell women how to care for their own bodies, their own futures, and the futures of lives they may or may not judge themselves able and wanting to bring into the world.

    Seems like one’s right to act ought to be limited when it causes harm to another human being. Our common humanity, which is undermined by arguments for abortion, is what gives you and me a right to discuss this and hold views on abortion. The problem it is not just the woman’s body once pregnant, there is a new life there, a new heartbeat, new brain waves, new DNA. Look at an ultrasound, does that not look like a human being?

    Seems that we can take the arguments advanced by those who are pro-abortion and apply them to slavery and other instances of mass murder. This is the case because the foundation for human value has be undermined.

  28. Andrea says:

    “if you are so educated then why does someone questioning your world view, your reality, threaten you so much?”

    Because I. Have. Had. An. Abortion. and you are accusing me of behavior tantamount to slavery and the attempted mass extinction of an entire population. Do you actually think for a second that your precious opinions are so original that we haven’t already heard them before? And debated them before? Oh, I wish Todd had been here to educate me about my own body! All of these original thoughts and ideas that are so well reasoned! Todd, why didn’t you save me earlier?! Puuulease.

  29. Andrea says:

    Oh, and trust me Todd. There is no way Jill is going to let you get away with this shit. But you know, she has a real life out there in the real world. But I am confident that when she comes back, you’re history.

  30. William says:

    I have a Master’s Degree in the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics and can engage this issue on many levels. Instead of attacking me, how about articulating a response to my points?

    I suggest you demand your money back from whatever institution issued it, given that you don’t seem to have a basic understanding of what a word like “liberal” means.

  31. William says:

    Ahh hell, its been awhile since I dove in head first…

    Let me thank the comment moderator for being more open minded and tolerant than some of the other comment leavers in here. I welcome dissent at my blog so if I do get banned, feel free to continue this there.

    “I’m not going to let a lack of responses that offend me get in the way of my prescripted outrage at the inherent unfairness of libruls”

    And a Liberal blog cannot handle someone questioning their views? Is not the purpose of blogging to engage in ideas and debate others? Maybe here it is just to affirm one’s belief and insulate from any questions.

    You keep using that word, I’m not sure you understand what it means. Wikipedia might be a poor source most of the time, but it gives a decent thumbnail in this instance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

    Just because political discourse in the United States has devolved because of the Olbermanns and Limbaughs of the world doesn’t mean you have to follow along.

    A relativistic response.

    Umm…no. I could see if you’d made an argument for postmodern (although, on an ethical level, your argument would be weak), but that wasn’t a relativistic response. You’re reacting to the “don’t like one? don’t have one” rhetoric, but that isn’t really relativism, not in any sense of the word that would contribute any meaning to the discussion. Coming from an ethical position not firmly rooted in Christianity? Certainly. But relativistic? Really? Disagreement and (however feigned) tolerance is not the same a relativistic. Words mean things, Todd, I’d hope that you would have at least taken that away from a Masters program.

    Superstitious belief? Is any belief in God by your view superstitious?

    Barring a burning bush, yes. I’d be wary of using a word like “superstitious” because it implies all sorts of nasty value judgments, but the basic point is that a belief in God can, at best, be an act of faith. Now, we could certainly debate the value of belief in things which cannot be empirically proven, but somehow I’m guessing you’re only interested in that if it ends in baptism.

    If there is no God then where does one’s value come from?

    …did you just not get around to anything from the enlightenment onwards in your studies? There isn’t even a point to engage with here.

    That gets back to my main point in that is purely arbitrary…if you are so educated then why does someone questioning your world view, your reality, threaten you so much?

    Maybe because the arbitrary line which has been drawn is one which values the bodily autonomy and personal sovereignty of the individual and an opposing view necessarily suggests a direct physical threat in the form of coercive power? I mean, I’m going out on a limb here, but maybe the suggestion that not wanting to be an incubator is the moral equivalent of firing up the ovens at Dachau might just alarm some people.

    The doorway to evil comes from rejecting the idea that each of us in intrinsically valuable

    Ahh, but I doubt anyone here really does that, Todd. You’ve imagined that your opponents are monsters and supported your illusion with visions of Nazis. While I’m sure that does plenty to stroke your moral indignation, it does little to address the actual discussion.

    At the bottom, no one here is disregarding the value of individual rights, quite the contrary. If one was, for the sake of argument, to concede the issue of fetal humanity (which I certainly don’t) you’d still be stuck with the issue of competing rights and whether the body of an individual can be forcibly ceased in the name of another’s life.

    I ground our value in that I think we were created by God, which means every race and gender is equally valuable in God’s eyes.

    I’d wager that my conception of the divine would be downright blasphemous to you, as yours would be to others. To base law on one’s interpretation of God’s will is to be both supremely arrogant and invite oppression. Just because Christians don’t have a word like Sharia doesn’t mean a similar agenda is any less repugnant.

    The reaction here and other Liberal sights I read seem to be intolerant of any choice the woman makes that does not end in the death of her unborn baby.

    Because there are no mothers who visit, read, or have moderator status on this site. Just a legion of whores with closets full of pickled fetuses that they bring to the local Lesbian Wiccan Atheists meeting as status symbols, right?

    How can an action that stops a beating heart not be ending life?

    Say it is ending a life, then what? Do you suggest a Kantian prohibition on ending lives? Are all wars unjust? All executions murder? All instances of self-defense unacceptable infringements of God’s sovereign right to take life?

    Perhaps you mean innocent life, but even there you have a problem. Would a soldier in a war against an army which engaged in conscription be ethically bound not to fight? For someone who claims to have studied ethics you have a surprisingly rigid attitude and display a shocking lack of nuance.

    Just because the unborn baby is dependent and temporarily located inside it’s mother does it mean it has no identity and no value apart from the mother’s arbitrary decision.

    So…just so we’re straight. Someone who says that abortion is not murder is wrong because they are simply making a bold assertion that they are unwilling to see challenged. Someone who says abortion is murder is right because…you say so?

    It is arbitrary because it based on the subjective decision of someone else.

    Lets say thats what arbitrary means. Name three non-biological acts that aren’t based on subjective decisions.

    One just decides, from whatever motivation, that this or that class of human beings no longer has value or rights.

    From whatever motivation? How can you gloss over the central issue of all ethical discussions? Motivation is the entire issue, it is all there is to consider. You’re motivated by, charitably, a strong devotion to an ethical system grounded in the laws of a being you cannot produce. They’re grounded by a strong devotion to the secular western notion of liberty and bodily sovereignty which has been in vogue for the past three or so centuries. Both are utterly subjective.

    Seems like one’s right to act ought to be limited when it causes harm to another human being.

    Yet you cannot strip that harm from the context in which it occurs. If I shoot a man on the street and take his wallet its murder. If I shoot a man who kicked in the back door of my house at 3 AM it is not. Even if it later turns out he was my upstairs neighbor, had forgotten his keys, and was so drunk he thought he was at his house, it still wouldn’t be murder. Perhaps the question of abortion has a different context then that example, but we can’t even get to that point if all one side does is bark assertions. By ignoring the social context of an act and the question of competing rights you are simplifying the discussion to the point of futility.

    Our common humanity, which is undermined by arguments for abortion,

    You can’t prove a subjective valuation, so I won’t ask for that, but you’ve also failed to effective argue your assertion. You are coming into the discussion with three major assumptions:

    1) We have a common humanity
    2) A fetus shares that common humanity
    3) Arguments in favor of abortion undermine that humanity

    None of those have been well argued outside of a vague invocation of God, some rhetoric about Nazis and slavery, and your repeated insistence that your subjective and arbitrary preference is objective Truth. That isn’t just poor debate, thats poor philosophy and, I’d argue, intellectual laziness.

    is what gives you and me a right to discuss this and hold views on abortion.

    On a secular level the obvious answer would be a legal system which both protects the freedom of speech. On a philosophical level the obvious answer would be the ability to think which human beings share and the freedom of conscience which forms the basis of our social institutions. On a religious level there are several possible answers, though I would wager that the one which is most likely to resonate with you is the concept of free will.

    The problem it is not just the woman’s body once pregnant, there is a new life there, a new heartbeat, new brain waves, new DNA. Look at an ultrasound, does that not look like a human being?

    So…you’re offended by abortion because it is similar to slavery. At the same time, you argue that abortion is wrong because there are circumstance when, regardless of the will of an individual, another may take ownership of their body. Interesting…

    Seems that we can take the arguments advanced by those who are pro-abortion and apply them to slavery and other instances of mass murder.

    Says the man who just a moment ago had no trouble arguing that a fetus takes ownership of a woman’s body once it has taken up residence.

  32. Instead of attacking the comparison, how about arguing why you think it fails? The arguments for killing children are fairly old as well so when an argument originated has nothing to do with it’s soundness. I think being pro-choice is really being a pro-abortion absolutist and unable to debate the issue.

  33. Rebecca says:

    I think being pro-choice is really being a pro-abortion absolutist and unable to debate the issue.

    Because you’ve been to pro-choice blogs, of course, and read their rhetoric. That’s how you know that abortion is not really a choice but rather compelled, and also that it’s a plot to exterminate black people, and that birth control is the same as abortion…

    …Wait, LifeSiteNews isn’t pro-choice? I take it all back.

    Other sundry facts:

    –Abortion was banned under the Nazi regime.
    –Censorship: does not means what you think it means. To use an analogy that hopefully will not be beyond your comprehension, to be ejected from someone else’s home does not mean that your right to a home is being restricted. (Which is funny, since according to your rhetoric both in this instance and in opposition to women’s rights, it’s a restriction of my rights if I can’t set up camp in your home and eat through your pantry.)
    –Entities other than embryos have what you so poetically describe as “new DNA” and are not people.
    –Slaves, historically, did not reside inside their owners’ bodies.
    –Jews, historically, did not reside inside anti-Semites’ bodies.
    –Concepti don’t display brain activity until long, long after the point where most abortions are performed.

    All of these facts are readily available thanks to that amazing tool, the Google.

    And other sundry opinions:

    –A master’s degree won’t help you if you’re not willing to use logic.
    –If you can’t imagine that people have value without the existence of some unknowable being – if you can’t conceive of valuing someone for their personality or for what they contribute to the world – it’s not us who are arbitrary or misanthropic.

  34. Rebecca says:

    Anyway – I’ll bite. Tell me, BCT, why I can’t sleep on your couch and eat your food. Tell me why that isn’t a restriction of my rights.

  35. Jill says:

    Wowza, ok, apologies everyone for being away from the internets for the past day, and for Blue Collar Todd’s comments getting through. Todd, the internet is a big place and there are plenty of other websites on which you are free to compare women to Nazis. This blog is not one of them. Goodbye!

    Everyone else, really, I am sorry for not being around and seeing this sooner. Can we continue the discussion as if Blue Collar Todd never happened?

  36. Jesurgislac says:

    Blue Collar Todd: Once the value of human life is determined by a purely arbitrary decision by someone else, untold evil will follow.

    Agreement all the way! That’s why the only moral option is pro-choice. Any other position is allowing the government and the courts to put a purely arbitrary value on human life.

    You’re wrong to think the evil that follows is “untold” – Nicaragua, Columbia, the Congo, Romania, all of them and more stand as witnesses to the evil of accepting the arbitrary value of a human life that the pro-life movement promotes, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of women each year and the maiming of many more.

  37. Rebecca says:

    Sorry for feeding the troll. :(

  38. The sad truth is Focus For the Family already won. The ad has created controversy. Which is exactly the kind of media attention James Dobson wants. Dobson can do the Jesus Christ pose and say the liberal media (insert you own punchline) is picking on him.

  39. William says:

    Can we continue the discussion as if Blue Collar Todd never happened?

    Can we first laugh about his “Master’s Degree in the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics” that allows him to ” engage this issue on many levels” that was issued from BIOLA university which has the following policy:

    As a final guarantee of strict adherence to its theological and cultural worldview, the University requires every faculty member, when first hired and again upon application for tenure, to submit their understanding of and complete agreement with each item of the doctrinal and teaching statements to the Talbot School of Theology for evaluation. This requirement gives the Talbot faculty de facto control over all academic personnel in every department, as well as the academic culture and intellectual production of the school.

  40. Andrea says:

    I know I’m laughing!

Comments are closed.