The Tebow ad you didn't see

Acutally, both ads ran. The one that this hack says didn't run and the one where Tim tackles his Mom.

I personally was waiting for the demon Tebow ad that everyone thought was going to run. You know the one that used the A word and put the NARAL/NOW/Planned Parenthood folks in a tizzy. You know, the one that actually did not exist.

And the PP ad that thought it might be a pre-emptive strike? I thought it was lame.
Both my husband and I saw the "unran" ad that actually did run, (maybe it was too short for this author to see) and we both wondered what all the fuss was about. Well, I guess the fuss was the N/N/PP folks only want one choice in the pro-choice movement.

Still, the problem with this whole Tebow thing is that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION,yet directs viewers to an anti-choice, anti-gay group.

Its dishonest and decietful.

I guess all the kids that dont win Heismans God didnt plan for or give a darn about.

I guess other women, who ignored a doctors advice, only to have their child born with the diseases and birth defects the doctor correctly predicted, and her child lived in agony for 11 months before the child died.

I disagree with those who think there should be no reproductive rights. But I disagree even more with those who think that "right to choose" comes without responsibility because it is a "constitutional right." It is not a constitutional right - constitutional rights were enacted when the constitution was written, and added to by constitutional amendments which THE NATION APPROVED.

A constitutional right cannot be created just by Justice Blackmun and his allies simply SAYING that it exists.

There is no constitutional right to drive a car or to practice medicine. You have a right to drive a car IF you pass a driving test. You can practice medicine IF you have a medical degree.

And you can have an abortion IF you have a dire need. But not otherwise, and not as a matter of constitutional right.

Pretty well-played by Focus on the Family. Get everyone up in arms, then lob a softball. It made the other side look extreme in its opposition to the ad. Very, very smart. The only potential miss is that some viewers may not have even noticed that this was "THE" controversial abortion ad.

Deeper down, probably the most effective part of the ad was making an emotional, dread-filled decision for those who face it seem easy, light and humorous. It implied, "Make the 'right' decision, and everyone will live happily ever-after."

Oh, and BTW ROHITCUNY, you have no grasp of constitutional law or the concept of constitutional rights. You have an opinion, but that is all that it is. And on this matter, the opinions of the SC justices matter much more than yours.

The article and comments are very amusing.As a matter of fact,my family were all watching SuperBowl, and at each commercial, they were all running to the bathroom, even though we have many BRs.As matter of fact, I was more amused by this back and forth running to the BR, I forgot to watch any of the commercials.

Ofcourse, the half time show was better orchestrated than the Ball game itself.
Sorry I missed out on the commercials and the Ball Game

I was disappointed by the ad; I was hoping to see some real lunacy.

Instead, all I heard was the invocation of the superstitious concept that a favorable outcome is a "miracle".

On Sunday, February 7, 2009 when the majority, if not all churches in Washington, DC were closed, Rev. Dr. E. Gail Anderson Holness, Pastor, Christ Our Redeemer AME Church - "The Church with Heart- In the Heart of the City" 809 Upshur Street, NW Washington, DC held a historic Sunday morning worship service via conference call. The service began at the regular church service hour of 10:00 am and lasted for approximately one hour. There were over 100 people who called in for the historic Sunday worship service via conference call. Peopel called in from South Carolina, Florida, California, Jamaica, West Indies, etc. The notice was repeatedly read on WHUR's - Patrick Ellis morning show and was sent out on various social network outlets.

The message for the service was taken from the gospel of Luke 5:1-11, "Get off the shore, launch into the deep". She believes that there is nothing that can stop us from receiving the word of God, not even the snow; that we do not have to be confined to the four walls of our church buildings to receive His word, we simply need to launch out. Truly, it was an awesome experience. God is always doing a new thing". Dr. Holness also serves as President of the Council of Churches of Greater Washington.

Christ Our Redeemer AME Church
The Church with a Heart - In the Heart of the City
809 Upshur Street, NW
Washington, DC 20011
202 829-1009
www.ChristOurRedeemerAMECDC.org

I had the game on. Didn't actually mark the ads. It was the ones with chickens in a panic, right? That was actually pretty funny. :)

Please, let's forget the ads. I really wonder if they had any impact on anybody - particularly those whose moral compasses are already locked in position.

The most moving aspect of last night was the victory by the New Orleans Saints. After all the misery and tragedy that southeastern Louisiana endured in the wake of hurricane Katrina in 2005, it was uplifting to know that those city and parish folks experienced something to feel good about.

Instead of any talk whatsoever about aborting a fetus, we see a football player son tackling his mother. Hard. Very hard. Is misogyny (followed by an apology) what focus on the family is now promoting?

Tebow thrashing his mother seemed bizarrely Oedepusian to me. At least it wasn't condescending and preachy like Dobson.

Tempest in a teapot. Toldja so.

I watched the entire football game. GO SAINTS!!!!!!!!!!! I did not watch one second of the ads. GO ME! TFL, Ken

The ad was lame very lame. What man tackles their mother. The Snickers ad, with Betty White, was funny and memorable.

Rohit, you've made this same statement before, and have failed to answer the question posed to you: who is going to determine what is "dire need"? You? The government? The church? Based on what standard and proved how?

You cite driving as an example of your argument, but driving is not, and never has been, a "right". There is no "right" to a fair trial in the Constitution or its amendments, but nonetheless, the people of this nation have said right, and the right to privacy is no different, simply because you don't like it.

Oh, and BTW ROHITCUNY, you have no grasp of constitutional law or the concept of constitutional rights. You have an opinion, but that is all that it is. And on this matter, the opinions of the SC justices matter much more than yours.
POSTED BY: YOUBA | FEBRUARY 8, 2010 11:02 AM
-------
Spot on.

I'll bet that every person who is commenting, and every person who watched the super bowl and every person who was at the super bowl....is quite happy that their mother CHOSE to have them instead of CHOOSING to have them killed before they where born. Choose Life, its worth living.

On Sunday, February 7, 2009 when the majority, if not all churches in Washington, DC were closed
Posted by: egah
-------
Foundry United Methodist Church at 16th & P Sts NW will be 200 years old in 2014. As far as we can tell from our records, Foundry has NEVER closed on Sunday. Over 200 worshipers joined together for communion this Sunday. Rev. Snyder's current sermon series is The Economics of Jesus. Sermons can be heard at www.FoundryUMC.org

Gee, what an original thought, US-conscience. Never heard that one before. /sarcasm/

If one had been aborted, one wouldn't have the capacity to know it. If you'd been aborted, no one would miss you. Millions of fertilized eggs are expelled daily, dear. Are you going to mourn over them? They're no more capable of conscious thought than a fetus is, and their loss doesn't have the slightest effect on anyone.

You're another brain-washed nut who thinks that everyone born had a mother who was opposed to abortion rights, and that anyone who supports a woman's right to choose will always abort any pregnancy.

That's why no one takes your kind seriously.

Rohit: A constitutional right cannot be created just by Justice Blackmun and his allies simply SAYING that it exists.
------
The SCOTUS did not "create" anything. It interpreted an Amendment to the Constitution as guaranteeing a right to privacy. If you choose to believe such a right doesn't exist, then do call up the court and tell them so. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear from such a constitutional scholar on the subject.

Planned Prenthood ad, listen to this ad, here is what Sean James says: «We're working toward the day when every woman will be valued.»

O Sean, may that day come, but it is not yet here. Unwanted women, they are not valued. India, widow-burning, suttee, British stopped widow-burning, now British are gone, India has aughter-in-law-burning, husband's family does not like husband's bride, dowry not big enough, they burn daughter-in-law, British are not there to stop it. Jordan, Occupied West Bank, «honor killing», young woman flirts, goes out with men, has sex with men, her family, they no longer want her, she is unwanted, they say she is a «disgrace» to family «honor», her own father, her own brothers, they murder her because she is unwanted. China, one-child limit per family, family has a daughter, then a second daughter, second daughter is unwanted, she is a harmless baby but she is unwanted, they kill her because they want a son and she is unwanted. India, modern technology, sonograph, family sees they will have another daughter if they do nothing about it, they «terminate» new daughter while she is still a fetus, because she is unwanted.

The message from Mr. James should be, a human, a woman, a child, a fetus -- they must be valued simply because they are human, their value does not depend on whether they are wanted or unwanted, they must be valued even if they are unwanted.

This message, which organization's message is closest to this message? Is it «Planned Parenthood», whose slogan is, «every child a wanted child» -- and for the unwanted child, an elective abortion? How would they like India, Jordan, China, «every woman a wanted woman» -- and the unwanted women they do away with»? Is not Sean James's message closer to «Focus on the Family's» message?

What I find interesting is that in the recorded interview on the Focus on the Family web site, the story Pam Tebow tells is that she was told by the first doctor that she needed an "abortion," but that she was not carrying a baby but rather a mass of fetal cells -- that is, a tumor. No matter how strongly one believes in a fetus's right to life, I can't believe those on the pro-life side consider it wrong to "abort" a tumor. Strangely, having been told she has a tumor in her womb, she does not return to the first doctor at all and does not consult other doctors until she goes to Manila seven months later. I can understand why many with a strong religious faith would refuse medical advice to have an abortion of a developing baby. But simply to ignore the advice of a doctor who says your fetus is actually a tumor, and not to see another doctor for seven months, makes absolutely no sense to me.

The reviewer here did not see the real,real secret video. It shows Tebow tackling an abortion doctor. And Tebow is tackling mad!

Notation:

You write: "If one had been aborted, one wouldn't have the capacity to know it. If you'd been aborted, no one would miss you. Millions of fertilized eggs are expelled daily, dear. Are you going to mourn over them? They're no more capable of conscious thought than a fetus is, and their loss doesn't have the slightest effect on anyone."

First, I think your statement actually helps the pro-life arguement. That an egg is fertilized and survives on to become a human being is special. Sure, millions of fertilized eggs are expelled, but that point should make the ones that do become a human embryo that much more special and amazing. If embryos are nothing more than a clump of cells, why do you think scientist scramble for stem cells (remember that huge stem cell debate a few years back)? The most important type of stem cells are found in embryos (and yes some are found in the adult body but these are small amounts and are generally not regarded as scientifically significant as embryotic stem cells).

Also, the arguement that if you were aborted you wouldn't be in existance to complain is somewhat of a farce. Well, of course you wouldn't be in a capacity to complain. The point is that no one knows the true capacity for an individual. The point is that I will not presume that anyone's life is more important than someone elses just because of their background, circumstances, looks, mental capacity, or convience of their mother. Having sex is a choice. Perhaps the choice regarding life should be made earlier than the creation of a living embryo in a womb.

Scott Peterson killed wife Laci and unborn child Conner. He was convicted of two counts of murder. SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN.

I thought the Letterman ad with Orah and Jay Leno was pretty good. (How come comedians behave so much better than religious folk? Can't we all just get along?)

The good news is that this is the last time we will see Tebow at an NFL event (unless, of course, he buys a ticket).

Folks, we need bonehead football players to tell us how to live. ;-)

'll bet that every person who is commenting, and every person who watched the super bowl and every person who was at the super bowl....is quite happy that their mother CHOSE to have them instead of CHOOSING to have them killed before they where born. Choose Life, its worth living.

Posted by: US-conscience | February 8, 2010 12:47 PM

Well I might add that 'll bet that every person who is commenting, and every person who watched the super bowl and every person who was at the super bowl...is questioning your mothers decision about now...oh master of the obvious

I watched the game, saw or took notice of NO ads. I have long known that ads are for worthless products,(if it was really great and useful there would be no need for the ad.)All choices have a cost that is life. I do not feel qualified to decide for others what choice they should make, nor would I like others to decide my choices. everyone must live with the choices they make that is the cost. The relationship that others have with god or how they decide is not to be judged by you it is between them and their god." judge not lest ye be judged" ring any bell?

I saw the one where Tim tackles his Mom. I think there was much-ado-about-nothing.Don't know why some people were upset. I believe in womens choice. Had she not had Tim I would never had the opportunity to watch him play quarter back.

Ah, we live in the United States of the Offended. People just love to gripe. And boy it's oh so easy on the internet. Hide behind the keyboard. If you don't like it, don't abide by it. Someone may have been inspired by it. And that's a good thing. Put a helmet on!

Tebow thrashing his mother seemed bizarrely Oedepusian to me. At least it wasn't condescending and preachy like Dobson.
Posted by: coloradodog | February 8, 2010 12:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
--------------------------
I agree, kinda creepy.

James Dobson must have some really great skeletons in his closet. What do you think that guy is hiding? He's a closet gay? Drug addict? Gets a little somthin, somthin on the side?

Religious politics during the Super Bowl sucks!!!!!

In addition to the extra Tebow videos, the Focus on the Family website offers lots of great information on "Pro-Gay Revisionist Theology," as well as counseling options for those with "Unwanted Same-Sex attractions."

That's the problem with the ad. The product is crap. Budweiser can make one hilarious commercial, but their beer is still awful. It doesn't matter how "effective" the Tebow ad is still selling you an anti-choice, homophobic organization.

There is one thing I certainly hope everyone agrees with: We should all be working to reduce the number of abortions. Unless someone wants to argue that abortion is the best method of birth control.

If Planned Parenthood respected my choices, they'd shut up and go out of business!!!!

Still more censorship. Great.

cassie 123: Also, the arguement that if you were aborted you wouldn't be in existance to complain is somewhat of a farce
------
Hmm. I doubt someone who can't spell "argument" without a dictionary or spell-check knows what a "farce" is. While you're at it, dear, look up "existence". There's no "a" in it.

When you actually have an education, you can lecture me about what rights I have and how they're inferior to those of a fetus.

Scott Peterson killed wife Laci and unborn child Conner. He was convicted of two counts of murder. SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN.

POSTED BY: QOPH
-----
It's been explained ad nauseam. If you don't understand the concept a WOMAN'S right to choose what happens to HER BODY and HER FETUS, seek help.

If Planned Parenthood respected my choices, they'd shut up and go out of business!!!!

POSTED BY: MOMOF20YO
-----
Why? Did PP force you or anyone else to terminate a pregnancy? What "choices" of yours have PP failed to "respect"? Your right to choose what you will do with your own body? Your right to continue your pregnancy? Your right to terminate one if you believe that's the best choice for you?

Or do they just peskily insist on respecting those rights when you don't think others should have them?

"...every woman's decision must be "valued ... trusted and respected."

Really? The crack addict impregnated while trading sex for drugs? The alcoholic who has pickled her fetus in utero? The woman who's had five abortions in three years?

These women deserve access to abortion, but not for the reasons given in the Planned Parenthood spot. The PP ad is no more honest than that of FotF.

"...every woman's decision must be "valued ... trusted and respected."

Really? The crack addict impregnated while trading sex for drugs? The alcoholic who has pickled her fetus in utero? The woman who's had five abortions in three years?

These women deserve access to abortion, but not for the reasons given in the Planned Parenthood spot. The PP ad is no more honest than that of FotF.

POSTED BY: WYLIED
-------
Gee, I guess all of those examples you cited just impregnated themselves, did they? Why shouldn't they have the right to terminate a pregnancy? What "justification" do you require? What punishment will you visit on the men involved? Hmmm? If they don't have to bear any responsibility, why should the women they screwed?

And just how common are those examples? Do you think the majority of women who seek to terminate a pregnancy are prostitutes and drug addicts? Of course you do. If a woman isn't pure as the driven snow and doesn't live up to your "standards", she must be a 'ho' or a druggie and therefore, completely without any rights whatsoever.

NOTATION wrote:

"Why shouldn't they have the right to terminate a pregnancy? What "justification" do you require?"

Umm, my post clearly stated, "These women deserve access to abortion," and implied that this access is _not_ predicated on their deserving our trust or respect.

Sorry if the point is too subtle for you. But you're probably used to that.

The issue is that with a smart liberal president and some older Supreme Court justices who are close to retirement, abortion will remain legal in this country in the future, thank God. Then Mrs Tebow and all the rest of the woman in this country will be able to make their own decisions which is the way it should be.

I'm not getting it. What exactly is "sweet" about a man tackling the woman who risked her life to give him life? I'm not feelin' it.

To me, it speaks to what FotF feels about women. They are walking wombs and make pretty good practice dummies too.

I disagree with those who think there should be no reproductive rights. But I disagree even more with those who think that "right to choose" comes without responsibility because it is a "constitutional right." It is not a constitutional right - constitutional rights were enacted when the constitution was written, and added to by constitutional amendments which THE NATION APPROVED.
A constitutional right cannot be created just by Justice Blackmun and his allies simply SAYING that it exists.
There is no constitutional right to drive a car or to practice medicine. You have a right to drive a car IF you pass a driving test. You can practice medicine IF you have a medical degree.
And you can have an abortion IF you have a dire need. But not otherwise, and not as a matter of constitutional right.
Posted by: rohitcuny |

Then praytell, what rights do I have, exactly?

By your standard you don't have a right to surgery, to food, to shelter. You don't have a right to walk on a sidewalk, to buy clothes, to protect your child. You don't have a right to have a child.

You're comments were specious.

Umm, my post clearly stated, "These women deserve access to abortion," and implied that this access is _not_ predicated on their deserving our trust or respect.

Sorry if the point is too subtle for you. But you're probably used to that.

POSTED BY: WYLIE
----
Aww, aren't you precious? As if you are the arbiter of which people deserve trust and respect. Answer the question. How common are your examples and just what "reasons" are justification enough for you?

Scott Peterson killed wife Laci and unborn child Conner. He was convicted of two counts of murder. SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Posted by: qoph

Oh brother. Was the fetus part of Scott Peterson's body? No. Her body, her choice.

And you may remember that many people were very upset over the law that was enacted to prosecute Scott Peterson.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[2]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 34 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[3]

The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

The bill contained the alternate title of Laci and Conner's Law after the California mother (Laci Peterson) and fetus (Conner Peterson) whose deaths were widely publicized during the later stages of the congressional debate on the bill in 2003 and 2004. (see Scott Peterson and Laci Peterson). Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide under California's fetal homicide law.

Why don't you tell us all your so "subtle" reasoning as to what access to abortion IS predicated upon. Since when is it up to you or any other 3rd party to decide whether a woman should be trusted to make decisions about her own medical care? Is there a litmus test for men? Do THEY have to pass some arbitrary standard to be accorded the right to decide what they will do with THEIR bodies?

NOTATION, it's the law that grants women access to abortion. Yes, a third party, the law, decides the arbitrary standards (They are arbitrary, and have changed over the years.) under which a woman is granted access to abortion. The law doesn't require that the woman be worthy of trust or respect. The law doesn't care if no one values her. She doesn't have to be sympathetic or telegenic or articulate. She can be dense and clueless, as you appear to be. In your foggy state, you seem to imagine that I think this is bad. That demonstrates just how mistaken you can be.

The remarks of some jihadists and cultists make it necessary to state the obvious. The Tebows were further enabling a theocratic Mullah. Like the Prejeans, maybe they were just dumb or naive, but they provided fuel and credibility to a dangerous extremist. James Dobson/ Focus on the Family accumulated so much influence in DC (during the Bush/ 'faith-based'/ Taliban-influenced years) that there were no legal consequences when there was child sexual abuse at Dobson's Christian youth camp. Now the nation has a further enabled mentally-challenged cleric who not only wants laws/ public policies for all the completely end access to birth control and abortion, but impact the sexual freedom of every adult, plus intensify censorship, and predictably to actually increase legislation against victimless "crimes."

Religious propaganda was out of place in the Super Bowl ads. Very poor decision to politicize this national sports event!!

Can't believe so many folks have so much free time!

If Planned Parenthood respected my choices, they'd shut up and go out of business!!!!

POSTED BY: MOMOF20YO
-----

I guess that you don't know that one of the prime goals of Planned Parenthood is "parenthood"...

See - those in the pro-choice movement *do* respect your choice - that's why it's called "pro-choice", not "pro-abortion". In fact, many of us in the pro-choice movement believe strongly in the sanctity of life - I certainly do. But I also recognize that my feelings on the matter stem directly from my religious beliefs, and are simply not shared in their entirety by an enormous number of people. What's more, I cannot "prove" by belief in being fully human at or close to conception.

I'm not interested in legislating observing the Sabbath or worshiping my God either, though I believe strongly in those things, too.

I have to admit - I'm always confused about religious members of the pro-life movement who are quite comfortable with forcing their religious views on others via the government on this purely religious-based matter, while being quite against using the government in a scripture-supported way to perform Christian virtues of charity, which *are* universally-recognized mores.

Abortion has NEVER been legal in the Phillipines and punishment is severe. Anyone wonder what doctor might have suggested to Mrs. Tebow that she terminate her pregnancy? Anybody suspicious that the facts here have been embellished for the sake of drama? With all of her Christian values, apparently Mrs. Tebow does not practice the 9th Commandment.

I'm not so sure the whole affair wasn't about Tebow instead of the important issue it could have advertized. Really a shame when you think about it.............

I'm really sick of all this yakking about Super Bowl ads. No one will remember them tomorrow.

Joyner supports having his grandchild killed. What a guy.

The abortion industry's sick, hysterical reaction to a simple story of a family's gratitude for life — well, it tells you all you need to know, does it not?

If I'm not mistaken, the ad you link to was in fact shown--during the pregame show. The tackle ad was aired during the game.

And evaluating the effectiveness of the ad only by looking at it in isolation is meaningless. The ad was shown in the context of a huge amount of advance publicity, courtesy of FOTF's critics. They thus had the luxury of knowing that the audience went into it with complete knowledge of their message.

Oh, and BTW ROHITCUNY, you have no grasp of constitutional law or the concept of constitutional rights. You have an opinion, but that is all that it is. And on this matter, the opinions of the SC justices matter much more than yours.
Posted by: youba
------------
Shall I assume then that you support the recent decision made by the Supreme Court which will allow corporations to use money to influence our elections? :)

The truth is that Supreme Court is not sacred and Obama HAS criticized their most recent decision. We all have to use our intelligence, May I recommend that you use yours.

Then praytell, what rights do I have, exactly?
By your standard you don't have a right to surgery, to food, to shelter. You don't have a right to walk on a sidewalk, to buy clothes, to protect your child. You don't have a right to have a child.
You're comments were specious.
Posted by: arancia12
-----------
I think the right to KILL, and without having to give a reason, is not a constitutional right. Actually I would have supported Mrs. Tebow had she had an abortion in the circumstances which she faced. But I do not support purely elective abortions, WITHOUT THEIR BEING ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE WOMAN'S "CHOICE".

I think the real story with this ad is the homophobic agenda of Focus on the Family. Apparently, fear of orchestrated hate campaigns caused CBS to reject a gay dating ad, one that has none of the violence and misogyny which permeates many Super Bowl commercials each year. It is, in short, charming, can be seen here http://mancrunch.com/media, and is certainly non-political if you don't subscribe to the view that adult sexuality should be subject to legislative oversight.

Here is where we are as a nation.

Much hoopla is made over whether it is appropriate or not to present an advertisement over the issue of abortion or the pro life stance. But nary a word is heard or written about the ad by xbox360 or whatever about Satanism, demons and death with a titile of "hell awaits"! Parents all across the land will sit back and keep quiet while this kind of stuff is marketed to their children.

Take an internal poll. Will God Bless America for promoting abortions or promoting Satanic games for adults and children. Probably neither!

Ten seconds is up.

Is there such a thing as a happy liberal?

When does life begin? At conception, at birth? Somewhere in between? 6 months after birth? When someone is old enough to get their own glass of water?

Explain this notion that a women has the right to choose what to do with her body if life begins at conception? Explain the notion of why it wouldn't be OK to abort the baby at anytime prior to birth if life begins at birth?

Explain why any point between conception and birth isn't completely arbitrary?

How viable is the life of a baby at 2 hours old if someone isn't there to care for the baby's every need? What is the difference between that point and three months in the womb?

Choice? What does that mean really? Don't you really mean "do over?" Gosh, didn't mean to get pregnant, I want a do over? After all you have your whole life ahead of you, unlike that collection of cells those evil right wingers call life....

If a woman is not aborting a life, then why should it be traumatic? After all you claim in isn't a life as valuable as your own?

No worries, I won't be judging anyone, I am only asking the questions that occur to me. I can do that, I wasn't aborted.

For the record, I am all for the death penalty - especially in the case of rape... That life is no longer innocent.

Do I care what you think? Not really..... I just love giving liberals something to rant about, like they need me...

Did anyone notice that the PP ad featured persons of color to get out PP's message? Has anyone noticed where PP put their large center in Houston? Do you believe the pitchmen know about PP's heritage from Magaret Sanger (founder of what is PP now)? PP is still promoting their (and Sanger's) view of eugenics - focusing on abortions for inner-city residents.

god, god, god, god, faith, spiritual, god. Why can't we talk about anything else in this country? Why are we so pragmatic about everything else (Toyota breaks! Universal health care!), but anything that is told is church is been blindly followed?
This is yet another case of religion getting on the way of progress, they define "life" as is convenient for their cause and want to force everyone else to follow.
It is impossible to have a conversation with people that start from the premise of "faith": is has no base but is blindly followed.
An yet another unquestioned contradiction of religion that makes a crusade of abortion and has no problem sending people to wars, exercising the dead penalty, banning anti contraceptives....

Everyone excepting a handful of dangerous psychopaths is pro life. That is not the issue. The only real issue is whether you think you and your loved ones get to make the most intimate and imporant life altering decisions or the government makes those decisions for you. The anti-choice lobby wants government to intrude, to use the power of the state to deny people the right to make their own intimate decisions, and instead be dictated to by beaurocrats and politicians.

I wonder why anyone would imagine that the woman next door needs your help, or your congressman's help in making serious decisions about abortion or birth control. Abortion is tragedy for all concerned, hardly helped by the rantings of people with no stake who are today ignoring all the people of the world, including at least half the children in the USA who need more water, more food, more clothing and a better education. If anyone wants to do something for children, there are plenty waiting. And for those who think that God has given them the right to harass their neighbors, isn't God still able punish the "wicked"? Is that the reason good people remember to share with those less fortunate? Let those without sin cast stones.

Constitutional rights did not come into being when the constitution was written, and the 9th Amendment says so. The Bill of Rights lays out a set of fundamental protections against the government intruding into you NATURAL RIGHTS. these are rights that exist independant of any Constitution, idependant of government. Government is supposed to exist to protect those fundamental rights. When Madison originall y argued against adding a bill of rights he said that te danger was the future generations would construe the list as full and definitive. He argued that liberty should be as braodly construend as possible. Hence the 9th amendment which esentially says just because they did not put it in the list does not mean it isn't your right. Government does not "grant" us liberty, government exists to protect liberty. Liberty is not absolute, but it is meant to be as broadly interpreted as possible while maintaining a civilized society.

And no, paying taxes is not an infringment of your liberty. It is a government al function that exists through specific powers in the Constitution.

Rohit,
Let me remind you of the Amendment IX in the Constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, rights exists beyond those specifically enumerated in the Constitutional document itself. The Constitution leaves open the process for determining and, just as importantly, protecting these "unenumerated rights".

If this sounds like the pretext for a living and evolving Constitution then it's because the framers intended the Constitution to be that way. They had no intention of locking us in 1787 for all time, which is why they recognized that not every right was actually spelled out in letter in the original Bill of Rights.

The charging a person with murder for killing the unborn is simple. the law was perverted by politicians who are seeking to set legal precent for using the power of the state to dictate reproductive decisions. It is how law works. You set a precedent and then other decsions flow from that decision. If you pervert the law to say killing the unborn in an act of murder against the mom you are creating exactly the legal conundrum some of you point out. It is not because it is actually murder, just a legal trick by politicians who are trying to use government to make your decisions for you based on their specific religious dogma.

The original, unchanged revelations given to Abraham and other prophets(like Moses and Jesus ) reaching back to Adam all came from the One True God(The Creator). This common origin explains their similarities in many beliefs and values

However, over time the teachings of the various religions, due to a variety of reasons, have become distorted and mixed with made-man ideas.

The last Prophet and Messenger of God, Muhammad , who is a direct descendant of Abraham through his first born son, Ishmael, was sent with the Last Guidance, Revelation and Testament, the Holy Qur'an(koran) to amend and correct the changes and corruption made to the the "Torah" which was sent to Moses and theTrue Gospel of Jesus.To say the truth ,God preserved all the other Holy Books plainly by preserving His Last Book the Holy Qur'an(koran)which contains the right and the truth of all that was changed in those other Books.

There is not even one word of difference between two Arabic Qur'ans, anywhere in the world. There has been no disagreements in history among Muslims as to what should and should not be in the Qur'an.

Islam teaches us that we must pray directly to God without an intermediary and no soul can bear the burden of another and that the nature of humanity is good, and we did not inherit sin from Adam. Each soul comes into being free of sin.

The oneness and universality of God's message requires that people accept all the messengers of God. Rejecting one of them amounts to rejecting them all. The Jews reject Jesus's mission and Muhammad's mission; the Christians reject Muhammad's mission; whereas the Muslims accept them all, but reject incorrect historical interpretations and human elements in these missions.

The Final Prophet Muhammad said: "Whoever believes there is no god but God, alone without partner, that Muhammad is His messenger, that Jesus is messenger of God, and that Paradise and Hell are true, shall be received by God into Heaven."

please learn more and seek guidance sincerely from THE CREATOR. THE CREATOR Most Generous and will never let any of His servants down. THE CREATOR is the One Who guides to the Straight Path, and He is Sufficient for us and is the best disposer of affairs

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/

People love to rant and rave about this because they have no personal culpabitlity. They want to feel that they are super dee duper special because they are doing things because their buddy God told them to. And with something like this there is no down side. When those unwanted children are born, when the crippled, the deformed, the retarded child is thrust unwillingly onto a family that does not have the means or desire to care for it, there is no culpability for the anti-choice folks. They slough it off as "God's will" as if God did not create the minds with which we have created modern medicine, as if God did not bless certain people with the skills and intelligence to create sonograms, and prenatal testing.....ALWAYS be very wary of the person who claims that they have special knowledge of God's will. It is almost always the case that what they mean is they have an agenda, it involves pain for someone esle, and they have no rational justification for what they want to do.

Let's face it friends people will believe what they want to believe. On any side of any issue.

When is celebrating life ever offensive? It was a lovely statement of celebration of life, We have freedom of speech but some seem to think you have no right to express your opinion unless you agree with them. Focus on the Family is a wonderful organization that promotes the family in many areas. Our family thought the Tebow commercial was awesome. We loved it.
And for those who think you have the right to control what we see and hear, you should be ashamed. You do not have that right.

I think the right to KILL, and without having to give a reason, is not a constitutional right. Actually I would have supported Mrs. Tebow had she had an abortion in the circumstances which she faced. But I do not support purely elective abortions, WITHOUT THEIR BEING ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE WOMAN'S "CHOICE".

POSTED BY: ROHITCUNY
------
Big surprise. Yet again, you have failed to produce any answer to the questions I posed: who is going to determine what reasons are "valid" and by what standard will the woman's "need" for an abortion be measured?

You "don't think" women have a right to decide for themselves? Too bad for you, dear, they do. Your ability to understand that, your approval of it, and your permission aren't required.

US-Conscience -- you lose that bet.

NOTATION, it's the law that grants women access to abortion. Yes, a third party, the law, decides the arbitrary standards (They are arbitrary, and have changed over the years.) under which a woman is granted access to abortion. The law doesn't require that the woman be worthy of trust or respect. The law doesn't care if no one values her. She doesn't have to be sympathetic or telegenic or articulate. She can be dense and clueless, as you appear to be. In your foggy state, you seem to imagine that I think this is bad. That demonstrates just how mistaken you can be.

POSTED BY: WYLIED
----
The only one who's dense and clueless here is you.

The most effective Pro-Choice spot wasn't even an ad. To see Drew Bree's at the end of the game holding his son, overcome by the moment with joy and sharing it with his son was worth more then any million dollar commercial. Sometimes a picture really is really worth a thousand words and sometimes people can come to their own conclusions without all the lights and glitz.

If the Tebows really "value life", maybe they should have sponsored another 30-second ad showing a woman propped up against a garbage can in a back alley, bleeding profusely from her abdomen as Dr. Coat Hanger sprints away clutching a few dollar bills in his fist.
If prostitution is the worlds's oldest profession, abortion is probably a close second. Making the latter safe and available is much more ethical in my book than making it dangerous and illegal.

If a woman is not aborting a life, then why should it be traumatic? After all you claim in isn't a life as valuable as your own.
POSTED BY: LIFERUNNER
-------
The fetus is alive. That doesn't mean it has rights that supersede those of the woman carrying it. It doesn't have "a life."

The procedure is traumatic for some women, not all. For some women who are carrying a much-wanted pregnancy that has gone terribly wrong, having to go through an abortion is a traumatic experience. For some women who are pregnant and don't wish to continue the pregnancy, the reaction to abortion is relief.

A very slick fund-raising tool. "Focus on the Family" is hemmoraging money to the point where it's on its last legs. Their efforts at pushing gays and lesbians back into the closet have failed for an America that can't get enough of Neil Patrick Harris, Adam Lambert, Rachel Maddow and Ellen Degeneres. So they're making this "Hail Mary Pass" via a trumpted-up "controversy" over an ad for loving one's mother.

Next: The Flag and Apple pie.

Did anyone notice that the PP ad featured persons of color to get out PP's message? Has anyone noticed where PP put their large center in Houston? Do you believe the pitchmen know about PP's heritage from Magaret Sanger (founder of what is PP now)? PP is still promoting their (and Sanger's) view of eugenics - focusing on abortions for inner-city residents.

POSTED BY: BEANERECMO
--------
Did you ever notice that abortions comprise only a fraction of the services PP provides for people? Did you ever notice that they provide contraception? Treatment for STDs? Did you know that many PP clinics don't even perform abortions? Did it ever occur to you that PP puts clinics in the places where the need for low-cost health care is greatest?

No, probably not. You probably don't even notice your fly's down.

Notation says: "You probably don't even notice your fly's down."

Now there's a service, PP: teach 'em to zipper up.

You stick to that and I'll send $$.

Notation says: "You probably don't even notice your fly's down."

Now there's a great service for PP: teach 'em how to stay zippered up--it's the best birth control there is.

I still believe this ad was a huge waste of money, telling pretty much everyone nothing new. That money could've been spent on the millions of needy children who are already here. By drawing so much attention to the abortion issue and pretty little Timmy, FOTF took it off those children who need our help due to wide-spread and tragic factors (like the Haiti quake) that make their lives hell on earth.

Each day at work I see an unfortunate child who was born with brain damage so acute that we're not even sure he's aware of his own existence, or is instead trapped in a body that tortures him with unexpressed pain or emotional anguish that will never be relieved. He's wheel-chair bound, completely unable to care for himself, and many days is unable to open his eyes for long due to almost-hourly seizures. It's agony to see him suffer such a cruel fate, but the fact is, he's here now, and FOTF isn't exactly rushing in to help.

Advocating for a life like his would speak volumes about a supposedly genuine commitment to ALL life, yet Timmy's saintly mommy decided to highlight her handsome little pop-culture hero instead of using that money to pay for this child's care, or to sit with other less-photogenic heartbreakers like him, look me in the eye and say, "I'm glad his mom chose life."

Notation says: "You probably don't even notice your fly's down."

Now there's a service, PP: teach 'em to zipper up.

You stick to that and I'll send $$.

POSTED BY: BLUEFISH2012
-------
I hope you can read your account information. You certainly missed the point of my post, not once, but twice.

An atheist friend of mine directed me to this forum by describing it as "hysterical". Let me see if I have this right...pro-life means anti-choice, pro-choice means anti-life.

Pro-life advocates will tell you that they believe in the sanctity of life while overwhelmingly supporting the death penalty and unnecessary wars. Hmmm.

Life begins at conception. Life begins at birth. Life begins at 40. Life begins at retirement. Which bumper sticker should I believe?