Why The Anger At Tebow For Choosing ?
Jan 27th, 2010 | 108 responses
In case you’ve missed it there is a brewing controversy over a coming Super Bowl ad featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother. The ad is paid for by a conservative religious group (Focus on The Family) and recounts the fact that when Mrs. Tebow was pregnant with Tim that she got sick with dystenery and was advised to abort the fetus.
For personal religious reasons she did not abort and had Tim, who turned out pretty well it seems.
From what I understand the ad does not advocate banning abortion, it simply encourages those considering abortion to choose life when they make that decision.
Now if the entire point of legal abortion is the right to choose then why are they so upset at someone encouraging that people make a choice ?
(I do see the logic of some who say that such ads really don’t fit in the Super Bowl, but I have never understood why some on the pro choice side get so upset that people might chooose not to have an abortion, or might encourage such a choice)
108 Responses to “Why The Anger At Tebow For Choosing ?”
“That child thirty seconds away from emerging… is it a human? How about five minutes? Seven days. Two trimesters?”
How far back do you go and still say it's a loss? Or no longer a loss? That's the essence of it.
Hmm…I am always concerned when pro-choice people take the position that somehow a zygote or embryo or fetus is not a person, or is not a human. I don't know whether or not any of these entities constitutes a person. Maybe so, maybe not. A wanted embryo, for whom a nursery is being fixed up and a name picked out, is certainly more than a thing, or a growth.
However, I am vehemently pro-choice. How might one reconcile such a thing? Well, let's say for the purpose of argument that an embryo or a fetus is a person — again, I don't really think it is, but let's explore the consequences if it is. Given that pregnancy is one of the more dangerous and expensive medical conditions facing women, given that this little “person” is physically living inside another person, and given that in many cases the interests of one “person” are in direct conflict with the interests of the other — given these things, where do the rights of one person end and the rights of another begin?
If we think not in terms of a fetus/mother, but instead of two definite (already born) people, this answer is very clear. A healthy person is not obligated to donate hir bodily functions (say, a kidney) to save the life of a sick person who will die without this donation. One person's right to swing hir fist ends at the point where it comes in contact (or threatens to come in contact) with another person. Our rights to do as we wish are always mitigated by others' rights to live without harm from our actions, even if these actions are not committed with malice or intent to harm .
Looking at the case of Tebow in particular, the mother's ability to live without harm while remaining the vessel for her son was most certainly greatly compromised. She chose to remain pregnant despite the great danger to her own life. This is totally and completely within her rights under any pro-choice person's view. However, if she had decided on a different path, wouldn't that be simple self-preservation? How could we blame her for this decision? How could we presume to make such a decision for her? (However much we like the Saints….)
My point: people are afforded personal physical autonomy under the law in every single scenario I can think of. Taking away the rights to abortion is the only case in which it is proposed that this right to be physically in control of one's own body is being challenged. And it is being challenged in order to preserve the rights of others who may or may not even be people.
What you argue is pure speculation. Even the Catholic church has changed its view about when the soul enters the body. That is for you to ruminate upon, along with the timeless question about the capacity of pinheads for dancing angels.
The constitution, however is CRYSTAL CLEAR. It is NOT “dubious”. It is precise. “Born” here or “naturalized”. That is the constitutional definition of a citizen.
And, I am not arguing “today's law” but the timeless words of our own constitution, and not an amendment to it either. Furthermore, it's easy for you to ignore the extreme challenges of elevating the rights of a POTENTIAL citizen above those of an ACTUAL one. But it is a critical issue that would have very far-reaching consequences.
Let me take the wee baby out of the picture, as that makes religios crazy. Right now, there is no requirement that a mother (or father) give a kidney, or even blood, to save her or his child. Why not? Why can't a parent be forced to subjugate her or his medical decision to her or his child, or to any other citizen for that matter?
Well?
“Well?”
Well… I don't understand what the hell you are arguing. I have not argued that a fetus is a citizen or not. The fetus is, at some point between conception and birth, a human being. The constitution does not say one damn thing about the right to aborting this human being any more than it grants citizens the right to murder non-citizens.
Roe v Wade is “today's law” and the ruling is not at all based on “citizenship”. It states that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the “point at which the fetus becomes 'viable'” and defines viability as the potential “to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid”. The ruling states that viability “is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” Last I checked, the Constitution does not establish that a viable fetus is a citizen any more than it provides a citizen the right to assault or murder a non-citizen.
You state that “And, I am not arguing “today's law” but the timeless words of our own constitution, and not an amendment to it either. “
Actually the definition you reference is in The 14th Amendment… maybe you should read it.
Having read some interesting interpretations of my posts, I will be the first to agree that Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states that only a natural born Citizen is eligible to the Office of President. So please allow me to be most clear that I am NOT arguing that a fetus, viable or otherwise, is eligible to be President…
[...] Why The Anger At Tebow For Choosing ? (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
[...] Why The Anger At Tebow For Choosing ? (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
So NOW isn't protesting half naked women who are sex objects in beer ads, but they are protesting a football player who has faith, lives it and dares talk about it?
Really?
Read a good post about this here:
http://redletterbelievers.blogspot.com/2010/01/…