Pro Choice
I don’t spend much time on the Sports Pages, except when the Yankees make the final four (or whatever they call it). But, then, one doesn’t come across many articles like this too often — on any page.
Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.
Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.
I don’t know Sally Jenkins, but I would certainly like to meet her. The rest of her article is here.
on February 2nd, 2010 at 6:12 pm
i recommend her book, something like The Real All Americans, about the Carlisle School Indian football team. A wonderful story, and football is only one part of it. I liked that book so much that I have the Washington Post email me a notice each time she writes a column.
on February 2nd, 2010 at 6:18 pm
There’s a not-insignificant problem with the story and the commercial, and that is that abortion was and is illegal in the Philippines, with no exception even for the life of the mother.
From Wikipedia
It may be that Pam Tebow is telling the absolute truth, or the truth as she remembers it. Maybe the doctors did advise her to have an abortion, and maybe she took a risk in not having it. But it all happened in a country where abortion was totally banned, and where she could have been imprisoned for having an abortion. It puts the story in a considerably different light.
on February 2nd, 2010 at 6:36 pm
There’s an interesting discussion at mirror of justice about the ad. I’m afraid I share Rob Vischer’s reservations.
Anyone know exactly how life-threatening the underlying condition is?
on February 2nd, 2010 at 6:38 pm
And as we all know, there are no airplanes or boats that ever leave the Philippines. Once you’re there, you can never leave. Not unlike the Hotel California.
on February 2nd, 2010 at 7:26 pm
I am glad they are planning to air Tebow’s story. It has already garnered more attantion than the more than a quarter of a million Pro-Life folks who marched on Washington DC recently.
CNN and the big three had almost nothing to say. Also, we had about 30,000 pro-lifers walking in San Francisco that same weekend, agin with barely a peep from the local media.
Interesting; In the SF Bay area, if 10 lesbian communists are protesting in Berkely, they will get coverage from almost every local news outlet. However thirty thousand people, a large percentage of whom are under 35 years of age, walking for life along the Embarcadero in SF hardly merits any of the mainstream media’s attention.
Hmm.
on February 2nd, 2010 at 7:26 pm
And as we all know, there are no airplanes or boats that ever leave the Philippines. Once you’re there, you can never leave. Not unlike the Hotel California.
Mark,
You’re adding details to the story that aren’t there. Pam Tebow didn’t claim she was advised to leave the country and have a legal abortion somewhere else.
And of course it’s a good story only because he’s a famous athlete. If the pro-choice people found some woman who had gone through with a dangerous pregnancy and had a son who turned out to be a serial killer, I doubt that you would find it a convincing ad for abortion.
Which reminds me of a joke. It was a cold, stormy night in February 1802 in the French countryside, and a doctor was called upon to deliver a baby, He went out into the gusting wind and lashing rain, and hours later he returned, utterly drenched, shivering, and exhausted. His wife said, “Oh, how awful you had to go out on a night like this.” And the doctor said, “It was all worth it, though. The baby was Victor Hugo.”
on February 2nd, 2010 at 7:32 pm
And that raises a question: Are you all willing to let NARAL or whoever let the mother of a serial killer –or someone on death row, say. . .”I wish I’d had the choice.”
Or the mother of a child with serious disabilities . say “Id wish I’d had genetic testing. . . it would have been better for all of us.”
The fundamental problem with this ad is that it’s turning respect for life into something like a lottery ticket.
Tim Tebow’s value as a human being isn’t –and wasn’t- because he turned out to be a big guy who could throw or catch or pass a football, or whatever his particular talent is.
Let me be clear: I think the ad should run. But I don’t like some of the other ads which will doubtless be allowed to run too.
on February 2nd, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Let’s hear about more Opposition to this ad… The opposition is the best boost pro-life has had in years. Forget about marches .. they are passe’.. note the successes of the same sex marriage agenda. They had action with film at 11 and help from totally inept spokespersons for the opposition, This is the new politics. So if your pro-life .. say Thanks to inept NARAL
on February 2nd, 2010 at 8:54 pm
David Nickol and Prof Kaveny are right that the logic behind such an ad is not congruent with the pro-life logic, which is that all life should be protected regardless of its value in the world.
Nevertheless, the ad, like a similar ad with Obama, speaks to the heart, and it conveys the general truth that all life is valuable and you never know what great things your kid could do. Most people are mediocre, but most people make the world a better place in some small way.
As an analogy, I would offer the moving It’s a Wonderful Life. It’s a pro-life movie, right? Do Nickol and Kaveny object that because George Bailey did lots of great things it isn’t really a good argument for being pro-life, and that to be pro-life the movie should really be about why Mr. Potter deserves not to be “never been born”?
on February 2nd, 2010 at 8:57 pm
It’s odd that CBS has changed its policy about allowing advocacy ads. In 2004 they rejecting an ad by the United Church of Christ highlighting the UCC’s welcoming stance toward gays.
on February 2nd, 2010 at 9:25 pm
I don’t like the movie. I think its smaltzy. And I don’t really care for Jimmy Stewart, God rest his soul. He’s existentially annoying.
Whine, Whine, Whine.
Give me the end of Fargo any day. Now that’s pro-life.
on February 2nd, 2010 at 9:50 pm
“If the pro-choice people found some woman who had gone through with a dangerous pregnancy and had a son who turned out to be a serial killer, I doubt that you would find it a convincing ad for abortion.”
David—Would you? Would anyone?
on February 2nd, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Haiti and the like gets one post. Abortion usque ad………
on February 2nd, 2010 at 9:59 pm
“Pam Tebow didn’t claim she was advised to leave the country and have a legal abortion somewhere else.”
And we all know that Pam Tebow is too dumb to figure out that there is an airport on the Philippines. And that planes take off from it. And that she could purchase an airline ticket. Nope, unless someone told her these things specifically she could have no way of knowing.
on February 2nd, 2010 at 10:38 pm
The story about this story is interesting in that it disproves much of the professional pro-life movement’s laments about media bias. There is hardly anyone that I’ve seen who opposes the ad running, except for NARAL etc. The NYT, TNR, WaPo spots writers, pro-lifers, pro-choicers, all agree it’s fine if it runs, even if many don’t particularly like the ad. (And the smugness of it all does grate on me, but that’s a personal reaction–Christianity in America, and American sports, is all about the winners and the beautiful and successful. So it goes.)
Yet the UCC ad gets rejected, as does a gay dating service ad this year. And the pro-lifers cry “Persecution”! Hey, nothing feels better than suffering without actually enduring any actual discomfort! And it works as a fundraiser.
on February 2nd, 2010 at 10:57 pm
David—
The smugness of Mrs. Tebow loving her son, and being proud of him, and feeling privileged to be his mother? THAT smugness? Surely you would have the same feelings toward your son, no?
on February 2nd, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Agree with DG. The only people I’ve seen who dislike it thus far are Tom Shales, NARAL, and some Commonweal contributors.
on February 2nd, 2010 at 11:13 pm
It’s not hard to love the beautiful, or the successful, the young, or the rich.
And indeed, there is a certain strand of American Christianity that suggests that God rewards his elect with being beautiful, successful, and rich–and blindingly white teeth. Nothing says holy, wholesome, and happy in America like white teeth!
So the Tebows are the elect. They deserve our love.
And what was that crazy fellow Jesus fellow talking about, loving the LEAST of our brothers. . . .
Should someone who is in the same position as Mrs. Tebow, relies on her apparent assurances, continues the pregnancy, but who ends up with the statistically more likely result-be able to sue her?
Probably not–it will probably be deemed advertising puffery–but it’s not entirely beyond the realm of possibility.
on February 2nd, 2010 at 11:24 pm
So I guess pro-life people were supposed to tell the Tebows to shut up because Tim is a Heisman-winning quarterback, and that makes them less than ideal witnesses, since they aren’t the “least of these.”
Maybe Tebow should have smoked some cigs and drank some coffee so he wouldn’t looks so wholsome.
Is any other movement subject to such scrutiny? Would any movement turn away a Heisman-winning quarterback (who by the way, spends his summers serving the poor in other countries)?
Of course, if the pro-life movement used a less attractive spokesman, they would be criticized for their lack of savviness.
Heads you win…
on February 2nd, 2010 at 11:36 pm
I don’t think the pro-life movement does itself any favors by misleadingly suggesting to vulnerable women that their doctors are wrong about the status of their health and the pregnancy. I don’t think manipulation is justified.
Suppose a woman, in reliance on he commercial, doesn’t have an abortion–and ends up either dead or seriously ill and with a seriously ill child. She sues–false advertising. What’s the defense? Puffery–we really didn’t mean it? “Results not typical”–the same stuff on every magic diet pill and youth serum?
Would you want an ad that said, “Hey. .. I ignored my doctor’s advice. .. I drank and smoked and only ate cheetos during pregnancy and the baby’s JUST FINE!”
Or. .. “I was a high risk pregnancy. . . the doctors said I needed a hospital birth but I had a home birth with a midwife and we’re all okay. . . “So you should have a home birth too!
What’s the difference?
They can buy the ad. I think there are real problems with its underlying message. The message should be–all life matters.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 12:00 am
What seems worrisome about this ad is that it seems to champion the idea that women should put their lives in danger rather than have an abortion – I guess the patron saint for this attitude would be Gianna Beretta Molla, canonized after perishing when she refused to have an abortion despite doctors’ warnings. Is it so surprising some womens groups would find this objectionable?
on February 3rd, 2010 at 12:16 am
And we all know that Pam Tebow is too dumb to figure out that there is an airport on the Philippines. And that planes take off from it. And that she could purchase an airline ticket. Nope, unless someone told her these things specifically she could have no way of knowing.
Mark,
What makes you assume that Filipino doctors will not perform (or arrange for) an illegal abortion under these circumstances? Or that an abortion in the Philippines when the mother’s life is in danger is a gray area of the law even though there are no exceptions specifically written into the law? There are any number of possibilities for what could have been the case. The point is that the story as it has been told so far simply leaves out any mention that she was in the Philippines and that abortion is at least technically forbidden under all circumstances. It’s a gap in the story, and anyone with an imagination can fill it. But it’s still a gap.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 12:18 am
“Tim Tebow’s value as a human being isn’t –and wasn’t- because he turned out to be a big guy who could throw or catch or pass a football, or whatever his particular talent is.”
I didn’t realize the ad said that and would find it quite hard to believe the Tebows would say such a thing. In fact, I have had a hard time finding either the transcript of the ad or the video on the internet. Where can that be located? I am embarrassed that so many people here have seen this ad and I cannot find it anywhere.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 12:27 am
MAT,
I don’t think anyone has seen the ad. I read somewhere that abortion is not mentioned in the it.
I certainly have no objection to the ad being run during the Super Bowl — or at any other time — whatever it says. If we ban commercials because they don’t tell the whole truth, or manipulate our emotions, there would be no advertising on television.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 12:39 am
They can buy the ad. I think there are real problems with its underlying message. The message should be–all life matters.
What makes you think that isn’t the message of the ad?
on February 3rd, 2010 at 12:40 am
I guess the patron saint for this attitude would be Gianna Beretta Molla, canonized after perishing when she refused to have an abortion despite doctors’ warnings. Is it so surprising some womens groups would find this objectionable?
Any more than men should find the canonization of male martyrs to the faith objectionable?
on February 3rd, 2010 at 12:55 am
Any more than men should find the canonization of male martyrs to the faith objectionable?
John,
Is a woman a martyr if she dies as the result of not having an abortion to terminate a life-threatening pregnancy?
on February 3rd, 2010 at 4:22 am
From Will Satetan at Slate: ( http://www.slate.com/id/2243218/ )
Pam’s story certainly is moving. But as a guide to making abortion decisions, it’s misleading. Doctors are right to worry about continuing pregnancies like hers. Placental abruption has killed thousands of women and fetuses. No doubt some of these women trusted in God and said no to abortion, as she did. But they didn’t end up with Heisman-winning sons. They ended up dead.
…
On Sunday, we won’t see all the women who chose life and found death. We’ll just see the Tebows, because they’re alive and happy to talk about it. In the business world, this is known as survivor bias: Failed mutual funds disappear, leaving behind the successful ones, which creates the illusion that mutual funds tend to beat market averages. In the Tebows’ case, the survivor bias is literal. If you’re diagnosed with placental abruption, you have the right to choose life. But don’t be so sure that life is what you’ll get.
Placental abruption is rare. The detachment from the uterine wall can range from partial to total. By most accounts, it occurs in fewer than 1 percent of pregnancies. The more broadly it’s diagnosed, the less fatal it is on average, since the subtlest cases are also the least dangerous.
In 2001, the American Journal of Epidemiology published an analysis of 7.5 million births that took place in the United States in 1995 and 1996. Abruption was documented in 46,731 of these pregnancies. Six percent of normal pregnancies produced babies with birth weights low enough to risk long-term health damage. Nearly half the abrupted pregnancies produced such babies. Ten percent of normal pregnancies ended in premature births; most abrupted pregnancies ended that way. In normal pregnancies, the perinatal mortality rate—death of the fetus after 20 weeks gestation, or death of the baby in its four weeks after birth—was less than 1 percent. In abrupted pregnancies, the rate was roughly 12 percent. If the total number of abrupted pregnancies in the United States in those two years was 46,731, then the number of fetuses and babies killed by placental abruption was 5,570.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 7:20 am
I think the placement of the ad is really odd. Superbowl ads are mostly really entertaining; they’re the best TV ads of the year. If this ad isn’t entertaining, it will only appeal to people who already share the sponsor’s beliefs; it will just annoy everyone else for being a boring ad. (Same thing with an ad for PETA, NARAL, whatever). So what exactly is gained by the advertising?
on February 3rd, 2010 at 7:46 am
One of the ironies of this debate — and I mean nationally, not necessarily here on dotCommonweal — is that there is a very substantial overlap between the groups that are holding Pam Tebow up as a shining example for spending two months in the hospital to save her baby and those who are actively opposing health care reform. Indeed, Massachusetts for Life was a strong supporter of Scott Brown, who is pro-choice, not because he was the “lesser of two evils” in the Massachusetts senate race, but because he would be the 41st vote to kill health care reform.
Do you know what two months in the hospital would cost in the United States?
on February 3rd, 2010 at 8:27 am
How bout an add for the prosperity Gospel? I gave the 900 Club $5,000 of my life savings and now I’m a millionaire?
I suppose you’d think it’s anti-Christian to object to that!
After all, what’s a little manipulation when it brings you to Christ!
The ad’s effective because we’re talking about it–and Focus on the Family–for about a month.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 8:48 am
Last I heard, the Tebow spot will be airing. I believe another group demanded equal time for a response, which was rejected. Thanks for reminding me to check this, as we’re viewing SB commercials for one of my classes.
I find the Tebow spot troubling for the same reasons Cathleen has mentioned–the implicit idea is not to abort your baby b/c he might turn out to be a big strapping successful winner.
I’m more impressed with those in groups like L’Arche or the Special Olympics who support those mothers who wanted and loved their babies even when they knew their children had no chance of becoming football heroes–or even capable to caring for themselves.
Arguing that you should save your baby b/c he might turn out to be the new Mozart or a Hall of Famer fails to address the dignity of all life issue.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 8:57 am
Now here is a story about a football player we could learn a thing or two from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/sports/football/03fujita.html
on February 3rd, 2010 at 9:48 am
It seems like we are coming to the point where some people take what is good and try to make it sound bad, and take that which bad and try to make it sound good.
And then, when they are called out for that error, they say something like “What is good?” or “What exactly is bad?” They act as if they have lost their compass altogether and no longer know the basics; they act confused and try to make the straightforward seem complicated.
It seems like we are moving closer to how Pontius Pilate thought when he looked Jesus in the face and said “Truth? What is truth?” Poor old Pilate; he was standing in front of Truth and could not see.
Amazing.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:12 am
Why don’t you address the arguments?
What would you say to the counter-commercial–”I had a baby who had a short and miserable life? I knew I wasn’t going to get a football player, I knew my child had Down’s syndrome?”
on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:38 am
Cathleen – Of course the baby born with health problems is as valuable as the one who grows up to be a football player. There is no argument about that.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:42 am
There could even be a worse commercial — a family member of a woman who decided to carry her baby to term, and both the mother and child perished.
I would say that experience is true as well.
During the 2006 baseball postseason, every commercial break was a family with a child with a terrible disease telling me I needed to vote for a constitutional amendment legalizing embryonic research. Their experiences were true, as well, even if thought they were wrong on the issue.
—
I don’t think anyone is promising that everyone who chooses life will get a Heisman Trophy winner as a result. The point is that we don’t know.
It is also true that the next Tim Tebow is as likely to have been buried under rubble in Haiti or living in a village in Afghanistan as in his mother’s womb in a doctor’s office as they hear troubling news.
I don’t think that the Tebows sharing their story denies this truth.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:44 am
A fuller discussion of statistics that goes beyond medical concerns is illuminating and, I would argue, shows that there is nothing implausible about the notion that overcoming early adversity, whether it’s premature birth or low birth weight, strengthens one to meet future challenges. It’s well known, for example, that life expectancy increases for those who survive the first few dangerous months of life outside the womb. Likewise for males surviving the teenage years and, some evidence suggests for the very old (if you survive to age 95 or so annual mortality rates actually decline as one ages).
And if we are talking about superior achievement rather than just survival see the section “Building Character: Early Adversity” in Simonton’s book “Greatness.” Think of Stephen Hawking or the 90 pound weakling who became Charles Atlas. Cicero and Demosthenes had speech impediments, etc. Simonton further argues that these cases are not statistical anomalies.
Another psychologist, Jonathan Haidt in his recent best seller “The Happiness Hypothesis,” has a chapter on the Uses of Adversity. He considers at length both a weak hypothesis (adversity can lead to growth, strength, joy and self-improvement) and a strong hypothesis (people must endure adversity to grow and the highest levels of growth and development are only open to those who have faced and overcome great adversity). We’ll never have enough statistics to establish it but if I had to guess I’d put the chances of winning a Heisman trophy as higher for those with Tebow’s background than for those where the pregnancy was more nearly normal.
Haidt’s point is that there is more that a grain of truth to Nietzsche’s claim that “What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.” Like many others I think that the American public can benefit from exposure to examples of overcoming adversity and that to downplay or suppress them is what is truly misleading.
And kudos to Sally Jenkins for spotlighting some of the other achievements of Tim Tebow.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:49 am
Is a woman a martyr if she dies as the result of not having an abortion to terminate a life-threatening pregnancy?
I would think so.
Which is why St. Gianna’s act is an act of heroism worthy of a saint.
And which is why I tend to be OK with life-of-the-mother exceptions for abortion restrictions. Carrying the baby to term may be the morally right thing to do, but it is a heroic act, and I’m not sure that criminal law ought to require heroism.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:58 am
I think that a lot of the divide here is between those who want to deal with issues that arise practixally day in and out and those who begin with their philosophy or religioous perspective.
The ad should and is running.
I agree with Jean that it has some issues about the way it sends a message.
Pace.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 11:00 am
What would you say to the counter-commercial–”I had a baby who had a short and miserable life? I knew I wasn’t going to get a football player, I knew my child had Down’s syndrome?”
Not an answer to your question (or any others here), but this reminded me of a recent episode of Law & Order that was “ripped from” a handful of headlines, including the Roeder/Tiller case. Given how the L&O formula tends to condense complicated political and ideological issues into dueling soundbites, I was not optimistic, but I have to say — considering the medium — the episode’s portrayal of both pro- and anti-abortion arguments was surprisingly thorough and complex. The courtroom sequence included testimony from a mother who had given birth to a seriously handicapped baby, one she knew would not live more than a few hours. She described, frankly, how painful the experience was, but concluded by saying that, in the end, she was glad she’d brought the baby to term and held it before it died. There were arguments in the other direction too, of course. And overall the episode felt less contrived and more honest than I expected. It was refreshing; I had a sense that a new conversation might be possible after all.
So, I was disappointed, but not surprised, to discover a day or two later that the episode was being labeled “prolife propaganda” on blogs that advocate “reproductive rights.” From my perspective, the episode was anything but propaganda. It was more like the “It’s so personal” exchanges Andrew Sullivan hosted on his blog in the wake of Tiller’s murder — wading into the difficult, messy challenges that both sides of the argument have to face. But acknowledging the existence of that perspective on TV was enough for some to cry foul. If what you described, Cathy, were part of a companion commercial instead of a counter-argument, maybe then we’d be getting somewhere?
on February 3rd, 2010 at 11:08 am
I liked the Law and Order episode too. Anybody hear about the TV show BUMP?
I guess my problem with the commercial goes deeper–the idea that to be worth anything you need to be famous, athletic, rich, beautiful, etc. Ken, I don’t think you can say that isn’t a big problem in the culture. Maybe not with you, but with the people who will be watching that game in its broader context.
I think that’s the fundamental problem in our culture that leads to all sorts of bad decisions. Evangelium Vitae has some good stuff on that.
Again, I think they have every right to run the ad. It’s tactically effective, but strategically counterproductive in my view.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 11:22 am
I read the Saletan article as well and thought it very illuminating. Has anyone responded to his major points?
on February 3rd, 2010 at 11:43 am
Cathleen and David G.
It is becoming more and more apparent that you guys are the Statler and Waldorf of the pro-life movement.
I challenge you to stop heckling and identify ten pro-life initiatives you would endorse, participate in, and/or support.
G
on February 3rd, 2010 at 11:47 am
If we think this commercial represents a comprehensive air-tight case for choosing life, and all we have to do is keep playing this commercial over and over and people will flock to the pro-life cause, then yes, that is a problem.
I tend to think that is is a story that is good to have as part of the national conversation. Alongside narratives like The Cider House Rules and If These Walls Could Talk 2 and the Christopher Reeves and Michael J. Foxes imploring us to kill embryos to cure diseases.
It is an anecdote, and thus is not a proof, and does not cover all the bases. It is not meant to.
It may start conversations. And that is where we have the work to do to fill in those blanks.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 11:50 am
True Cathy – On your point, many in American culture are far too Darwinistic.
We Americans are too Darwinistic, too materialistic, too fat, too loud, too reliant on cars; we are too this and too that. The list is long; we are far from perfect. On the other hand, we Americans are a fair minded and a pleasant and reasonable people; we are not all bad, and so should not be too hard on ourselves. In fact no society is perfect.
Yes, the point about the invalid child being as valuable as the one who grows to be an athlete is very important; so is the point of the story Mollie describes from Law and Order episode, where the mother was able to cradle her newborn, but dying child in her arms.
As a practical matter, it is almost impossible to hit the perfect philosophical balance you (correctly) seek in a 60-second advert for a football tournament. In short; in this situation we should not let the good become the enemy of the best.
I think it is good a pro-life point will be made, albeit without much detail. Most folks might pause for a moment, and maybe set down their beer and ponder the matter for a bit, and then return to thinking about and enjoying the ball game. The seed will have been planted, and they might recall it later. That is good.
Not perfect, but this pro-life advert is certainly better than nothing. It is more than I would have thought to do.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 12:12 pm
OK, since there’s so much wagering on the Super Bowl already, I will be happy to make book on this commercial. If the commercial says that Mrs. Tebow loves her son, or feels she’s made the right decision, only because he turned out to be a Division 1 quarterback and will be rich and famous (or words to that effect), I will pay off. If, on the other hand, Mrs. Tebow says that every life is precious so you should choose life, or that you can never know how a child will turn out so just accept children as gifts from God, or that her love for her son has nothing to do with his potential to become rich and famous (or words to that effect), then you pay off.
Any takers?
PS I vouch that I have not seen the ad yet.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 12:17 pm
David N
Mark’s right. The legality issue is completely irrelevant. Your assumption that she wouldn’t go to the US is just as baseless as an assumption that she would. In the end, it doesn’t even matter. The point is, one way or another, an abortion was available and chose not to have it, and her choice, according to her had nothing to do with the legality or illegality of it. Besides, aren’t you the one who think making it illegal is a fool’s errand anyway?
Cathleen,
I don’t get why this is somehow contrary to pro-life “logic.” The point is that she made the choice before she knew anything about him. Every woman does. She made it, in fact, when the odds were against it. Unfortunately, the pro-abortion lobby will use any logic to attack anyone who makes the choice for life. Sarah Palin was savaged, and her son is far from “perfect.” How about Gianna Jensson, a victim of a botched abortion who has cerebral palsy? She fair game to NARAL as well, who regularly attack her. What about the tens of thousands of American women and men who suffer from PTSD and other psychological and emotional damage related to abortions? They don’t want us to hear about that either. I would think that women would be offended by the assumption that they need to be protected from information about the consequences of a choice they claim to want to protect. If NARAL or Planned Parenthood wants to run their own ads let them and let people decide for themselves. Did you ever consider that the reason they don’t run a – my baby had a short and miserable life and I wish I had an abortion ad is either – a) they can’t find a mother who would do it, or b) people would have exactly the opposite of the reaction that would be intended.
The point isn’t “roll the dice your baby might win the Heisman.” The point is that it is a human life. Putting a famous face on it drives that home, and it also gives the story credibility. Frankly, I think the objections would be there regardless of whether the child was Tim Tebow or a bagger at Safeway.
Also, on this blog I always hear the mantra, it’s OK to compromise your pro-life values if the result is fewer abortions. Whether it is supporting Barak Obama or public funding for abortions, the ends justify the means. Well, why a Tebow ad? A dirty little secret that the pro-abortion lobby likes to keep are the studies that show fully a third of women who have abortions received pressure to do so from someone else – usually a boyfriend or father. If this ad speaks to them, why are we so concerned about the “logic” behind it?
on February 3rd, 2010 at 12:40 pm
I don’t see how Cathleen or David are “heckling.”
But here are 10 pro-life measures I’d be surprised most of us didn’t agree with (some of which have been implented in various states or dioceses):
1. Parental notification of abortion for minors.
2. Informed consent.
3. Ban on abortions after the first trimester, including partial birth abortions, except to save the life of the mother.
4. Ban on abortions based on gender selection.
5. Abstinence and respect for life programs for kids in Catholic schools and CCD beginning in fifth or sixth grade. (Not just STD scare tactics, but straight talk about Church teaching, as well as legal and emotional responsibilities of parenthood.)
6. Early pregnancy testing programs and prenatal care for women regardless of income. These would lower maternal and fetal risk factors.
7. Respite programs for parents dealing with handicapped children.
8. Generous tax write-offs or funding for parents dealing with handicapped children.
9. Greater incentives to adopt children born with handicaps.
10. “Foster grandparent” programs that offer parental mentoring for young single mothers who have few parenting skills and need encouragement to finish school and gain skills to support themselves.
Where abortion is illegal, I would also support penalties for fathers who colluded in the abortion, penalties equal to those meted out to mothers and doctors.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
If we are going to talk about manipulation, why not begin with Roe v. Wade? Norma McCorvey, Sandra Bensing and Dr.Bernard Nathanson, the doctor who helped found NARAL, all have come forward to admit that their testimony was fabricated, as in fraudulent, and have become Pro-Life. The Roe V.Wade decision is based on fraudulent testimony and is not consistent with protecting the Right to Life of every Human Individual once that individual’s Life is created, as in, comes into being at Conception. Now if it is true that all of us are created equal, then Roe V.Wade is a lie, from the start.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Jean
Using your ten programs and matching them up to the near lockstep support for Barrak Obama – and indeed most progressive politicians – they would oppose 1-4 definitely, 5 probably, and the rest only to the extent that the state controlled them.
Where abortion is illegal, I would also support penalties for fathers who colluded in the abortion, penalties equal to those meted out to mothers and doctors.
I am with you there 100% – but then why do they have no say when it is legal?
on February 3rd, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Someone above quoted the placental abruption statistics cited by Saletan. I’m not denying that placental abruption can be a life-threatening condition at times, but there are degrees of abruption, danger, and treatment. As the Mayo Clinic relates on its website, it all depends on the “circumstances”:
“Treatment for placental abruption depends on the circumstances:
Babies not close to full term. If the abruption seems mild, your baby’s heart rate is normal and it’s too soon for the baby to be born, you may be hospitalized for close monitoring. If the bleeding stops and your baby’s condition is stable, your health care provider may prescribe rest at home. In some cases, you may be given medication to help your baby’s lungs mature — in case early delivery becomes necessary.
Babies close to full term. If your baby is almost full term and the placental abruption seems minimal, a closely monitored vaginal delivery may be possible. If the abruption progresses or jeopardizes your health or your baby’s health, you’ll need an immediate delivery — usually by C-section. If you experience severe bleeding, you may need a blood transfusion.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/placental-abruption/DS00623/DSECTION=treatments%2Dand%2Ddrugs
I’m of course not privy to Mrs. Tebow medical records, so I don’t know her particular “circumstances,” but there appears to be some indication that she was diagnosed relatively early with placental abruption and that she was getting medical treatment for it. The doctors’ termination-of-pregnancy advice to her may have been made on the mistaken assumption that the fetus had been damaged and would result in a stillbirth. It’s unclear whether her life really was in danger. It may have been, I don’t know, but a diagnosis of placental abruption does not necessarily translate into termination of the pregnancy, and I don’t think Mrs. Tebow’s decision not to abort can be criticized either medically or morally.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 1:21 pm
We don’t know what the message of the ad is…but what’s most important about it is the conversation it will provoke. Any good teacher of teenagers, for instance, knows that to get discussion going you don’t always start with the most fair or airtight set up…you do something that’s provocative and even flashy. That shakes people up. You give them a reason to pay attention…and then you work your way through the complexities of the arguments.
Simply put, if this is the story of the random grocery-bagger, and not the flashy Tim Tebow story, it doesn’t get on the Superbowl and we aren’t talking about it.
Too often the non-extremists in these debates suffer from abortion fatigue and a refusal to engage…and anything that gets them engaged (as they likely will be after the commercial …and in some places already are) in a new and interesting way to help move the debate forward is a great gift in my opinion.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Jean–
You’ve obviously given a lot of thought to your 10 measures. Where can I sign on? I’d go farther on some of them, and I’d add a few (e.g., requiring the viewing of an ultrasound video), but I think your 10 would have a major impact in reducing abortions, and I like that they include measures that would rile both Democrats and Republicans.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 1:41 pm
The main problem I have with Jean’s list of 10 is that there’s really 11, so she cheated. I also think number 11 is one of her better suggestions, and I’d have it replace number 4. Finally, I think there will be a lot more resistance to her suggestions from people who read this blog than she realizes.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Sean, I hope that someday you revise your monolithic thinking about Democrats and liberals. In order for us all to be in lockstep would require that we belong to the kind of well-oiled and highly organized operation that nobody who’s ever been to a county Dem chili supper fundraiser would recognize. Truly, you think too much of us. Why, the fact that the Dems, with a Congressional majority, cannot pass a health care reform bill speaks against the type of enterprise of which you speak.
Mark, I didn’t include punishing fathers in my 10 points, b/c I’m not sure everyone here would support it.
I’ll leave the discussion–which I’ve helped move away from the Tebow ad, apologies to Fr. Imbelli–by underscoring the importance of helping boys understand how teenage pregnancy and current abortion laws affect them, too. In my view, too many abstinence and pro-life programs are aimed at women and girls.
Boys have human feelings and attachments that ought to be nourished and informed, and that are too often ignored when pro-life issues arise.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Too often the non-extremists in these debates suffer from abortion fatigue and a refusal to engage…and anything that gets them engaged (as they likely will be after the commercial …and in some places already are) in a new and interesting way to help move the debate forward is a great gift in my opinion.
In my opinion, there is no real debate to ‘move forward’. For example, although everybody talks about ‘life of the mother’ exceptions, you never hear a debate about how such laws would work in practice. What happens when a decision made by the woman and her doctor becomes subject to review by the state? In reference to another thread, the devil is truly in the details.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 2:30 pm
I’d add a few (e.g., requiring the viewing of an ultrasound video
I assume you’d be ok with having the state pay for the ultrasound and administering it against the wishes of the pregnant woman. There may be no money for health care but law enforcement seems to be another matter.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 2:40 pm
or example, although everybody talks about ‘life of the mother’ exceptions, you never hear a debate about how such laws would work in practice.
We are so far from enacting real restrictions that deciding exactly how to draw those lines would be absurd. It would be like planning a championship parade after the first game of the season.
I long for the day when the debate has moved to how we can determine if a pregnancy truly threatens life of the mother.
Right now, we’re not so sure it’s a good idea to let a mother who didn’t have an abortion tell her story in a Super Bowl ad.
Boys have human feelings and attachments that ought to be nourished and informed, and that are too often ignored when pro-life issues arise.
Hey — maybe we should do a pro-life ad featuring a football star!
on February 3rd, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Mark’s right. The legality issue is completely irrelevant. Your assumption that she wouldn’t go to the US is just as baseless as an assumption that she would.
Sean,
I made no assumption. I said above that there are any number of perfectly plausible ways to fill in the gap in the story. But it remains a gap in the story. “They thought I should have an abortion to save my life from the beginning all the way through the seventh month,” she recalled. There is simply something missing when a woman recounting her experience of being told by doctors for seven months that she needed an abortion doesn’t mention she was in a country where abortion was illegal. If somebody wrote a short story or a novel about a woman in the Philippines who was advised to get an abortion, and neglected to mention abortion was illegal there, I think everyone would agree something had been left out. I think it works the same way for journalism. Maybe the person who interviewed her didn’t quote her accurately. There are all kinds of possible explanations for why there is this gap in the story. But it is a gap.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Slightly off-topic, but here’s Bishop Tobin’s last text on abortion: … be alert to the argument of the abortionists who point to extreme cases … the fact is that their occurrence is very rare. Additionally, having an abortion doesn’t help the mother at all … And remember, finally, that many women who procure abortions do so simply because they don’t want their children, don’t want the “burden,” and were too irresponsible to avoid getting pregnant.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Using your ten programs and matching them up to the near lockstep support for Barrak Obama – and indeed most progressive politicians – they would oppose 1-4 definitely, 5 probably, and the rest only to the extent that the state controlled them.
Sean,
I think I’d be willing to support Jean’s 10-point program as a grand compromise. But I think suggesting that Obama supporters wouldn’t support point 3 (no abortion after first trimester). I think a lot of people would be willing to make a grand compromise, but the pro-life movement would (and the Catholic Church) would never accept legal abortion (on demand) in the first trimester. I think there are a lot of people in the center who would support a grand compromise, but I don’t think the pro-lifers on the right or the pro-choicers on the left would even be willing to let someone try to forge a compromise, let alone accept one.
I think a ban on abortion for the purposes of sex selection would be acceptable to almost everyone in principle, but it is totally unworkable. I also think it is not a significant issue in the United States.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Antonio–
I’m o.k. as a taxpayer with the state paying for such ultrasounds. I’m sure you’ll agree that even one life saved is worth the cost. And though I would like to have mandatory viewing, I’m o.k. for the present with the optional viewing that is already the law in several states.
Even William Saletan, vocally pro-choice, understood, in a somewhat begrudging way in the 2007 Slate article linked below, that the pre-abortion viewing of an ultrasound can reduce the number of abortions.
An excerpt from Saletan’s article:
“Pro-lifers are often caricatured as stupid creationists who just want to put women back in their place. Science and free inquiry are supposed to help them get over their ‘love affair with the fetus.’ But science hasn’t cooperated. Ultrasound has exposed the life in the womb to those of us who didn’t want to see what abortion kills. The fetus is squirming, and so are we.
Around the country, ultrasound bills are all the rage. Most of them require clinics to offer each woman an ultrasound view of her fetus. Mississippi enacted a law on March 22. Idaho followed April 3. Georgia’s legislature passed a bill A week ago. South Carolina’s is about to do the same.
Critics complain that these bills seek to ‘bias,’ ‘coerce,’ and ‘guilt-trip’ women. Come on. Women aren’t too weak to face the truth. If you don’t want to look at the video, you don’t have to. But you should look at it, and so should the guy who got you pregnant, because the decision you’re about to make is as grave as it gets.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2165137/pagenum/all/#p2
on February 3rd, 2010 at 3:35 pm
“Hey-maybe we should do a pro-life add featuring a football star!”
Brilliant!
on February 3rd, 2010 at 3:55 pm
“What would you say to the counter-commercial–”I had a baby who had a short and miserable life? I knew I wasn’t going to get a football player, I knew my child had Down’s syndrome?””
If you are not being facetious, it seems odd to me that you would not be aware that most pro lifers were quite vocal in their support of the former Alaska Governor’s child with Down syndrome despite the attacks on herself and her family from the Ruling Party and the abortion industry. Are there specific prominent pro life people you are referring to who you feel were critical of the former Alaska Governor’s decision to bring her Down syndrome child to term?
on February 3rd, 2010 at 3:58 pm
We are so far from enacting real restrictions that deciding exactly how to draw those lines would be absurd. It would be like planning a championship parade after the first game of the season.
But those are the issues that need to be decided first. You don’t pass a law then decide how you’re going to enforce it or if it’s enforceable at all. The ‘law’ of unintended consequences, which conservatives never cease to remind us of when it comes to laws *they* oppose, is still operative.
In the broader sense, the legal framework for such legislation begins with the idea of rights that apply the pregnant woman as well as the fetus. Where is the forum where such issues are discussed?
In your words, the current debate is like a never ending pre-game rally without the game.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
I’m o.k. as a taxpayer with the state paying for such ultrasounds. I’m sure you’ll agree that even one life saved is worth the cost.
I assume you’d also support legislation and taxpayer funding to address the fact the that the US’s infant mortality rate is the highest in the industrial world.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 4:36 pm
I agree William, that Jean makes very good points and that the ultra-sound video is important.
While the ultrasound video is very important, ultrasound machines are expensive.
In the Knights of Columbus, we periodically have various fundraisers and our local council sends some money each quarter to the KC national office. They in turn pool the monies together and purchase and distribute ultrasound machines to clinics around the country.
Every little bit helps -
on February 3rd, 2010 at 4:53 pm
I am saying the ad is working like an ad for the lottery. . . ignore medical advice, trust in God, and it will all turn out okay on a human level.
That premise is false. My hypothetical ad was designed to point this out.
Presumably, pro-choice advocates could design and run such an ad, exposing the false premise of the pro-life ad.
Would you oppose the SuperBowl running a “FACT CHECK.org” ad that actually ran statistics–and showed the gravestones of dead mothers and babies? And if so, on what grounds?
The ad will make some of those who are pro-life feel good. It will worry pro-lifers and pro-choicers who are concerned about the reasoning of the ad. And it will, I’m afraid, confirm stereotypes by those who are pro-choice and who see themselves as reasonable and rational, and making choices in light of a responsible assessment of the facts, not in light of some form of magical, miracle-oriented thinking.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 5:00 pm
I read today that CBS had been working for quite a while with Focus on the Family to craft the ad ….. The Making of CBS’s Pro-Life Ad …
“There were discussions about the specific wording of the spot,” said Gary Schneeberger, spokesperson for Focus on the Family. “And we came to a compromise. To an agreement.” Schneeberger declined to comment on exactly how CBS changed the ad’s message.
…”We’ve worked with [CBS] almost since the beginning,” Schneeberger added. “Our senior vice presidents talked to CBS executives throughout the process. It was a very cordial, very professional, fruitful relationship.”
CBS declined to comment on the details of its work with Focus on the Family on the Tebow ad, but said such cooperation is not unusual. Abortion rights advocates see it differently …..
on February 3rd, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I am saying the ad is working like an ad for the lottery. . . ignore medical advice, trust in God, and it will all turn out okay on a human level.
Isn’t that what worshipping a God who was crucified means? I understand this might not translate to a secular audience, but isn’t this part of what it means to be a true disciple? Doesn’t Christianity demand a radical trust in God, and not always doing what some experts might consider prudent?
It would be wrong to promise that if you keep your baby, you’ll end up with a Heisman winner, and I promise that if the ad veers in that direction, I will be the first to object. But I really don’t think that’s what they’re saying, and I find the eagerness to push it in that direction puzzling.
–
Would you oppose the SuperBowl running a “FACT CHECK.org” ad that actually ran statistics–and showed the gravestones of dead mothers and babies? And if so, on what grounds?
Well, I wouldn’t start or take part in a campaign to take it off the air. If the statistics presented were incorrect or misleading, I would confront that. If they used gravestones to represent the possibility of injury, I would object.
But I’m also doubtful such an ad would be effective compared to the Tebow ad. A story told by an attractive spokesman will beat a page of statistics and gravestones.
I’ve been on the other side of this — it is very hard to confront when Michael J. Fox comes on TV and asks you to support research to save his life. You can quote all kinds of experts showing that even with liberalized research rules, a cure is many years away, but the image of the friendly celebrity asking you to give him a chance is burned in.
In the same way, I think the image of a Heisman winning quarterback saying he is thankful he was given a chance at life will be hard to shake off. Pro-choice people wanting to fight that are fighting a losing battle. And they’re starting to realize it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902505.html
Some might say that this reliance on emotional impact over hard facts is less than honest. But I think there is a truth written on our hearts that goes beyond statistics.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Thanks to Jean and Bill C. for the best posts here – they often are on this topic!
And blech to Bishop Tobin.
More and more I think our Bishops liver in an encapsulated world.
They need to listen to the likes of Jean and bill and Cathy too.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Sometimes one is called upon to take bold action to stand up for what one believe in and holds most dear.
I intend to protest CBS’s outrageous complicity with Focus on the Family in creating this commercial, and the network’s agreement to run it, by boycotting this year’s Super Bowl. I will not attend the Super Bowl itself. I will not have any party, or attend any party, to watch the Super Bowl, nor will I watch it alone. This is a total boycott.
By the way, does anyone know when it’s on and who’s playing?
on February 3rd, 2010 at 5:48 pm
“There are all kinds of possible explanations for why there is this gap in the story. But it is a gap.”
There’s a gap alright, but I think it’s in someone’s argument.
Sean–if I didn’t already like you from the start, I’d say I’m beginning to like you.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Catholic Christianity doesn’t promise everything will be all right in THIS world. She didn’t take on the cross. She got a Heisman Trophy winner. And it doesn’t say that doing the right thing-is going to make things hunky dory. .
Emotional impact–what about “Michael J. Fox”–is that the truth on our hearts too?
And fear is a stronger motivator than attraction. Look at the Mothers Against Drunk Driving ads. It’s the gravestones–smash cut against the pictures of young, vital, women and men.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 6:10 pm
OK, jumping back in here to take issue with my friend William Collier. Not sure forcing women to have medical procedures is a good move, though sonograms could be part of the consent.
Morever, I object to the suggestion that we fund expensive medical procedures to stop abortions when women who need sonography for other medical reasons but can’t afford it are out in the cold.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Catholic Christianity doesn’t promise everything will be all right in THIS world. She didn’t take on the cross. She got a Heisman Trophy winner. And it doesn’t say that doing the right thing-is going to make things hunky dory. .
I agree, and I would be very surprised (and disappointed) if that is the message of the ad. Jesus really died on that Cross.
Chiristian evenagelization acknowledges the Truth of the Cross, but also indicates that Christianity is the path to some happiness in this world. The best evangelists aren’t miserable, but people who have some joy.
Emotional impact–what about “Michael J. Fox”–is that the truth on our hearts too?
Yeah, I think the Michael J. Fox does appeal to a truth in our hearts — the desire to be compassionate to victims of disease.
The lie is re-directing that compassion to embrace embryonic research.
And fear is a stronger motivator than attraction. Look at the Mothers Against Drunk Driving ads. It’s the gravestones–smash cut against the pictures of young, vital, women and men.
Yet there still are drunk drivers…. So I’m not sure that’s always the case.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I was unaware of the Frances Kissling/Kate Michelman article in the WaPo linked above by John McG. The article gives a surprisingly frank recap of the public relations gains and losses made over the years by both the pro-choice and pro-life movements. The article is intended to help rally pro-choice troops, but the authors don’t hesitate to mention strides the pro-life movement has made.
Many good comments have been made in this thread about the Tebow ad. I think Cathy Kaveny rightly points out some of the limits and hazards of trying to score PR points, but it’s also true that trying to score PR points is a contact sport in American culture (though that doesn’t mean we as Christians should buy into the use of PR for important topics like abortion).
In his autobiography, “The Hand of God,” Dr. Bernard Nathanson (co-founder of NARAL, abortionist, and convert to Catholicism) relates how important it was for NARAL and other pro-choice organizations to seize the PR high ground in the early years of the pro-choice movement. For example, many names for the movement were rejected until “pro-choice” rose to the top as the most savvy marketing brand. He also relates how inept many on the pro-life side were at PR, and how he and other pro-choice leaders were able to define and market the issues for public consumption. This backstory makes the Kissling/Michelman article seem the more remarkable. In setting forth a rally ing cry, they admit the pro-choice movement has been asleep at the switch to some degree, and that some pro-life organizations have finally grasped the importance of creating good PR. I don’t think that a PR battle will be beneficial to either side in the long run–does PR ever really win over hearts and minds?– but perhaps such a battle is inevitable.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Cathy – I really do not see why you are so animated about this ad.
In fact your tone suggests you would prefer that CBS not air the ad.
If that is the case; what sort of 60-second pro-life advert would suit you?
Are you saying that since obviously there is no possible way anyone could develop a 60-second ad that effectively presents and/or discusses the various aspects of this matter, that we should not allow any discussion of it?
on February 3rd, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Jean
The point I was making was not that no Democrat supports your ten points. I was dashing that off, so I unclear. I think they are fine ideas. My point is that some of the people on this blog who are “queazy” about this ad or think it undermines the “logic” of the pro-life position, actively and vocally supported Barak Obama and other politicians who would not in a million years support half of the ideas. They are in lockstep with him and don’t even talk about this disconect.
In other words, if it wasn’t the logic of the ad, it would be something else.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Some of it’s animation, and some is procrastination–frankly. I just finished two big chapters and am having trouble switching gears to focus on writing the next.
I have said several times I don’t want the ad to be pulled–and I do want it discussed–I’m discussing it.
The Prosperity Gospel–everything will turn out right if you love the Lord–is a strong strand in American Protestantism. It’s not Catholic. And I don’t think that pro-life ads based on that idea that if you love the Lord enough, and disobey your godless doctors, you’re going to get yourself a Heisman Trophy winner , are going to help us love the least of our brethren.
I’d like to see a more realistic commercial–maybe by the woman that did Juno –aimed at teenagers.
If health care reform had gone through,the sonograms would be paid for, Sean.
But cheer up–in 2012, you can vote for Sarah Palin for president–as I recall, you were one of her most fervent defenders on the blog!
on February 3rd, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Good one – Ha, ha.
:-)
on February 3rd, 2010 at 8:19 pm
The point I was making was not that no Democrat supports your ten points.
Sean,
Which of Jean’s ten points would Republicans support?
on February 3rd, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Sean said: My point is that some of the people on this blog who are “queazy” about this ad or think it undermines the “logic” of the pro-life position, actively and vocally supported Barak Obama and other politicians who would not in a million years support half of the ideas. They are in lockstep with him and don’t even talk about this disconect.
Jean replies: I’m queasy about this ad because it comes from Focus on the Family, a group whose brand of Christianity I barely recognize as such and whose members include my Baptist in-laws who run down Catholicism at family dinners.
Moreover, I’m not sure the objection is that the ad “undermines” the pro-life position so much as it fails to present the full breadth of what being pro-life truly means. Is it wrong to be hinky about trying to the pro-life cause to a TV commercial played during a sporting event that does not lend itself to a particularly thoughtful frame of mind? If one is pro-life, must one agree that every pro-life message is a good one? Or that all pro-life message venues are equally good?
(Frankly, I don’t think CBS would have changed its policy about “advocacy ads” if it didn’t need the cha-ching. I think they’re only getting $2.5 million per 30-second spot instead of $3 million this year, and the traditional advertisers–trucks, for example–can’t afford the spots due to economic hardships. But that doesn’t really have any bearing on the quality or lack thereof of the Tenbow message.)
Finally, I think it is unfair to assume that everyone who voted for Obama is “in lockstep” with him. Democrats cover a fairly wide swath from center to left. The day I see more than five Democrats at a party meeting walking in lockstep and singing off the same page is a sure sign it’s time to close down the cash bar.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Should be “hinky about trying to PROMOTE the pro-life cause ON a TV commercial.” Beddie bye time.
on February 4th, 2010 at 9:36 am
David – Most Republicans would support most of Jean’s ten points.
on February 4th, 2010 at 10:23 am
Jean, being fully pro-Life, means being Pro-Life from the beginning, as in from the moment a Human Life is created at Conception. Point #3 would be “in lockstep” with President Obama’s belief that all Men are not created equal, but they are equal once they are born, but even then, he still did not support the Born Alive Act.
on February 4th, 2010 at 10:28 am
What does Christianity promise? What’s in it for us? What do *we* get out of doing the right thing?
Yes, this seems like a selfish question, and we can lament that the need to answer it is symptomatic of how selfish our culture is. But Christianity has to offer something. The message isn’t “Choose life and you’ll get a Heisman Tropy winner,” but it’s not “Choose life or go to Hell” either.
Don’t we believe that doing the right thing is the path to peace? Not worldly riches, for sure, but to a place where we are satisfied with what we have?
–
And I don’t think that pro-life ads based on that idea that if you love the Lord enough, and disobey your godless doctors, you’re going to get yourself a Heisman Trophy winner , are going to help us love the least of our brethren.
What if, say, you believe the Lord is calling you to go serve a leper colony? Any doctor would advise against it. And saying “yes” to that would be unlikely to end well in this world.
Prosperity Gospel types might say you wouldn’t receive such a call.
I think true Christianity would encourage one to say “yes” to it.
I think that’s the difference. If the ad veers toward the former, then I will be among its critics, but it sounds to me like it’s more the latter.
–
The Tebow family chose life, and seem to be in a good place as a result. I don’t think that good place is purely a result of Tim Tebow’s exploits on the football field.
I think that’s a story worth telling.
on February 4th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Nancy, I am not “fully pro-life” by your definition. I do not agree with nor have I followed nor felt sorry for not following the full complement of teachings on life promulgated by the Church. I abstain from communion because it’s clear that much more obedient Catholics than I have been asked to abstain. I wrote a story for Commonweal some years ago about my failures to “turn Catholic,” and the sad details can be read there.
I am a sinner and incomplete in my moral sensibilities. I pray to get better every day.
I have never got on here masquerading as any kind of good Catholic, though being here keeps me connected to the Church, in whcih my husband and son more or less enthusiastically participate.
Engaging with some of the folks here have also me understand and better appreciate the Church’s teachings, even to change my mind about some things. I would not count you among any of those people, but that doesn’t mean you don’t speak to other sensibilities or those who are less obstinate than me.
I do disagree with your and Sean’s use of the word “lockstep,” b/c it seems to indicate that those of us not on the pro-life bus follow pro-choicers blindly. But I’ve said enough about that and this topic overall.
on February 4th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Jean, nor am I on here masquerading as any kind of good Catholic, but that doesn’t change the fact that the full complement of teachings on Life are promulgated by the Church because they come through Christ, who defines the essence of Love, through whom all of us have been created.
on February 4th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
“I don’t really care for Jimmy Stewart, God rest his soul. He’s existentially annoying.
Whine, Whine, Whine.
Give me the end of Fargo any day. Now that’s pro-life.” Amen!
on February 4th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Jean, your comments here are so consistently honest and heartfelt and evidence of a life seriously lived that I believe they are some of the best things posted here.
Primacy of conscience is another fine Catholic teaching. Your respect for it is, in my view, actually very Catholic!
on February 4th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
The only thing I remember about the end of Fargo is the wood chipper.
on February 4th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
David – Most Republicans would support most of Jean’s ten points.
Ken,
As I said, I look at Jean’s ten points as the basis for a grand compromise. If the Republican Party is willing to accept abortion in the first trimester in order to get all the other nine points, I’d like to know about it. Certainly the Catholic Church and the pro-life movement aren’t fighting to eliminate only second- and third-trimester abortions. Points six, seven, and eight do not sound like Republican programs to me, certainly not if implemented at the federal level.
on February 4th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
David N
1-5 for sure. Also, you could get support for most or all of the rest so long as it didn’t involve establishing things like “The Undersecreatary for Pregnanacy” or the US Agency for Foster Grandparents. Like I have said many times, not all ideas to help the poor must be implemented through a state bureacracy.
And Jean’s proposal, as I understood it was not to “accept” abortion in the first trimester, it was to outlaw it in the 2nd and third. Big difference in my opinion.
I also think one of her ideas – even though impossible to implement – points out the moral bankruptcy of abortion on demand.
Sex selection abortions – why are they any different than say, selective abortions for cleft pallates, Down’s Syndrome, or clubbed feet which happen in the thousands? There was a notorious case in NH involving parents who were trying to force their daughter to have an abortion because the father was black. Absent the coercien element, should that be a prohibited reason?
In other words, we should have a system that would let a woman abort her daughter because she doesn’t want to deal with the inconvenience of pregancy, but not because she is a girl.
How twisted is that?
on February 4th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Jean
I grew up not 10 miles from the Focus on The Family campus, and I share some of your concerns about them, but that doesn’t make them wrong about this. Also, for all the objections I might have, they do some good things for people.
Just do what I do when someone runs down the Church. Tell them we’ll find out in Heaven – where everyone will be Catholic.
As for the context of the ad, I guess I think we Catholics probably spend too much time trying to address every nuance of many issues. For every abortion there is both a man and a woman. People forget this and underestimate the influence men have. Indeed, the group in the US that is most supportive of abortion on demand isn’t women of any age – it’s young men. So if this works, I say replace the beer commercial.
As for the lockstep comment, I guess it is a question of emphasis. It just seems to me that many progressive Catholic supporters are willing to accept almost any position on abortion so long they get what they want on other issues. I
on February 4th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Like I have said many times, not all ideas to help the poor must be implemented through a state bureacracy.
Sean,
As I have said a number of times, although Jean may not have meant it as such, I look at her ten points as a basis for a grand compromise. If there is a grand compromise, you couldn’t expect some of the elements of the compromise to be dependent on charities or state and local governments volunteering. There would have to be guarantees.
In other words, we should have a system that would let a woman abort her daughter because she doesn’t want to deal with the inconvenience of pregancy, but not because she is a girl.
Well, it’s a moot point, because we are agreed that banning abortions for sex selection would be completely unenforceable. But part of the pro-choice viewpoint is trusting that women and their doctors will make the right decisions and not have abortions for trivial reasons. Consequently, those who are pro-choice don’t believe women who have abortions are doing it because a pregnancy would be merely inconvenient (although maybe some of them are).
It is interesting to me that “pro-lifers” have such contempt for women (or some women) that they think those women are murdering their unborn children for frivolous and trivial reasons, and the “pro-life” solution is to force those same women to bear and raise the children they wanted to “murder.”
on February 4th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
As for the lockstep comment, I guess it is a question of emphasis. It just seems to me that many progressive Catholic supporters are willing to accept almost any position on abortion so long they get what they want on other issues.
As opposed to the conservative Catholics who insisted one had to vote for John McCain based on the issue of abortion alone, no matter what your political position was on every other issue.
on February 4th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
I kind of wish we would all stop arguing about which political party is worse and start working to make our own parties (if we have them) and our own worlds better.
We’re still almost three years from the next presidential election. It seems to me that’s time enough to get our own houses in order instead of talking about how dirty the other house is.
It is interesting to me that “pro-lifers” have such contempt for women (or some women) that they think those women are murdering their unborn children for frivolous and trivial reasons, and the “pro-life” solution is to force those same women to bear and raise the children they wanted to “murder.”
It is more like we recognize that we are all subject to original sin, and many of us will take an easy way out if it is offered to us. You can call that contempt for women if you like. I think it’s an understanding of human nature.
Not everyone who chooses life will end up with Tim Tebow, and not every abortion is The Cider House Rules, either.
Also, I didn’t realize that banning adoption was part of the pro-life agenda.
on February 4th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Per David “It is interesting to me that “pro-lifers” have such contempt for women (or some women) that they think those women are murdering their unborn children for frivolous and trivial reasons, and the “pro-life” solution is to force those same women to bear and raise the children they wanted to “murder.”
K – Well David, you have unburdened yourself of some astonishing sentiments here, and you deserve a thoughtful reply.
1 – We pro-lifers do not have contempt for women; far from it. In the first place I am not sure if “contempt” is the correct word, but since you chose it, if anything, we pro-lifers have contempt for murder and nothing else.
2 – Most women who have an abortion do not perform the abortion on themselves. We think women who have abortions are allowing the abortionist to murder the baby, period. The reasoning (whether trivial or not) behind the decision to abort the child is not important. The ends never justify the means and you know killing babies is never the right thing to do.
3 – Our solution (to use your term) is Not to force the woman to raise a child, but rather our goal is to convince her not to allow the abortionist to kill the child. We routinely promote adoption; in not a few cases adoption is the most reasonable course, both for the child and for the sake of the natural mother.
It is important to note the role of the abortionist in all this, and you seem to leave him-her out of your analysis. The abortionist profits from the slaughter but at the same time, because they are trained in things medical, abortionists know full well they are killing a child. Their interests however lie elsewhere and so blind them to the horror of their actions. In addition to the money made via the procedure, abortionists are of course driven by class and racial and-or political ideology.
In a real sense, women who find themselves pregnant in a difficult situation are victimized as well. They are victims of the hundred of lies they have heard regarding babies and abortions, and some are victims of the cold hearted cynical people by whom they are sometimes surrounded.
Her boyfriend tells her the whole thing is her fault, and that she needs to “clean up the mess”. Feminists tell her she is foolish for having “gotten herself into such a situation”, that an abortion will solve “her problem” and that she ought to be grateful to them that she has that option. Her family does not appreciate the scandal and might also council her to “get rid of” the baby quietly.
And so she submits to the abortion, and maybe feels bad afterwards, maybe immediately or later down the road. In either case again, she is told by feminists that everything is fine and that she ought to be grateful to them and to just buck up and get on with her life. Her boyfriend might say something stupid like that he paid for the abortion and so “what is her problem?” Her family clams up altogether and simply does not discuss the matter. And she feels empty and hurt; each year on the anniversary of her abortion, she feels something is wrong. She is correct of course and in addition to her baby suffering, she also suffers from the lies, the violence of it all. Leaving the possibility of an increased risk of breast cancer to one side for the moment (it has yet to be settled), check the statistics of emotional, psychological, and substance abuse problems of post-abortive women; they are not good. Surely we can agree that women deserve better that that.
All of this very quickly gets very complicated and the answers to questions and the sorts of sentiments you volunteered do not fit neatly on a bumper sticker, which of course is why this 60-second advert during a national football game cannot and will not satisfy everyone, especially not Catholics. That does not however mean that it is a bad thing; in fact it is only a very general pro-life message and really giving the constraints of the medium (TV advertising) and the format (Superbol Football Game); it cannot be more.
on February 4th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Also important David, is mercy. We all need to remind both post-abortive women and abortion practitioners of God’s infinite mercy.
God alone undertands all this i.e.; matters of life and death and all the trials and rivails, the hysteria and the joy and love of us humans roaming around on this planets completely. He commands us to love one another and forgive as he does.
And so while I already have a soft head sometimes (that’s for sure ;-) in dealing with abortion and the fallout from it; a soft heart helps a lot.
on February 4th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Ken,
Prepare for the response that your infantilizing of women and making them hapless victims is no better (and in fact worse) than contempt.
Heads they win; tails you lose…
on February 4th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Also, I didn’t realize that banning adoption was part of the pro-life agenda.
Only for same-sex couples.
on February 4th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
We pro-lifers do not have contempt for women; far from it. In the first place I am not sure if “contempt” is the correct word, but since you chose it, if anything, we pro-lifers have contempt for murder and nothing else.
Ken,
I was responding to Sean, who had said, “In other words, we should have a system that would let a woman abort her daughter because she doesn’t want to deal with the inconvenience of pregancy, but not because she is a girl.” He is trying to make an unwanted pregnancy sound equivalent to having to dash out to the store at the last minute because you don’t have one of the ingredients for the recipe you started. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think most women have abortions because they will find a pregnancy “inconvenient.” Pregnancy is certainly a joy for most women, but I don’t think even women who earnestly want children would say pregnancy is a mere “inconvenience.” Medical expenses for a pregnancy and delivery in which nothing at all goes wrong average $12,500. If a woman works, she’s probably going to take 6 weeks maternity leave, not guaranteed in the United States to be paid.
Not to go on and on, my point was that at least some pro-lifers seem to think women have abortions nonchalantly and for trivial reasons. I am saying that most people who are pro-choice believe that women who have abortions do it for very serious reasons. Actually, from the concern you express for women with problem pregnancies in your message, I wouldn’t be surprised if you agreed with me.
An unwanted pregnancy is not an “inconvenience.” It is much more serious than that. It is not even a major inconvenience. It is an extremely serious situation.
on February 4th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Prepare for the response that your infantilizing of women and making them hapless victims is no better (and in fact worse) than contempt.
John McG,
Sorry to disappoint.
on February 4th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
I doubt that pro-lifers would agree with Jean’s 10 points, for strategic reasons:
- since most abortions take place the first trimester, this would not reduce the number of abortions by all that much
- once abortions are only legal in the first trimester and minors need parental consent, the pro-life movement will lose its force. It is effective primarily by showing people photos of later abortions and making them connect to the personhood of the fetus being aborted. Embryos don’t seem as human.
In France abortion used to be legal until 10 weeks (with exceptions for medical reasons supported by a team of at least two physicians). In 2001 the law was changed to extend the legal period to 12 weeks, and to allow minors having an abortion without parental consent. As a consequence of those extensions, the pro-life movement, that used to be almost non-existent, is now nascent.
I think that pro-lifers in the US realize that the strength of their position comes from the laxity of US laws, and will want an “all or nothing” change so that they don’t win a battle but lose the war.
on February 5th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Actually, what Pro-Lifers realize is that Roe V.Wade is a direct assault on the self-evident truth, that all Men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with the fundamental Right to continue to grow and develop once their Life comes into being.
on February 5th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Claire, I think you are exactly right.
In addition, I’ve noticed that conservatives agree with some of the points so long as social welfare programs are entirely voluntary, not taxpayer funded. Moreover, as Nancy has pointed out, my 10 points are not in accordance with the pro-life teachings of the Church.
It was nice to see some people here agreeing on some things, but I did not offer my thoughts with the expectation that it would get everybody on board the Love Train on this issue.
on February 5th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Jean,
I thought your points helpful. They moved the conversation forward. Thanks.
on February 5th, 2010 at 9:42 am
In addition, I’ve noticed that conservatives agree with some of the points so long as social welfare programs are entirely voluntary, not taxpayer funded.
Jean,
When I quoted my favorite paragraph from the Declaration on Procured Abortion (see the end of this message) on Vox-Nova, one of the conservatives responded as follows:
Apparently the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a hotbed of conservative Republicans who are opposed to federal programs to help the disadvantaged.
The paragraph I quoted is as follows:
It is a well known conservative belief that “it is the task of law to pursue a reform of society and of conditions of life in all milieux.”
on February 5th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Without getting too much into the tall grass, it is worth mentioning the principle of subsidiarity.
Many people think it is best to tend societal problems on the local level rather than the federal level. Moreover, many people honestly think it is best to tend certain societal problems via religious and/or private (secular) charities rather than gearing up the local or state government for the work.
Now of course, decent people can have honest disagreements about how to best help people in need, in this case we are talking about helping women who are pregnant and in difficult circumstances.
The main thing for everyone to understand however, especially those of us involved in the pro-life movement, is that somehow, someway, we as a society need to provide the assistance that women in difficult circumstances need. This assistance will obviously include spiritual and emotional help, but must also include financial and material assistance. It is not extraordinary; it is only part of our Christian duty.
on February 5th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if municipalities or communities of faith banded together to provide local programs that could go directly to the needy without a lot of overhead or expense of hiring bureacrats?
However, poor communities, like the village in which I live, would be hard-pressed to provide much assistance to anyone. Moreover, if you’ve ever lived in a dinky little town like mine (population 1,700), you’ll discover that people can be fairly hard-hearted. Three or four years ago, a local teenage boy was in the last stages of cancer. His family was carrying enormous debt and could not get the kid into an experimental program without upfront money. An account was set up for him at the local bank.
Several people told me I’d wasted my donation, as they they’d known the kid’s father since he was a teen and he would probably just drink it all away. None of the local churches did anything to help the family (which was unchurched).
I can only conclude that conservatives who think that local, volunteer programs will work better than big government bureaucracies that make fewer moral judgments and spread the wealth around, are much more optimistic about human generosity than I am.
on February 5th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Without getting too much into the tall grass, it is worth mentioning the principle of subsidiarity.
Ken,
Then shouldn’t the issue of abortion be handled on at the lowest possible level? Perhaps each city should have its own laws on abortion.
on February 5th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
David: why stop at the city level? Perhaps each couple should have its own laws on abortion.
on February 5th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Actually, prior to Roe v Wade, abortion laws were state by state.
on February 5th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Claire, you wrote: “I doubt that pro-lifers would agree with Jean’s 10 points, for strategic reasons:
- since most abortions take place the first trimester, this would not reduce the number of abortions by all that much
- once abortions are only legal in the first trimester and minors need parental consent, the pro-life movement will lose its force. It is effective primarily by showing people photos of later abortions and making them connect to the personhood of the fetus being aborted. Embryos don’t seem as human. … I think that pro-lifers in the US realize that the strength of their position comes from the laxity of US laws, and will want an “all or nothing” change so that they don’t win a battle but lose the war.”
It is actually the reverse of what you might think. Pro-life advocates worked for many years to ban partial-birth abortions, a procedure that was used a few thousand times a year in the US (where over 1 million babies are aborted annually). Because there are several ways of terminating a late-term pregnancy, making this procedure illegal may not save a single baby’s life. It’s difficult to conceive of a restriction that would have less of an impact on the number of infants killed.
And yet pro-choice advocates fought this restriction tooth and nail. Millions of dollars were spent to attempt to defeat the legislation, and then to attempt to render it unconstituional via the courts. All of the pro-choice forces – fund-raising, protests, politicians, lawyers, the media and public relations – were mobilized to defeat the ban on partial-birth abortion.
Pro-life advocates were willing to settle for much less than half a loaf here – if the number of abortions is the loaf, then the partial birth abortion ban is no larger than a crumb. It was the pro-choice approach that was “all or nothing”.
The fact is, though, that unless the regime of Roe v Wade is changed in the US, no such grand compromise as proposed by Jean is possible. Even if we all agreed on Jean’s points, our hands are tied by the court decision.
on February 5th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Good point Jim, at least at first sight
on February 5th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Pro-life advocates were willing to settle for much less than half a loaf here – if the number of abortions is the loaf, then the partial birth abortion ban is no larger than a crumb. It was the pro-choice approach that was “all or nothing”.
Jim,
I think it’s all or nothing for both sides, but for the moment, the pro-choice has the upper hand. I think what most pro-choice (or strongly pro-choice) people believe is that everything pro-life forces do is in pursuit of the eventual goal of banning all abortions. (I believe this myself.) The pro-life approach is incremental at the moment, because of Roe v Wade, so they try to chip away wherever they can. Neither the strongly pro-life advocates or the strongly pro-choice advocates are willing to compromise. Probably there is a majority in the middle who would support more restrictions on abortion. But as long as its NRLC versus NARAL, there will be no compromise, and it’s difficult to imagine people in the middle will speak up enough to be a political force. It is difficult to imagine that there will be a powerful lobbying group called something like The Reasonable-Restrictions-on-Abortion Committee.
And in any case, I can’t imagine pro-lifers in the United States, and especially Catholic ones, compromising. When you have defined abortion as murder, what’s to compromise on?
on February 6th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
David, nobody has “defined abortion as murder”.
Abortion IS murder plain and simple.
Are you saying that you think the world is so complex that you no longer can say for sure whether kiling a baby is murder or not? Are you willing to go out on a limb and at least admit that killing a baby is a bad thing to do?
Please calm down and try to collect your thoughts; not everything is relative.
on February 6th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Ken: Many things happen to go from fertilized egg to embryo to fetus to newborn baby. I don’t want to rehash this topic that has been beaten to death already, but if one thing is plain, it is that one cannot say that it’s “plain and simple”.
on February 6th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
In a world where abortion is legal at any time for any reason, I think any pro-lifer, given the opportunity to restrict abortion to the first trimester, would accept that compromise. Am I missing something?
on February 7th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Mark,
I suggest you ask Ken, or perhaps Nancy Danielson, or the USCCB, if they would accept a compromise that allowed abortion in the first trimester and prohibited it any time later.
Here are statistics for when abortions are performed:
Weeks Percent
21 1.4
Everything up to 12 weeks is within the first trimester. Are you telling me most pro-lifers would compromise to cut abortions by 12 percent?
Am I missing something?
on February 7th, 2010 at 11:30 am
My data, in tabular form, didn’t make it through. Here it is again in a different format
8th week or earlier – 52.8%
weeks 9-10 – 22.5%
weeks 11-12 – 10.6%
weeks 13-15 – 6.1%
weeks 16-20 – 4.2%
21st week or later – 1.4%
on February 7th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Abortion IS murder plain and simple.
Ken,
It is murder according to the Catholic Church. I can’t think of any other major religion that considers abortion murder and rules it out in all cases. Even Jews don’t consider abortion to be murder. In our legal tradition, abortion has never been murder, even when it was a crime. So there’s nothing “plain and simple” about it.
on February 7th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
“Everything up to 12 weeks is within the first trimester. Are you telling me most pro-lifers would compromise to cut abortions by 12 percent?”
David–I’m beginning to wonder if we’re on different planets. From the present situation, what pro-lifer would not opt for legislation that reduces the number of abortions by 120,000 annually?
As a wise man once said, this is a no-brainer.
on February 7th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
From the present situation, what pro-lifer would not opt for legislation that reduces the number of abortions by 120,000 annually?
Mark,
I think we may not be understanding each other. I am talking about Jean’s ten points as the basis of a “grand compromise” (which I don’t think was her intention). So banning abortions after the first trimester would mean permitting them within the first trimester with no future attempts to restrict abortions further. This would make abortion law in the United States roughly equivalent to that in Germany or France. I am sure all pro-lifers would welcome a ban on abortions after the first trimester. The question is whether that would satisfy them (and put an end to the anti-abortion movement) or would be looked at as an important step in their continuing effort to ban all abortions.
on February 7th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
“with no future attempts to restrict abortions further”
David–
I think you’re being silly now. That was not a condition of Jean’s points. More importantly, you can’t pass legislation that says, in effect, “we can never revisit this in the future–everybody go home now and don’t come back”.
I believe Jean’s intent is that we could almost all agree the world would be a better place if these 10 points were made a reality. I agree with her, and I’m sure pro-lifers would too.
on February 7th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
That was not a condition of Jean’s points.
Mark,
Note that I said: “I am talking about Jean’s ten points as the basis of a ‘grand compromise’ (which I don’t think was her intention).”
You had said: “I think any pro-lifer, given the opportunity to restrict abortion to the first trimester, would accept that compromise.” (Italics added by me.) What compromise were you talking about?
A grand compromise, by its very nature, would seek to settle the basic conflict over abortion once and for all. Granted, it’s unlikely any such thing will happen in the foreseeable future, but by its very nature, a grand compromise would result in all sides accepting the results. Obviously those on the pro-choice side would not “compromise” with pro-lifers if the pro-lifers looked on the deal as a stepping stone toward prohibiting all abortions.
I think you’re being silly now.
I don’t think the use of personal insults advances the pro-life cause.
on February 7th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
David–
OK, now I get your point. It never occurred to me that by “grand” you meant one and done. I guess that’s interesting as a thought experiment, but I think Jean’s 10 commandments are much more interesting as a practical, incremental change that the majority of Americans can believe in.
Sorry about the silly remark, if I had thought you would have taken it as a personal insult, I would have (hopefully) refrained.
At this point, I think we have probably played out the string on this interesting thread. See you soon on a future one. For now, let the Super Bowl partying begin. Can’t wait to actually see the commercial that’s caused so much fuss.
on February 8th, 2010 at 1:43 am
The accounts of Pam Tebow’s pregnancy as given in the interview I linked to earlier and as given in the recorded interview on the Focus on the Family website tell two rather different stories. In the article, she says, ““They thought I should have an abortion to save my life from the beginning all the way through the seventh month.” In the recorded interview she says the first doctor she saw told her that the baby wasn’t a baby at all, but a tumor that should be “aborted.” She declined and had no further medical treatment until going to Manila in the seventh month of her pregnancy. That’s only one of the discrepancies.
The Super Bowl ad itself was innocuous.
on February 8th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Well I see the nation survived seeing the Superbowl advert.
I thought it was Ok.
on February 8th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Yes, the ad has aired, making this a good time, I think, to break off negotiations here. There’s a new post here if you have thoughts on the commercial you’d like to share.