The power of women and life

posted at 4:52 pm on January 29, 2010 by Doctor Zero

The National Organization for Women has protested the decision of CBS to allow a pro-life ad from Focus on the Family to air during the Super Bowl game. The ad features Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. Pam returned the kickoff of a life-threatening pregnancy to put Tim in the red zone for claiming that Heisman trophy. NOW has called on CBS to dump the ad, prompting Sarah Palin – currently the starting quarterback of the pro-life team, and a player with serious skin in the game – to respond with a characteristically bold forward pass from her Facebook pocket:

What a ridiculous situation they’re getting themselves into now with their protest of CBS airing a pro-life ad during the upcoming Super Bowl game. The ad will feature Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mom, and they’ll speak to the sanctity of life and the beautiful potential within every innocent child as Mrs. Tebow acknowledges her choice to give Tim life, despite less than ideal circumstances. Messages like this empower women! This speaks to the strength and commitment and nurturing spirit within women. The message says everything positive and nothing negative about the power of women – and life. Evidently, some women’s rights groups like NOW do not like that message.

NOW president Terry O’Neill says Palin is missing the point:

The goal of the Focus on the Family ad is not to empower women. It’s to create a climate in which Roe v. Wade can be overturned. There are always going to be women who need abortions. In this country, one in three women will have an abortion.

So, the point is that people who think Roe vs. Wade should be overturned lose their right to free speech? Does this principle apply to all Supreme Court decisions? If so, I guess we’d better get started on the Obama impeachment hearings, after the embarrassing disrespect he showed the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address.

It’s nostalgic to read a press release from NOW again. The organization was last seen sinking into the bubbling tar of the Clinton impeachment saga, babbling incomprehensibly about how sexual harassment really isn’t such a big deal when pro-abortion Democrat presidents do it. Like every appendage of the socialist state, NOW has no principle beyond fealty to the political party that grants it power, and the Democrats used to grant them a remarkable amount of power – enough to end the careers of Navy officers and combat pilots, after “investigations” that stopped just short of waterboarding. When NOW talks about “empowering” women, it speaks in the collective sense. Empowerment comes from obedience to feminist organizations, which use that power to drag an oversized chair up to the grim carving table where the Democrat Party wields its redistibutionist cleavers.

Some critics cite unquestioning support for unrestricted abortion rights as the primary demonstration of loyalty power feminists seek from their supporters, but the NOW offensive against the Tebow ad, and their response to Sarah Palin, suggest the true sacrament of radical feminism is not abortion… it’s opposition to the pro-life movement. Power in a collectivist system comes from tribal loyalty, and hatred is a powerful glue for holding collectives together. As with leftist racial groups, NOW has very little positive to offer its supporters these days, so it thrives by pointing fingers at its enemies. Religious people in general, and outspoken pro-life advocates in particular, look very good on the business end of a trembling finger.

The Tebow ad will not call for the overturn of Roe vs. Wade. It’s meant to be a heartfelt endorsement of life, from a mother who chose it against the recommendation of doctors, in the face of her own suffering and possible death. As Palin says:

NOW is looking at the pro-life issue backwards. Women should be reminded that they are strong enough and smart enough to make decisions that allow for career and educational opportunities while still giving their babies a chance at life. In my own home, my daughter Bristol has also been challenged by pro-abortion “women’s rights” groups who don’t agree with her decision to have her baby, nor do they like the abstinence message which she articulated as her personal commitment.

My own opposition to abortion-on-demand is not religious in nature. I believe there aren’t enough people in the world. The decision to deny a human being his, or her, opportunity to enter the living world and make the choices that compose a lifetime should never be made lightly. For people of religious faith, the exercise of free will was a parting gift to creation from its Author. For the atheist, the expanding nova of human choice brings light and meaning into a universe of cold dust and searing plasma. Either way, life is precious, and it follows that those who follow Pam Tebow’s path are worthy of respect. How can we render that respect, if we insist her choice was absolutely equivalent to terminating little Tim, right up to the moment when his head emerged from the birth canal?

We’re nowhere near the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, a naked exercise of raw judicial power… which is apparently so fragile that a son thanking his mother for the gift of life could tear it to shreds. I wonder how many of the other iron laws supporting statism are actually written on tissue paper. If Roe were repealed, the question of abortion restrictions would return to the states, and people contemplating the examples of Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and Pam Tebow would gain the dangerous freedom to express their beliefs through smaller, more responsive governments. I can understand why NOW and its fellow travelers would be terrified of that possibility. It has nothing to do with “keeping abortion legal,” for there is no chance Americans would ever vote to outlaw it completely, in every state. It has everything to do with siphoning power from the useful fantasy of a world that will never exist, and the ugly caricatures who tower above it with scourges and holy books.

A society reveals much of its character in the way it treats its women and children. Palin finds common cause with NOW in calling out “advertisers and networks for airing sexist and demeaning portrayals of women that lead to young women’s diminished self-esteem and acceptance of roles as mere sexed-up objects.” Abortion on demand has been very useful for preserving the self-esteem of men who desire casual sex without consequence. Perhaps those men would be less likely to view the women in their lives as problems, if they didn’t know there was an easy solution right around the corner.

The Tebows are not planning to use their Super Bowl minutes for a sermon, or to impose their views on anyone. They only want their chance to testify that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not an equation that balances out to zero. The idea that such a statement is unacceptably political is further evidence that our lives have become too politicized, because too many decisions have been bumped to an upstairs office that doesn’t even have a suggestion box.

NOW is mistaking a compelling narrative for compulsion. No organization that demands suppression of the other side’s free speech is “pro-choice” in any sense of the words. Feminists are certainly free to produce their own Super Bowl ad, trumpeting the virtues of partial-birth abortion, or any other practice they don’t think Pam and Tim Tebow support with suitable enthusiasm. Something tells me most people would choose to change the channel during that ad.

Cross-posted at www.doczero.org.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6

These people here what profess to be so concerned about how their abortion friends bawl and bawl better be ready to break out the tissues come Sunday I think.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Tain’t none of your business.

And that is truly where we’re at today, legally. As it should be.

AnninCA on January 30, 2010 at 8:22 PM

Read something recently which said, “If it isn’t any of my business, then it should not require any of my tax payments”

txmomof6 on January 31, 2010 at 2:30 PM

I seriously doubt Anna thinks abortions should be subsidized by tax monies.

That’s just my sense of her.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 2:36 PM

sorry I keep saying Anna when I mean Ann

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Tain’t none of your business.

It’s as much my business as it would be if you were advocating killing your 3 year old or your mother or any other human. Unless you want to argue that no one has any right to object to the killing of any other, you can not contend that abortion is none of my business.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 2:44 PM

First of all, I couldn’t care less if it hurts someone’s feelings to hear that another person is glad that she didn’t kill her child. Tough. You don’t want hurt feelings, don’t kill your child.

Also, my objection to abortion has nothing at all to do with religion, and everything to do with the fact that a human being is killed. As for your contention that young people will turn away from this message and run to Obama, that’s simply not the case. Young people are the most pro-life group. They are quite receptive to messages that afirm life.

There is nothing smarmy about saying that you are glad you didn’t kill your kid. The only people who have a problem with such statement are those who believe that people *should* kill their children. It’s not about choice, it’s about eugenics, as it always has been.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 2:49 PM

It’s not reassuring that you have so confident a gauge of youth receptivity to your theocratic propaganda.

But, no. Young people are very tolerant of people and their choices. You’re not going to have a newly minted crop of happy Focus on the Family campers after mommy runs crying from the room.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 2:54 PM

First of all, I couldn’t care less if it hurts someone’s feelings to hear that another person is glad that she didn’t kill her child.

I know this is true.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Again, it is not theocratic propaganada. And again, youth are the most pro-life group. It’s not my imagination.

A 2003 Gallup poll agreed, finding that 72% of 13-19 year-olds thought abortion was morally wrong.

In 2004, a poll conducted for Rock the Vote found that 54% of new voters were pro-life. Among first-time minority voters, the numbers were even higher61% of Latino and 59% of African American respondents.

Also in 2004, Zogby found that 60% of 18-29 year-olds support complete restrictions on or minimal exceptions (life, rape, incest) for abortion.

A year later, Hamilton College/Zogby polled high school seniors and found that “the majority also regards abortion as morally wrong and would not concede a woman’s legal right to abortion except in extreme circumstances, such as rape or significant threat to the health of the mother.”

Imagine their surprise when they asked females whether they would “consider” abortion if they became pregnant in high school. Seventy percent said no! Men were asked if their partner became pregnant, would they want the woman to abort. Sixty-seven percent said no! Only 13% said they would suggest abortion as an option for others, preferring that the girl keep the baby (26%) or choose adoption (54%).

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Sorry, happyfeet but I’m not going to shed crocodile tears that someone happens to feel bad because she’s confronted with a real life testimony for life.

I give more time and money than any pro-choicer I know to help women choose life over abortion. If despite ample resources and support a woman decides to kill her child, there’s not a hell of a lot I can do about it. Reaching out to others before they make that choice is a higher priority than not offending those who have.

I’ve been in the position where doctors have told me to abort my child. There was no one there to offer any alternatives. This ad will support other women in that situation. Frankly, that means a lot more than potentially offending someone who is looking to be offended.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 3:03 PM

If youth are so anti-abortion why do we need brainwashy commercials? I think the troof is they’re anti-abortion right up until reality.

But the data doesn’t confirm that kids want to publicly brutalize and hurt the feelings of women who’ve had abortions.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 3:03 PM

as Mrs. Tebow acknowledges her choice to give Tim life

This drives me nuts. “Choice to give Tim life”. Great, so now the so called poster girl of the pro-life movement is acknowledging that life is a choice. Brilliant. This is what Antonio Gramsci called achieving cultural hegemony.

the true sacrament of radical feminism is not abortion… it’s opposition to the pro-life movement.

Wrong. It’s not the pro-life movement in and of itself. They hate the Christian patriarchal system in families. Feminism and Marxism are inextricably linked, and Palin is a useful idiot (as a member of Feminists for Life), but I digress.
In order for socialism to work (i.e. state control, a wanting by the population for the state to care for them), the Judeo-Christian-model of the family must go. If families look to the father/husband as their protector, provider, and priest (as per Ephesians 5, among other texts), as opposed to the state, then socialism will never work. A Judeo-Christian culture is too hostile to such an idea of relying on the state vs. the family patriarch. So, under the guise of equality, feminism has sought to destroy the home by driving a wedge between the wife/mother and family. Men, according to the Bible, are to lead the home, to love their wives as Christ loves the Church, and be the priest, protector and provider of the home. Women, according to the Bible, are to be their husband’s helpmate, the keeper of the home, the mother of her children. Feminism seeks to get women out of the home in order to double the workforce of the nation. Feminism seeks to subvert the Biblical model for home and church leadership by encouraging mothers to abdicate their role as mothers to the state (i.e. daycare, state-run education). No longer are men the voices of their families at the city gates. The reason women couldn’t vote before was not because of a lack of value on their part: far from it. Men should value their wives’ input. It was meant that the family was the smallest political “unit”, not the individual. A family would speak in one voice, with the father/husband at the city gates saying, “I represent the ___ family, and we stand for ___.”
I’m sure you’ve heard the W.R. Wallace’s saying, “A mightier power and stronger Man from his throne has hurled, For the hand that rocks the cradle Is the hand that rules the world.” Imagine the power women have through the education and daily care of her children. Imagine the worth of her work: educated, well-mannered, Godly children. Through Marxist writer Antonio Gramsci’s idea of “cultural hegemony”, socialists/feminists have convinced women that staying at home is demeaning and worthless. We see the way our culture is headed towards socialism. Imagine if mothers haven’t left the home and husbands/wives haven’t abdicated their responsibility of educating their children to the state. Our culture wouldn’t be anywhere near as messed up. History is my evidence of this.

Send_Me on January 31, 2010 at 3:07 PM

This commercial doesn’t “publically brutalize” women who’ve had abortions. It says “hey, I was told to have an abortion and I didn’t, and look at the result.”

It doesn’t say “and all you people who choose differently are evil and murderes and are going to hell!”

Anyone who takes that message away from this commercial is dealing with their own conscience, not the material at hand.

Also, you are assuming that the target audience is young people. If anything the target audience is women who have been told that they should abort their child. This commercial offers hope, something that is very much lacking following a poor prenatal diagnosis. It offers an alternative. A choice. Isn’t that what those who push for unfettered legalized abortion claim to want?

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM

This ad will support other women in that situation. Frankly, that means a lot more than potentially offending someone who is looking to be offended.Vera on January 31, 2010 at 3:03 PM

The ad is great and the battle should be on hearts and minds. Abortions can be reduced by reaching consensus on which types of abortion are wrong.However, despite the poll numbers you cite above, state legislatures have not even implemented the restrictions allowable by Roe and Casey.The work by Rep. Paul Ryan seems admirable and the practical approach of efforts like the Ryan-DeLauro bill might actually reduce the number of abortions.

dedalus on January 31, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Um. What would you say the average age of an abortion-haver is?

I would think it skews rather young.

Ok so maybe womens what had abortions and see this commercial will just giggle and lightheartedly throw the seven layer bean dip through the plasma. Fine.

The second-worst propaganda part is this pernicious suggestion that doctors capriciously suggest abortions. That’s as bad as the little president man saying doctors want to cut your leg off for monies.

It’s very dark.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Paul Ryan is too cool for school I think.

He’s so the future.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 3:20 PM

oh. I take that back about Paul Ryan. He’s sort of the past way more than I realized.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 3:23 PM

The average age of an abortion haver is mid 20′s. Though teen pregnancy gets the most attention, the reality is that most women having abortions are adults. Many are married.

When it comes to abortion following a poor prenatal diagnosis, the average age is even higher.

And yes, doctors do indeed recommend abortion following poor prenatal diagnosis. It is part of the overall plan to reduce both prematurity and neonatal death. This is not some conspiracy theory, but the guidelines followed as per March of Dimes.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 3:26 PM

I think recommend is a word choice. Doctors explain the options people have when they might could be having a kid they’re not going to be able to provide for. That’s not something we need to combat I don’t think Vera.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 3:40 PM

The idea that when a doctor tells you your kid is in a bad bad way that you’re gonna forge ahead and pop out a professional athlete is a really really sick sick fantasy to inflict on women what are in a horribly vulnerable position.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Yes, it is. Doctors are in a position of power. There recommendations carry much more weight than the recommendation of a the waitress at our local dinner. Doctors should not be recommending one course of action over another. They should infrom, impartially, the patient about the risks associated with carrying to term and the condition the child is suspected of having.

They should absolutely not say “you should have an abortion.” Even non-directive counseling tends to have a coersive affect on pregnant women. The views of the counselor are often transfered to the woman via nonverbal cues or biased reporting of the facts. It is a legitimate problem that those in the disability community have been working for years to correct.

Part of these efforts involve connecting pregnant women with parents who chose to carry their child to term. These real-life interactions have proven very valuable to all involved. This commerical is an extension of that service.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 3:46 PM

The idea that when a doctor tells you your kid is in a bad bad way that you’re gonna forge ahead and pop out a professional athlete is a really really sick sick fantasy to inflict on women what are in a horribly vulnerable position.

That isn’t what the ad is saying at all. It is saying that there is hope beyond the diagnosis. Even had Tebow been born with the disability the doctors warned against, his life would still have value. The point is that his mother accepted these risks and accepted her child regardless of the outcome. Thankfully for all invovled, it turned out to be good.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 3:50 PM

I think it’s sick. I know my mom would have thought it was sick. She gave many monies to the March of Dimes.

This pro-birth defect movement is never gonna be something I’m on board with. And I think it’s yet another sign of our little country slipping backwards.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Well, I think that you are sick. I think that it is sick that you advocate euthanizing those you feel are not worthy.

Tell me, happy feet, should I have killed my son? He had heavy markers of Down Syndrome and my water broke at 23 weeks. He was born prematurely and given a 10% chance to live without disability. Further complicating matters, he’s a dwarf. Russel-Silver Syndrome to be exact, which was likely why he showed markers for DS. He’ll be on artifical hormones for the rest of his life. He’s had 5 surgeries in 4 years.

He’s also a happy little 4 year old boy who reads at a 2nd grade level and loves his life and his family.

The “pro-birth defect” movement as you so derisively call them, saved him by giving me information. I guess you would have rathered he was killed to save us all the horror of having to deal with someone with disabilities.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Lady I don’t care what choices you or anyone else make. But proselytizing others to have kids they can’t possibly care for is extremely self-indulgent. So many kids don’t even have a father much less a mom with the resources to care for a special needs kid, and no amount of your self-righteous guilt-tripping is gonna change that.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Lady I don’t care what choices you or anyone else make. But proselytizing others to have kids they can’t possibly care for is extremely self-indulgent. So many kids don’t even have a father much less a mom with the resources to care for a special needs kid, and no amount of your self-righteous guilt-tripping is gonna change that.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:04 PM

The absolutely most egregrious, typical, and irresponsible proabortion argument ever.

Glynn on January 31, 2010 at 4:07 PM

What you’re advocating is as much a recipe for state intervention as unionizing a manufacturing plant I think.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:07 PM

This pro-birth defect movement is never gonna be something I’m on board with. And I think it’s yet another sign of our little country slipping backwards.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 3:56 PM

You have now lost any recognition of logic. “Pro-birth defect movement.” Good God.

Glynn on January 31, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Eat your Cheerios, people.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:11 PM

What you’re advocating is as much a recipe for state intervention as unionizing a manufacturing plant I think.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Yes, it does seem like something your mind would formulate. Try and be a little less emotional with your knee-jerk responses.

Glynn on January 31, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Please to not be having an emotional response to our sappy propaganda.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:17 PM

” proselytizing others to have kids they can’t possibly care for is extremely self-indulgent”

I’m not telling anyone to run out and get pregnant. I’m telling them not to kill the children that already exist. It isn’t the least bit self-indulgent. I have nothing to gain from someone not killing her child. Hell, as a mother of a kid with disabilities I benefit from others’ abortions because it means less wait times for doctors.

Of course, I’m not a utilitarian who measures life based on future sociatal utility, so maybe that impacts my thinking on not killing people.

There’s no reason for state intervention. Private insurance and private clinics exist to cover every medical need. You’re grasping at straws.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 4:17 PM

The majority of single moms what have a kid requiring extraordinary care are going to be government-dependent welfare cases. It’s that simple. That’s what you’re arguing for. It’s very dishonest not to acknowledge this.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:19 PM

You want my tax monies to subsidize these choices and don’t pretend you don’t.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Happyfeet, the children already exist. Even if we take your premise that some of these children will end up on government insurance, it doesn’t change the fact that you are advocating killing them for perceived sociatal good. Your insistance on painting the situation in as socialist a manner as possible only further underscores this point.

More from the fit, less from the unfit. Right?

I guess we can extend this to “less of the unfit” for our purposes. It is, after all, the eugenic’s endgame.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Well, I think that you are sick. I think that it is sick that you advocate euthanizing those you feel are not worthy.

Tell me, happy feet, should I have killed my son? He had heavy markers of Down Syndrome and my water broke at 23 weeks. He was born prematurely and given a 10% chance to live without disability. Further complicating matters, he’s a dwarf. Russel-Silver Syndrome to be exact, which was likely why he showed markers for DS. He’ll be on artifical hormones for the rest of his life. He’s had 5 surgeries in 4 years.

He’s also a happy little 4 year old boy who reads at a 2nd grade level and loves his life and his family.

The “pro-birth defect” movement as you so derisively call them, saved him by giving me information. I guess you would have rathered he was killed to save us all the horror of having to deal with someone with disabilities.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 4:02 PM

God bless you, Vera.

As a scientist I know, not believe, know that human life begins at conception. Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.

Bernard Nathanson, M.D.,said this. He was personally responsible for 75,000 abortions in his early medical career before the advent of ultrasound allowed him to actually witness what happens inside the womb during an abortion (The Silent Scream). Abortion is a half billion dollar industry in this country. Bernard Nathanson went on to become a staunch protector of life and spent the rest of his career speaking about his beiefs. Vera, I am sure, as a long-time pro-life activitist, you have heard every argument for abortion. Always in the equation the word “responsibility” is left out.

Glynn on January 31, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Happyfeet, your monies are no more a consideration in this case than if we were deciding if we should kill off born children.

Do you really want to go down the road where you demand those who might use government services to be killed?

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Please to not be having an emotional response to our sappy propaganda.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Oh, you are emotional alright. In a sort of bizarre and hysterical way, lacking cogent thought…yes, definitely emotional.

Glynn on January 31, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Do you really want to go down the road where you demand those who might use government services to be killed?

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 4:25 PM

It’s a page right out of Margaret Sanger’s diary. They are nothing but weeds after all.

Glynn on January 31, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Thanks, Glynn. I’ve definitely heard it all, though not many have the open euginic fervor of our friend Happyfeet.

To be fair, I think much of this comes due to him grasping at straws after being shown to be incorrect about all of his premises surrounding this ad.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Do you really want to go down the road where you demand those who might use government services to be killed?

What I’m saying is that very very soon in our declining and increasingly impoverished dirty socialist and horrifically indebted country there’s going to be some very real reality what intrudes on this sort of decision-making and I don’t think cable news superstar Sarah Palin has a clue what the ramifications of this might be.

Hint: It’s not empowering.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:33 PM

If you have a special needs kid under the delusion that there will be resources what are not yours to care for the little tyke than you have made what I would suggest is a less than responsible choice.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:35 PM

*then* I mean

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:36 PM

Thanks, Glynn. I’ve definitely heard it all, though not many have the open euginic fervor of our friend Happyfeet.

To be fair, I think much of this comes due to him grasping at straws after being shown to be incorrect about all of his premises surrounding this ad.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 4:30 PM

You’re welcome. There seem to be many in the proabortion crowd grasping at the same straws.

Glynn on January 31, 2010 at 4:36 PM

If you have a special needs kid under the delusion that there will be resources what are not yours to care for the little tyke than you have made what I would suggest is a less than responsible choice.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Virulent eugenics. Hitler would be so proud.

Glynn on January 31, 2010 at 4:39 PM

That’s not eugenics… if you can care for your special needs kid have at it. Make yourself a memory. But the vast majority of people in this situation will be looking for help from an increasingly helpless government.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Happyfeet, your solution seems to be to kill those would be killed by eugenics to stop eugenics.

First of all, there’s no evidence that killing these children will stop the spread of socialism, but apart from that it is absurd to argue that it is a wise policy to kill people now so they’re not killed later.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Happyfeet, if you’re saying that we should kill disabled children because they will be reliant on the state, you are supporting eugenics. There’s no way around it.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters/neuesvolk.jpg

“This genetically ill person will cost our people’s community 60,000 marks over his lifetime. Citizens, that is your money”

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 4:46 PM

I’m just saying is if you’re a young single mom in this situation please be aware that you are very likely embracing a life of poverty for yourself and suffering for your child.

And that’s as equally a valid message for women in this situation to hear as saying hey you know what he could totally grow up to play pro ball. No, for reals… here let me show you this PSA.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:47 PM

That’s not eugenics… if you can care for your special needs kid have at it. Make yourself a memory. But the vast majority of people in this situation will be looking for help from an increasingly helpless government.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:43 PM

I know it will come as a shock to you, but what you have said is textbook eugenics. Erase the inferior race, those with disabilities, and, as Margaret Sanger urged, blacks, Jews, and other undesirables. The word is eugenics, happy feet.

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”

Margaret Sanger.

What she proposes here is no different than what you have said above.

Glynn on January 31, 2010 at 4:49 PM

I’m just saying is if you’re a young single mom in this situation please be aware that you are very likely embracing a life of poverty for yourself and suffering for your child.

And that’s as equally a valid message for women in this situation to hear as saying hey you know what he could totally grow up to play pro ball. No, for reals… here let me show you this PSA.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:47 PM

This has become so twisted and convoluted, it no longer even resembles logic. And is not even close to what the ad is trying to convey.

Glynn on January 31, 2010 at 4:51 PM

It’s not eugenics when you’re arguing against people who actually want to encourage people to proliferate kids with birth defects. That’s just sick.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Happyfeet, you don’t need to make that announcement. Everyone in a young woman’s life is saying the same thing.

After the birth of my son, my mother turned to my mother-in-law and said “They just have no idea what they’re getting into, it might be better if he just doesn’t make it.”

That message is getting out loud and clear. 95% of women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome abort. You’ve got the corn pone opinion covered on this one.

It is because of this reality that Tebow’s message is so important.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 4:52 PM

It’s not eugenics when you’re arguing against people who actually want to encourage people to proliferate kids with birth defects. That’s just sick.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Now you are knee-jerk responding again.

Glynn on January 31, 2010 at 4:53 PM

95% of women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome abort.

well I stand with them ones and I will say supportive things to them

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:53 PM

not try to make them cry

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Happyfeet. The kids already exist!

We are simply telling women that there are alternatives to killing the child that already exists.

You act as though we’re going out and cutting off arms in order to make people disabled. No. We are saying that we should protect those that are already alive.

You’re saying that they should be killed for the good of society. “Citizens, that’s your money!”

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Of course you’ll stand with the ones that killed their children. They’re saving you money and they kept you from having to ever encounter their inferior stock. Now if you could only convince that other 5%… Just think of the utopia!

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 4:57 PM

You know all these statistics… do you know what the median income for single moms is?

To guilt women who don’t want to take on the challenges of a special needs kid is loopy even by Sarah Palin’s depraved attention-seeking standards.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Guess what, Happyfeet, no woman in this country is forced to take on the challanges of a special needs kid. There’s this little thing called adoption. In fact, there are waiting lists for families waiting to adopt a child with disabilities.

All we are asking of a woman is for her to not kill the child. No one is saying she has to raise it or be a single mother.

Furtermore, why do you keep harping on the single mother? Most women facing late term abortions following poor prenatal diagnosis are married or in committed relationships.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 5:02 PM

I should also point out that this ad asks nothing of anyone. All it says is that there is hope following a poor diagnosis.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Well it’s really none of your business what these women do. Anna is right about that, and I think these creepy theocratic designs you have on other people’s lives is something Team R would do well to disassociate from.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:06 PM

You realize that the dippy Palin claimed this message for Team R?

I have a problem with that.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:07 PM

He or she is all yours, Vera. I don’t do well with hysterical personalities with God complexes.

Glynn on January 31, 2010 at 5:08 PM

damn. I said Anna again when I meant Ann.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Again, it’s my business what someone does if what they are doing involves homicide.

And yes, respect for life is a Republican value.

Even the most libertarian amongst us agrees that an individual’s right to their body ends where their fist hits someone else’s face.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 5:10 PM

I honestly don’t think I would much care about this commercial if cable news superstar Sarah Palin hadn’t been all over it like a chicken on a Cheeto.

Who wants to elect a woman what crusades for the proliferation of birth defects? She’s such a freak.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Oh for the last time, Happyfeet. Opposition to abortion has nothing to do with theocracy. You can’t seem to grasp this very simple concept.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Using the power of the state to force people to subsidize your religious beliefs is theocratic, Vera.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Happyfeet, you’re an idiot or a troll. You don’t seem capable of grasping simple concepts. I’m done.

Just a word of advice, I wouldn’t make any of the “arguments” you made here in the real world. People tend to get a bit freaked out when you start talking about killing the unfit.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 5:15 PM

My opposition to abortion has nothing at all to do with my religious beliefs.

I oppose killing of an unborn human being for the same reason I oppose killing a born human being. Is it a theocracy to ban murder? No? Then why the hell is it a theocracy to ban abortion?

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Women need to have that choice and not be shamed for it Vera. I don’t know who Tebow thinks he is but neither he nor Sarah Palin have any business judging people who choose to abort kids they can’t care for.

Unlike her governorship, once you have a kid you can’t just up and quit.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Then why the hell is it a theocracy to ban abortion?

It’s not theocracy at all, Vera… Just keep telling yourself that. But please don’t use my beleaguered little Team R as a vehicle for your delusions.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Actually, you can…It’s called adoption. I can have a kid, and then I can relinquish my parental rights. Poof I don’t have to take care of my kid.

It’s actually pretty simple. If the only thing that will prevent someone from killing her child is shame, then she should be shamed. If she has killed her child, she should be ashamed of it. It is a shameful, shameful act.

Women do not “need” the choice to kill their unborn children any more than they “need” the choice to kill their born children.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 5:24 PM

You’re not America.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:25 PM

It’s not theocracy at all, Vera… Just keep telling yourself that. But please don’t use my beleaguered little Team R as a vehicle for your delusions.

That doesn’t answer my question. What makes abortion different than murder of the born? Why can one be based only on religion while the other on secular morality?

Try to actually answer the question instead of making a snarky remark that adds nothing to the debate.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Here are a few organizations for you.

http://secularprolife.org/

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

http://www.l4l.org/

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 5:29 PM

That doesn’t answer my question. What makes abortion different than murder of the born? Why can one be based only on religion while the other on secular morality?

It doesn’t necessarily have to be theocratic. Mr. Dr. Zero’s take was beautiful and secular and poetic. And kind of a little nutsy.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Ok, so why do you continue to insist that opposition to abortion is part of “creepy theocratic designs”?

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 5:32 PM

hey look what I founded at secularprolife.org!!

I will copy a snippet for you to read! brb.

here!

1) Palin is a divisive figure. We’ve just gained a slim pro-life majority, and Palin isn’t the right person to expand on it. Trying to recruit pro-lifers from among conservative evangelicals is, pardon the pun, preaching to the choir. The Washington Times says that 70% of Republicans approve of Palin; spend a few minutes with a Democrat, however, and you’ll learn that she’s highly unpopular on the other side of the aisle. Pro-life Democrats are playing a critical role in our current Congress and we can’t afford to alienate them by aligning ourselves so closely with the Republican Party.

2) I don’t think Palin is as articulate as the Susan B. Anthony List apparently does. It’s rare for me to disagree with the SBA, but let’s be honest. Remember her disastrous interviews during the campaign? Notice how, whenever she gives a speech, liberal bloggers immediately take out their red pens? I’m not attacking her intelligence here- maybe she has great ideas and just gets nervous about public speaking. But the media and the public aren’t going to make that distinction. Our last president was a Yale graduate, but I still bought the Bushisms page-a-day calendar.

3) Does the pro-life movement really need one face and voice? We’re most powerful when we exhibit our diversity and raise up our many voices; if you don’t believe me, join me at March for Life 2010. More and more, the movement is becoming youth-dominated and democratic, and I think those are positive trends. It’s hard to cultivate that kind of community, and making any one person our representative could destroy it.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:34 PM

And your point is?

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 5:38 PM

I think freedom is paramount vera… and maximal freedom is what America is all about and as your theocratic soldiers are a marching, and they’re writing brand new laws… will we fight together 4 the most important cause?

Will we fight

4 the right

2 be free?

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:38 PM

I just think the secular lifey people have a perspective on the unfitness of Sarah Palin as the leader of a cause that aims to persuade is a perspective we haven’t heard yet.

Let’s go to the tape.

Agreed. She has as much ‘cross over’ appeal as Dick Cheney. You’re more charitable than I. I admire things about her, but I think she is not very intelligent. Even if I’m wrong, people who don’t like her will be less charitable – and public perception matters in a spokesperson.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:48 PM

to persuade *what* is a perspective we haven’t heard yet I meant

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:49 PM

I agree that freedom is important. I just don’t agree that said freedom includes the right to kill.

I do, however, believe that FotF has should have every freedom to run this ad.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 5:51 PM

We agree they should be free to run the ad but Sarah Palin should not be free to claim the message for Team R. Rather, she should be imprisoned under a rock in an undisclosed location for all time.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:54 PM

ok I was just kidding there about the rock and all

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:55 PM

kind of

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:57 PM

70% of Republicans are pro-life, which is actually an increase over the past 10 years. It’s a solid Republican political stance. I think that most American’s associate the two, regardless of what Sarah Palin says.

Vera on January 31, 2010 at 5:59 PM

well then I think we’ve chanced on a fabulous way the Tea Party might could differentiate itself

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 6:02 PM

but remember what Mr. Dr. said…

Sarah Palin – currently the starting quarterback of the pro-life team

I don’t think that’s very good news for the pro-life movement.

Remember Holly Hunter from Broadcast News?

I have passed some line, some place. I am beginning to repel people I’m trying to seduce.

That’s our Sarah!

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 6:09 PM

The apartment was small, with slanting floors and irregular heat and a buzzer downstairs that didn’t work, so that visitors had to call ahead from a pay phone at the corner gas station, where a black Doberman the size of a wolf paced through the night in vigilant patrol, its jaws clamped around an empty beer bottle.

daesleeper on January 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Give me 30 seconds with the American Public…. I would make them shake in their boots. I’m a patriot, who thinks that if I FEEL it, then I should be allowed to SAY it. If you wanna hear what I FEEL, then ask. And if I have PAY for it, then you can just change the friggin’ channel. Unfortunately, I can’t change the general public opinion on America’s channel. But I will ALWAYS believe in life, over death, ANY DAY. If you Pro-Choice peeps ever make it to heaven… I know that the Saints there will show you the pictures of not only the babies, but the people they would have become. I’m not dissing you, just saying ….. what if you had been aborted???? Geeze, we would not have to listen to your dissent.

Do YOU really think that you are GOD? Deciding who lives and who doesn’t? Put that on your shoulders and tell me how far you can walk with that burdern.

theRealMcCoy on January 31, 2010 at 8:43 PM

The apartment was small, with slanting floors and irregular heat and a buzzer downstairs that didn’t work, so that visitors had to call ahead from a pay phone at the corner gas station, where a black Doberman the size of a wolf paced through the night in vigilant patrol, its jaws clamped around an empty beer bottle.

daesleeper on January 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Bill Ayers …. is that you?

redridinghood on January 31, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Who’s a good boy? You’re a big puppy. Careful with that bottle cause it’s glass.

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 9:46 PM

If your doctor tells you your kid is messed up to where you should consider not going forward with the pregnancy, you should think very carefully about what they are telling you I think.

Your doctor cares about you more than Sarah Palin does. She’ll say whatever she thinks you want to hear.

happyfeet on February 1, 2010 at 9:58 AM

“Don’t murder people” is only a controversial question when the person being murdered can’t object, vote, or hire an attorney.

Or if a celebrity might deem them “cute.”

TheUnrepentantGeek on February 1, 2010 at 10:47 AM

I think freedom is paramount vera… and maximal freedom is what America is all about and as your theocratic soldiers are a marching, and they’re writing brand new laws… will we fight together 4 the most important cause?

Will we fight

4 the right

2 be free?

happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Founding fathers would have made you really uncomfortable feets. Darned “Christian Soldiers” they were, the theocratic fascists.

TheUnrepentantGeek on February 1, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Those one were kinda special though.

All love to the founding peeps.

happyfeet on February 1, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Will we fight4 the right2 be free?happyfeet on January 31, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Oh, and PS:Freedom that takes otherPeople\’s freedom away isNot really freedom

TheUnrepentantGeek on February 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6