Tebow ad exposes the intolerance of the “tolerant” Left

posted at 11:00 am on February 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Sally Jenkins, a pro-choice columnist for the Washington Post, writes a devastating essay today on the reaction from her side of the abortion issue to the Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow that celebrates choosing life.  Jenkins says she couldn’t disagree more with Tebow on the issue of abortion, but cannot believe the kind of knee-jerk overreaction coming from NOW, which Jenkins presumes refers to “National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us.”  Jenkins says the overwrought reaction exposes the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant Left and shows that so-called “pro-choice” groups are really more pro-abortion:

I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

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 bikini 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.

As for those who say the Super Bowl is no forum for personal perspectives on life, Jenkins offers a particularly compelling counterargument:

His critics find this intrusive, and say the Super Bowl is no place for an argument of this nature. “Pull the ad,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “Let’s focus on the game.”

Trouble is, you can’t focus on the game without focusing on the individuals who play it — and that is the genius of Tebow’s ad. The Super Bowl is not some reality-free escape zone. Tebow himself is an inescapable fact: Abortion doesn’t just involve serious issues of life, but of potential lives, Heisman trophy winners, scientists, doctors, artists, inventors, Little Leaguers — who would never come to be if their birth mothers had not wrestled with the stakes and chosen to carry those lives to term. And their stories are every bit as real and valid as the stories preferred by NOW.

Shouldn’t tolerance include hearing opposing viewpoints, or at least allowing them to be aired in public forums?  After all, tolerance means putting up with something, not agreeing with it.  If the only ideas we allowed to air publicly were those that had almost-total consensus, that’s not tolerance but political correctness — a rhetorical straitjacket that goes against the very idea of free speech.

When groups like NOW want to silence people like the Tebows, they’re doing so to protect their own turf.  The ad asks people to choose life, not to ban abortion.  If NOW really was pro-choice, they’d see nothing invalid about showing the end result of one choice and the faith that carried the Tebows from that terrifying diagnosis to the pinnacle of athletic and scholarly success.  Tebow represents hope in the midst of hopelessness.  NOW doesn’t want people to have hope; they want women to buy abortions, and this ugly response has made that crystal clear.

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 2 3 4 5 6 7

she had to choose between parenthood and a career in law — and had chosen the law career. She was justifying it by pointing out how many good things she now had. As I read the article, the unbidden thought was “but you felt you had to kill your child to make it — couldn’t you have possibly done it without killing your child? It would have been harder, but couldn’t you?”

unclesmrgol on February 2, 2010 at 8:43 PM

In a top-level competition she probably could not have had children, properly raised them and kept pace with the men in her field who were able to postpone or avoid child raising responsibility.

There are trade-offs, she didn’t want to make them. I wouldn’t have made the trade-off, but I’m male and was able to have kids when my career allowed.

BTW: I happen to know several women in their 40′s, divorced or unmarried with no children. They are highly educated, have pursued careers and now are saying OMFG I need to get impregnated immediately or never have kids. They must have thought they’d be young forever, but now they are frantic over their diminishing options.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Here is proof of answered prayer regarding abortion. We prayed specifically “for the hearts of those who perform abortions to be changed” during the forty days from 23 SEP to end of October 2009.

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 18, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pro-lifers are gearing up for the start of a new 40 Days for Life campaign starting September 23, during which tens of thousands of pro-lifers across America and the world will join in the popular semi-annual marathon of prayer, fasting, abortion clinic vigil, and community activism to help save unborn lives.

Planned Parenthood Director Leaves, Has Change of Heart
Planned Parenthood has been a part of Abby Johnson’s life for the past eight years; that is until last month, when Abby resigned.
Posted: 11:23 PM Nov 1, 2009

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/68441827.html

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Why does the left spend so much time trying to shut people up?

CWforFreedom on February 2, 2010 at 8:24 PM

CBS must have taken a break from the left-wing conspiracy since they are showing the ad and ignoring NOW.

Don’t know that people pay much attention to Super Bowl ads that aren’t gimmicky, but it sounds like a good ad and hopefully it will cause the viewers who listen to also think.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:04 PM

if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

2 Chronicles 7:14

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:06 PM

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:02 PM

God is responding to the prayers by influencing one doctor but allowing nearly 100,000 abortions per month? Not sure why God chose the doctor rather than a SCOTUS justice.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:10 PM

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:10 PM

Do tell prophet. What is the Mind of God?

daesleeper on February 2, 2010 at 9:19 PM

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:10 PM

One day, it will all make sense. God uses the weak, the strong and many times, the paradox he uses doesn’t make sense to us. We would think that he’d empower the strong (a SCOTUS justice) to do the heaviest work, but, that’s not how God works. He’ll empower the weakest, who’ll then topple the strongest in the most unlikely ways.

Paradox.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:20 PM

Judge me, or not…but I too was faced with the same dilemma Mrs. Tebow found herself in. I have commented on this before. Because of my dilemma, I won’t judge anyone who makes the decision based on health, life, and death. I am pro life. I believe in it, and I cling to it. However, I am torn on the issue when it comes to incest, and rape. I always knew what my decision would be on that, if it had ever happened to me. Thank God it never did. But to those women who are victims of this violent crime….I cannot be their moral compass. This is between them, and God. I can’t imagine how hard it would be to carry thru a pregnancy, who’s very existence, and sustainablity is wrought from an extremely violent crime.

That being said….when it comes to the casual abortion because of an unplanned pregnancy, I truly have issues. I believe because of the attitude from groups like NOW who insist there’s nothing wrong with it, and convince, almost to the point of cajoling a woman, if they don’t do that already , is the problem. We’ve desensitized the act of abortion. We’ve had people for so long saying it’s reproductive rights. It’s a womans decision. What about what the baby wants?

The woman who quit Planned Parenthood actually said she saw the little baby in the womb fighting for it’s very life, as she watched it on the monitor being aborted. We’ve lost something in our tapestry here. We’ve sold ourselves on the idea that it’s ok. It’s not wrong, it’s not immoral, and it’s not a baby.

If it’s not, the issue wouldn’t be so volatile. Tell yourselves all you want, it’s not killing another living being….but why is it, when you have cancer, you want to kill it…but when it’s a baby…it’s not killing?

capejasmine on February 2, 2010 at 9:26 PM

NOW is dying. They have been for years. Terry O’Neill ran on a platform of bringing more people back into their dwindling fold. O’Neill and her buddy Gloria Alred are practicing the only talent they possess… Hysterical Self-Righteous P!ssed-Off B!tch.

ronnyraygun on February 2, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Do tell prophet. What is the Mind of God?

daesleeper on February 2, 2010 at 9:19 PM

I haven’t claimed to directly influence it. Apparently, He put several natural laws into motion while creating a large number of galaxies. Is he hands on with curing some of the sick, deciding the outcome of football games or Grammy Awards? I don’t know.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:31 PM

I’m far from a liberal, and I think I explained my political philosophy pretty clearly upthread. Up to the point of that last unnecessary and gratuitous sentence, I thought that was a pretty well-reasoned post.

I didn’t call you a liberal. I said that you have “liberal sensibilities”. How would you define believing that abortion should be legal? Conservative?

…if a fertilized egg is legally determined to be a person, then abortion on demand becomes illegal and it becomes almost impossible to justify abortions in the case of incest or abortion. We’ll have to agree to disagree regarding “health of the mother” abortions.

I’m eating in a restaurant in an open-carry state. A man walks in with a gun in a holster on his hip. Do I have the right to kill this man because he could potentially kill me?

Sorry, dakine, but as I said earlier, either abortion is wrong or it isn’t. If it is wrong, then the reason why it is wrong – i.e. the personhood of the “life” – means that there is NO INSTANCE when it is OK.

One problem with your argument is that this part of the Constitution seems to be talking about persons “born” or “naturalized”.

“nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

…or are you arguing that upon arresting an illegal Mexican immigrant, the state can simply take them out back of the jailhouse and have them shot?

The second problem with your argument is that there’s no evidence that anyone who wrote or interpreted the US Constitution thought this applied to fetuses.

Completely moot, since the entire argument rest around defining when human “life” occurs. If human life is present at conception, what is it other than a “a person”? A robot, perhaps?

The third problem is the next-to-last sentence applies to state action, not private action (criminal laws).

STATE-sanctioned abortion.

First, the fetus can’t make that decisions, regarding life of mother. We have consistently ruled that children do not have the same rights as adults, nor the same responsibility. The reasoning is obvious.

Your reasoning is quite wrong, as you also are trying to make a distinction between a fetus and a “life” or person.

Above, I have demonstrated that life begins at conception. If you can refute my argument, do so. If not, then a human “life” occurs at conception. And if you have a human life, you have a human person. You are trying to suggest some sort of “quid pro quo” stance on Constitutional rights. The fact that her baby can unintentionally kill her in no way absolves the mother from intentionally killing it.

rvastar on February 2, 2010 at 9:31 PM

One day, it will all make sense.
ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:20 PM

Hopefully, one day, it will.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:32 PM

However, I am torn on the issue when it comes to incest, and rape.

Yes, but does being torn on the issue equate to support? It shouldn’t. This is the abortionists ultimate fall back and justification position. Does the singular case of rape justify the overwhelming proportion of non-crime related aborted pregnancies? The abortionists would want people to say yes–is that the single case studies justify the procedure for the whole.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Is he hands on with curing some of the sick, deciding the outcome of football games or Grammy Awards? I don’t know.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:31 PM

I know. I know that God is involved in our lives and it has been revealed to me over and over again. I know he has a sense of humor, a plan, a purpose for me, and wants to see me succeed and use the talents he’s given me. I know because I’ve gone to look for it, and to ask him. And I read it in Jeremiah this morning, that it is okay to boast that I know and understand God.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:37 PM

I’m eating in a restaurant in an open-carry state. A man walks in with a gun in a holster on his hip. Do I have the right to kill this man because he could potentially kill me?

And if you have a human life, you have a human person.

rvastar on February 2, 2010 at 9:31 PM

If he points the gun at you, you should.

Every cell in your body is alive and carries a full copy of your DNA. However, while it is human life, it isn’t a person.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Don’t know that people pay much attention to Super Bowl ads that aren’t gimmicky, but it sounds like a good ad and hopefully it will cause the viewers who listen to also think.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:04 PM

Its about money. Did NOW try to buy time?

Do tell.

CWforFreedom on February 2, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Every cell in your body is alive and carries a full copy of your DNA. However, while it is human life, it isn’t a person.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:37 PM

How many of your cells have different DNA than the other cells in your body?

The unborn have a separate identity. Your denial of their humanity is disgusting. One day hopefully you will see. I can tell by your demeanor that something is eating at you. I suspect karma plays a role.

CWforFreedom on February 2, 2010 at 9:39 PM

However, while it is human life, it isn’t a person.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:37 PM

when does it become a person? Moreover, when does one stop being a person?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:40 PM

You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother’s womb.

Psalm 139:13

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:41 PM

However, while it is human life, it isn’t a person.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Keep telling your self that . Much like AnninCa in the long run it will no salve the wound of the choice you made. Killing your own children whether you want to acknowledge their humanity or not is truly evil.

CWforFreedom on February 2, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Every cell in your body is alive and carries a full copy of your DNA. However, while it is human life, it isn’t a person.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:37 PM

I asked this yesterday. If it’s not a baby, or human being, or human life….how can we, or do we quantify ourselves as human beings?

capejasmine on February 2, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Every cell in your body is alive and carries a full copy of your DNA. However, while it is human life, it isn’t a person.

More semantics.

Fine.

Barring an intentionally violent action or gesture on its behalf, do I have the right to kill the amalgamation of cellular material that walked into the restaurant with a gun holstered on his hip?

See how easy that is?

rvastar on February 2, 2010 at 9:45 PM

dedalus–

this one verse changed my life.

Buy the truth and do not sell it, get wisdom discipline and understanding. Proverbs 23:23

best first question—what is the truth? Go find it. It is located somewhere. It is a treasure, it is invaluable, and it’ll answer the questions that you have.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Its about money. Did NOW try to buy time?

Do tell.

CWforFreedom on February 2, 2010 at 9:37 PM

For the NFL it’s about long-term growth. If they thought the ad would hurt their image they’d veto it. For CBS? They knocked out the gay dating ad and a GoDaddy ad. Though, I’d agree that ad-buying in this economy has to be worse than previous years.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:46 PM

I asked this yesterday. If it’s not a baby, or human being, or human life….how can we, or do we quantify ourselves as human beings?
capejasmine on February 2, 2010 at 9:44 PM

A better question isn’t how, but can we quantify this?

It’s a question that we cannot answer by a vote, a majority, a court ruling, can we? Where would we find this answer?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Though, I’d agree that ad-buying in this economy has to be worse than previous years.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:46 PM

it’s not, CBS is plum sold out of ad slots.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Jenkins says the overwrought reaction exposes the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant Left

Exactly. The standard liberal response is either “shut up” and/or name-calling.

I’m from Tennessee so of course I’m no Gator fan! However, I am a mom, and I am so proud of Tebow! I know the courage it takes for a young person to stand up for his/her faith. As a woman, I salute WaPo’s Sally Jenkins and Tim Tebow’s mom for showing us all (both women & men) that standing up for one’s faith should not be ridiculed or silenced.

TN Mom on February 2, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Super Bowl Ad Slots Sold Out
Feb 02, 2010

CBS has sold out the Super Bowl a week in advance of the game, the network has confirmed. All but a few of the pre- and post-game spots are gone as well. Advertisers paid between $2.5 and $3 million per 30 seconds (paying more for single spots or placement earlier in the game), and the network will realize a $200 million-plus payday on Feb. 7, including pre-game sales. “Considering where things are with the economy we are pleased we are where we are,” said John Bogusz

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Barring an intentionally violent action or gesture on its behalf, do I have the right to kill the amalgamation of cellular material that walked into the restaurant with a gun holstered on his hip?

See how easy that is?

rvastar on February 2, 2010 at 9:45 PM

The question involved OK’ing abortions in the case of life or serious health of the mother. If the fetus threatens the mother’s life, it is analogous to the man with the gun pointing it at you.

If the mother dies, any existing children lose a mother and the mother loses the ability to bear further children. A significant statistical risk to the mother’s life should result in whatever course the mother decides.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:52 PM

I’m eating in a restaurant in an open-carry state. A man walks in with a gun in a holster on his hip. Do I have the right to kill this man because he could potentially kill me?

If he points that gun at you, and you reasonably believe your life is in imminent danger, yeah you have a universally recognized right to kill him. Self-defense.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 9:52 PM

am I really the only one who doesn’t give 2 sh1ts about this non-issue?

Palin Steele on February 2, 2010 at 9:52 PM

I asked this yesterday. If it’s not a baby, or human being, or human life….how can we, or do we quantify ourselves as human beings?

capejasmine on February 2, 2010 at 9:44 PM

We mark the end of life by brain activity, some might pin the beginning of life on similar criteria.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:54 PM

universally recognized right to kill him. Self-defense.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Umm. I’m sure you can explain how “universal” this “right” is to “kill” someone. Self-defense yes, but deadly force–?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:54 PM

It’s a question that we cannot answer by a vote, a majority, a court ruling, can we? Where would we find this answer?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Exactly. Who are we to say we’re human beings, or human life, when we can’t say an unborn innocent isn’t? Our arrogance amazes me. Who the hell were we to decide that life inside the womb is less significant than life inside the womb?

capejasmine on February 2, 2010 at 9:55 PM

it’s not, CBS is plum sold out of ad slots.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Good point. I’m guessing there is some salesmanship in the CBS statement, but they must have done reasonably well.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:56 PM

conservative logic doesn’t jive.

if conservatives truly feel fetuses are human beings, wouldn’t they consider abortion murder?

Palin Steele on February 2, 2010 at 9:57 PM

We mark the end of life by brain activity, some might pin the beginning of life on similar criteria.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Previous studies have demonstrated the practicality of using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques to assess fetal brain activity. The purpose of this study was to compare the fetal hemodynamic response to that of the adult. Seventeen pregnant subjects, all of whom were at more than 36 weeks gestation were scanned while the fetus was exposed to a vibroacoustic stimulus. Thirteen adult subjects were scanned with an equivalent acoustic stimulus. Of the fetal subjects, two could not be analyzed due to technical problems, eight did not show significant activation, and seven showed significant activation. In all cases, activation was localized within the temporal region. Measures of fetal hemodynamic responses revealed an average time to peak (ttp) of 7.36 ± 0.94 sec and an average percentage change of 2.67 ± 0.93%. In contrast, activation was detected in 5 of 13 adults with an average ttp of 6.54 ± 0.54 sec and an average percentage change of 1.02 ± 0.40%. The measurement of changes in the fetal hemodynamic response may be important in assessing compromised pregnancies. Hum. Brain Mapping 22:118-123, 2004

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/107632605/abstract

We may not be able to reliably ascertain brain activity in near-term babies. What do we do then?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:59 PM

We may not be able to reliably ascertain brain activity in near-term babies. What do we do then?

leave it up to its mother. duh.

Palin Steele on February 2, 2010 at 10:01 PM

title:
Fetal brain activity and hemodynamic response to a vibroacoustic stimulus
Jonathan Fulford et al.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Umm. I’m sure you can explain how “universal” this “right” is to “kill” someone. Self-defense yes, but deadly force–?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:54 PM

I said universally recognized, meaning it is recognized in every state.

To answer your question though, the use of deadly force is permissible if the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.

Obviously if the force the other actor is using against you isn’t likely to cause death or serious injury, you can’t lawfully use deadly force.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 10:05 PM

And the actor’s belief that the force is necessary to protect themselves must generally be honestly entertained and objectively reasonable…

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 10:06 PM

The unborn have a separate identity. Your denial of their humanity is disgusting. One day hopefully you will see. I can tell by your demeanor that something is eating at you. I suspect karma plays a role.

CWforFreedom on February 2, 2010 at 9:39 PM

You can tell and suspect? You can also just ask questions. I’m waiting for my wife and two kids to arrive home. Very little is eating at me.

I think developing life deserves legal protection around the point of viability. Perhaps, for that view, you can regard me as disgusting but enacting laws along those lines would be a considerable political achievement, beyond the status quo.

My problem with granting full rights at conception has to do with the logical implications and the complete political infeasibility.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Palin Steele on February 2, 2010 at 10:01 PM

I see we have an 86′ed refugee leftard clown from another blog.
The attendants giving you computer access in the day room now, eh?

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on February 2, 2010 at 10:07 PM

The issue simply is what I call a “hot” topic. It brings out the neurotics on both sides.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Barring an intentionally violent action or gesture on its behalf, do I have the right to kill the amalgamation of cellular material that walked into the restaurant with a gun holstered on his hip?

See how easy that is?

rvastar on February 2, 2010 at 9:45 PM

And when people refer to allowing abortions when the mother’s life is endangered, they mean when there is a high probability of death (relative to a normal pregnancy). This probability is equivalent to the “violent action or gesture” you speak of.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 10:09 PM

you reasonably believe your life is in imminent danger, yeah you have a universally recognized right to kill him. Self-defense.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 9:52 PM

I said universally recognized, meaning it is recognized in every state.
crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 10:05 PM

you said a “universally recognized right”–a statement that is completely different than “it is recognized in every state.”

those are your words…

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:10 PM

We may not be able to reliably ascertain brain activity in near-term babies. What do we do then?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Those are the sincerely hard issues around this issue. I can only say that I don’t think a legalistic answer is the solution. This is such a deeply personal issue that it really must be left to the individual. It’s very similar to end-of-life decisions. That must also be left to the individual and the family.

Of course, the reality is that the state sometimes has to be involved. But we should always refrain from that whenever possible.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:10 PM

it should be the mother and father’s decision. not anyone elses.

the state should stay out of it.

I love how conservatives don’t whine about government intrusion when its their belief they want to be enforced.

Palin Steele on February 2, 2010 at 10:13 PM

I think developing life deserves legal protection around the point of viability. Perhaps, for that view, you can regard me as disgusting but enacting laws along those lines would be a considerable political achievement, beyond the status quo.

My problem with granting full rights at conception has to do with the logical implications and the complete political infeasibility.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 10:07 PM

The founders understood this quandary. Do you know how they reconciled it?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:13 PM

We may not be able to reliably ascertain brain activity in near-term babies. What do we do then?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 9:59 PM

We many not be able to ascertain brain activity in many individual 18 year olds, but we’ve decided to set the voting age at that level because it is a reasonable measure of adulthood in general.

Tests have identified brainwaves at about 8 weeks. If someone wanted to identify that point in time as the event where a person comes into being, I could agree.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 10:13 PM

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:10 PM

careful, your inner libertarian is leaking….:)

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:14 PM

you said a “universally recognized right”–a statement that is completely different than “it is recognized in every state.”

those are your words…

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:10 PM

How is it different? Do you think when I said “universal” I was talking about other countries? Or planets? That’s not my problem.

Self-defense is a complete defense to murder in every state.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Tests have identified brainwaves at about 8 weeks. If someone wanted to identify that point in time as the event where a person comes into being, I could agree.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 10:13 PM

What about weeks 0-7. There is no “coming” or “being” during that time? Are we to deny the obvious up until we see a chicken scratch trace on a pre-natal EEG?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:16 PM

How is it different? Do you think when I said “universal” I was talking about other countries? Or planets? That’s not my problem.

Self-defense is a complete defense to murder in every state.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 10:15 PM

By stating it is universally recognized that should equate to “all people.” ie, it is “universally recognized” that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Pretty indisputable. However, “all people” may not “universally recognize” the “right” to kill someone in “self defense.” Would you agree?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Palin Steele on February 2, 2010 at 10:01 PM

ahhh good old painful stool. do mommy and daddy know you are up playing on the intertubes? still living in thier basement, mooching off of them? keep that up and they might decide an extremely late term abortion might be in your future.

mrfixit on February 2, 2010 at 10:19 PM

There are many of us who are pro-choice who agree that NOW is really not representing us, for sure. They may command attention from the press, but they do not represent my own perspective.

I have no problem with pro-life statements or any of the remarks made about reducing abortion rates. Why would I?

I do have problems with pro-lifers who adopt a “shame” method. That’s destructive. I have a problem with pro-choice who do the same. For the same reason.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:19 PM

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:19 PM

is it comfy in the middle?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:21 PM

is it comfy in the middle?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Yeah, it actually is. NOW annoyed me way back in the 70′s, nevermind now.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:22 PM

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:19 PM

destructive? maybe for a few. educationally instructive? definately. if your actions cause you no shame, why them would even think about ceasing them?

mrfixit on February 2, 2010 at 10:23 PM

By stating it is universally recognized that should equate to “all people.” ie, it is “universally recognized” that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Pretty indisputable. However, “all people” may not “universally recognize” the “right” to kill someone in “self defense.” Would you agree?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Good god you’re tedious.

I was obviously speaking in a legal sense. And legally, it’s absolutely true. Self defense is a complete defense to murder in every single jurisdiction in the country.

I don’t give a c*** if someone, somewhere in the United States doesn’t recognize a right to kill someone in self defense. Stop wasting my time.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 10:23 PM

destructive? maybe for a few. educationally instructive? definately. if your actions cause you no shame, why them would even think about ceasing them?

mrfixit on February 2, 2010 at 10:23 PM

I’m properly grown up here. And I have my own moral compass set. Mostly, I have learned to mind my own business in life. Amazing how well that works.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:25 PM

do you and NOW have a “codependent relationship”? I mean, you mentioned that you are a pretty independent thinker and such yesterday. Tonight, I just notice that you state that you either “have problems” or don’t have problems with certain groups/people with their tactics/issues and such. Is there something you need to tell me about your codependency and problems, ann? :)

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:25 PM

BTW, that statement from Palin regarding the convention was really good.

YEAH! Very clear statement. I like it.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:26 PM

I don’t give a c*** if someone, somewhere in the United States doesn’t recognize a right to kill someone in self defense. Stop wasting my time.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 10:23 PM

I guess that throws some cold water on your incorrect assertion that there is a “universally recognized right” to kill someone in self defense then.

It’s pretty easy to demonstrate how wrong a troll is using his own words–and I’m only operating on the B+ game tonight.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:27 PM

do you and NOW have a “codependent relationship”? I mean, you mentioned that you are a pretty independent thinker and such yesterday. Tonight, I just notice that you state that you either “have problems” or don’t have problems with certain groups/people with their tactics/issues and such. Is there something you need to tell me about your codependency and problems, ann? :)

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:25 PM

LOL*

NOW has been run by some very odd people forever. They just remind me of …well, like dog rescue people. You know, the ones who love the dogs so much that they turn down anyone to actually adopt the dogs?

That’s NOW. Ideologues are tedious.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Stop wasting my time.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 10:23 PM

I see how you like to spend your time. I found you on youtube you lucky guy you. :)

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:29 PM

You know, the ones who love the dogs so much that they turn down anyone to actually adopt the dogs?

That’s NOW. Ideologues are tedious.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:28 PM

…and then the dogs die from poor care because they just loved them too much.

Gotta love liberals, all love, no common sense.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:30 PM

am I really the only one who doesn’t give 2 sh1ts about this non-issue?

Palin Steele on February 2, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Yeah …

Now go crawl back in your dark, dank, rotten hole.

Joe Pyne on February 2, 2010 at 10:31 PM

I’m properly grown up here. And I have my own moral compass set. Mostly, I have learned to mind my own business in life. Amazing how well that works.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Oh, really? And that is why you are a constant poster on this subject whenever it appears, because you just want to “mind my own business”? Yeah, I see that works just fine. You have no argument on this issue, except the argument that you really have no argument, and you just can’t understand what all the hubbub is about.

Ann, baby, you should have stayed in Canyon Country.

Joe Pyne on February 2, 2010 at 10:38 PM

I haven’t understood why this was such a divisive issue for 30 years. It just seems so obvious to me.

It’s a matter of personal choice, personal conviction, personal medical, and the rest of us need to stay out of it.

But then, nothing in life ever works out logically, so I have learned to simply accept it’s an incredibly “hot” topic that evokes irrational reactions and watch the show.

Simply being fairly detached annoys the heck of most of people, nevermind taking a hard stand.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:39 PM

Ann, baby, you should have stayed in Canyon Country.

Joe Pyne on February 2, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Honestly, it’s a general topic. I don’t know enough about Illinois politics to get involved on that thread.

I don’t post on this other than for that reason. Probably, that’s dumb. But it’s the truth.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:40 PM

This is such a deeply personal issue that it really must be left to the individual. It’s very similar to end-of-life decisions. That must also be left to the individual and the family.

Of course, the reality is that the state sometimes has to be involved. But we should always refrain from that whenever possible.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Similar to end of life issues? It is an end of life issue. The problem is, the individual at the end of life here isn’t capable of expressing his/her wishes.

pannw on February 2, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Similar to end of life issues? It is an end of life issue. The problem is, the individual at the end of life here isn’t capable of expressing his/her wishes.

pannw on February 2, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Very true. It’s the one codependent relationship that is actually biological.

Women really do matter. :)

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:46 PM

I guess that throws some cold water on your incorrect assertion that there is a “universally recognized right” to kill someone in self defense then.

No it doesn’t, because I was speaking in a legal sense. You failed to realize that. Because you’re an idiot.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Women really do matter. :)

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Yes, the newest ones matter too. They are the most vulnerable and their fellow women in NOW are adamantly anti-woman, an interesting oxymoron.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:50 PM

No it doesn’t, because I was speaking in a legal sense. You failed to realize that. Because you’re an idiot.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Hey Julio!
can you speak in the dialect that harry reid says that Mr. Obama doesn’t speak in, except when he wants to?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:51 PM

It must be a sophomore now… GJ Julio! Did Obama get you that McDonalds promotion you whined for?

daesleeper on February 2, 2010 at 10:52 PM

No it doesn’t, because I was speaking in a legal sense. You failed to realize that. Because you’re an idiot.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Well, there you go. Now you tell me! Because when you were speaking in the regular sense—then, a universally recognized right takes on a whole new meaning. *eyeroll*

BTW–did Mickie D’s up your wages to $4.18 an hour yet?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Why does the pro abortion crowd use the phrase “let the mother decide” or “it’s up to the mother and father”? No real mother or father would kill their child, that is absurd. Do women who’ve had abortions ever say “yeah, I was a mom once, until I decided to have my baby vacuumed out of me”? I doubt that very much and I doubt that they would care to be called a mother or father.

thevastlane on February 2, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Yes, the newest ones matter too. They are the most vulnerable and their fellow women in NOW are adamantly anti-woman, an interesting oxymoron.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:50 PM

It’s a cultural/historical issue. It’s being treated as though you’re a vessel. And it has a whale of alot to do with whose life do you choose, in some situations. I see it as being persnickety because someone I never met has an opinion on my life decisions.

But in any case, that’s a discussion that will bring the wrath of pro-lifers down on my head. *haha

I like the middle.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:53 PM

My problem with granting full rights at conception has to do with the logical implications and the complete political infeasibility.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 10:07 PM

The founders understood this quandary. Do you know how they reconciled it?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:13 PM

For the founders slavery was politically infeasible to outlaw, so they decided to put union first and let the states handle the matter for almost 100 years.

As far as the logical implications of separating the rights of the embryo from the mother shortly after conception, there doesn’t seem to be an analogy to what the founders dealt with. Though perhaps I’m missing it.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 10:55 PM

But in any case, that’s a discussion that will bring the wrath of pro-lifers down on my head. *haha

I like the middle.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:53 PM

awwwh, you’re an independent thinker. You’re a “grown woman”—and you don’t need my “codependent support”. What are you afraid of? Step out of the middle–take a stand for something you believe in and make your case. Cease with the mushing around from single issue to single issue and moralizing on every one.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:55 PM

It’s a matter of personal choice, personal conviction, personal medical, and the rest of us need to stay out of it.

Yep, and the baby has a choice … whoops, I guess not.

That argument, Ann, has been destroyed for decades, and you still use it?

Anyone who tries to make the argument that this is a “personal choice,” or this is a matter of “family decision,” cannot, and will not, say the same when it comes to putting Uncle Harry “to sleep” since he cannot do what he used to do, or “little Jimmy” because he has a degenitive disease and won’t live long.

This is not a decayed tooth we are talking about here, Ann, this is a human being. Until you understand that basic fact, you will continue to be in the dark on this issue.

Joe Pyne on February 2, 2010 at 10:57 PM

As far as the logical implications of separating the rights of the embryo from the mother shortly after conception, there doesn’t seem to be an analogy to what the founders dealt with. Though perhaps I’m missing it.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 10:55 PM

good, you’re on the right track. The founders rooted man’s law in God’s law. Man’s law, by origin, is imperfect. The founders understood and believed that what they didn’t pay for (suffer consequences from) in this life, that they would be judged for after they died. So, despite the sticky moral/ethical issues we have and apply imperfect law against–there will come a day when these decisions will be reconciled against God’s law, and God loves justice and righteousness. This should give us considerable pause when considering issues such as how we treat unborn babies. Would you agree.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 10:59 PM

What are you afraid of?

Fear isn’t the issue. It’s just knowing that it’s a “hot” issue, which means there’s really not much debate left. People are pretty sure how they think and the idiocy is thinking that argumentation will make a difference.

I think, personally, that nobody knows until they are in the position. I liked Palin’s discussion on just that topic. She actually moved the conversation forward, in my opinion. She knew what she was facing. She made a very private and important choice that was right for her. She’s shared that, without being obnoxious, either. She didn’t turn it into some slam against others.

That may seem “muddling,” but I like that approach a lot.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Fear isn’t the issue. It’s just knowing that it’s a “hot” issue, which means there’s really not much debate left.

there’s always debate left Ann….come on now… respectful debate, discussion..where’s that girl that told me that last night?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 11:01 PM

This is not a decayed tooth we are talking about here, Ann, this is a human being. Until you understand that basic fact, you will continue to be in the dark on this issue.

Joe Pyne on February 2, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Actually, an abortion is quite a lot less intrusive and less painful than dealing with serious dental issues.

You’re right. They aren’t comparable.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 11:01 PM

She made a very private and important choice that was right for her

FIFY Ann. There is right, and there is wrong. Between those two, there is no middle, honey.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 11:02 PM

But in any case, that’s a discussion that will bring the wrath of pro-lifers down on my head. *haha

I like the middle.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 10:53 PM

How can you be in the middle when you are pro-abortion? You have made a choice, you are not in “the middle,” you are as much a part of this debate as anybody, so stop seeking the higher ground. You have made a decision, now back up your argument!

Joe Pyne on February 2, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Fear isn’t the issue. It’s just knowing that it’s a “hot” issue, which means there’s really not much debate left. People are pretty sure how they think and the idiocy is thinking that argumentation will make a difference.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM

That sums up about…what…75% of all political issues ‘discussed’ on the radio/TV/Internet?

I guess there really isn’t that much new under the sun, technical prowess notwithstanding.

Dark-Star on February 2, 2010 at 11:02 PM

respectful debate, discussion..where’s that girl that told me that last night?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Seriously, Ted, it’s similar to what it must have been like to discuss slavery in the past!

They were lucky. They had to write tracts and print them and distribute them by hand. I mean, seriously, what more can be said on the topic?

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM

She’s shared that, without being obnoxious, either. She didn’t turn it into some slam against others.

But, others such as NOW perceive Palin’s story and Tebow’s story as a slam against their position. It’s all in the perception. Simply telling the story is unacceptable to them. Why is that?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 11:04 PM

That sums up about…what…75% of all political issues ‘discussed’ on the radio/TV/Internet?

I guess there really isn’t that much new under the sun, technical prowess notwithstanding.

Dark-Star on February 2, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Wow, it’s still sort of shiny and new to me. It’s all interesting. But I suppose you’re probably right. I’m just sort of a “newbie.”

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 11:04 PM

But, others such as NOW perceive Palin’s story and Tebow’s story as a slam against their position. It’s all in the perception. Simply telling the story is unacceptable to them. Why is that?

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 11:04 PM

I think they are waiting for the “moral” of the story, which is usually a shaming and highly negative opinion on someone who makes a different decision.

That’s just my take.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 11:05 PM

They had to write tracts and print them and distribute them by hand. I mean, seriously, what more can be said on the topic?
AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM

That God loves babies and he knit them together in their mother’s wombs and he has a plan and a purpose for their lives too—just like the NOW ladies.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Actually, an abortion is quite a lot less intrusive and less painful than dealing with serious dental issues.

You’re right. They aren’t comparable.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 11:01 PM

1. How would you know, unless you had an abortion. Full disclosure Ann?

2. I guess the pain the baby feels when the surgeon sticks the probe in and sucks out it’s brains is not equivalent. Because, of course, you know the baby feels no pain, right Ann?

Joe Pyne on February 2, 2010 at 11:07 PM

How can you be in the middle when you are pro-abortion? You have made a choice, you are not in “the middle,” you are as much a part of this debate as anybody, so stop seeking the higher ground. You have made a decision, now back up your argument!

Joe Pyne on February 2, 2010 at 11:02 PM

My position? It’s just not your business what I decide to do with my life.

Period.

In fact, it’s flipping aggravating.

LOL*

I view a lot of pro-lifers like mosquitoes, always buzzing around to suck blood from people.

My opinion? I think they need a hobby other than sticking their nose in other people’s lives so much.

But, would anyone ever really pay attention to my opinion?

Heck no! Mosquitoes exist. And this issue ain’t going away in my lifetime.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Joe Pyne on February 2, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Joe, I’m a woman and have lots of women friends. I’d be surprised if many men really ever discussed this issue on a real level with the women they know.

Just guessing…

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 11:10 PM

I think they are waiting for the “moral” of the story, which is usually a shaming and highly negative opinion on someone who makes a different decision.

That’s just my take.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 11:05 PM

no, that’s a projection. If someone commits a shameful act, shouldn’t a feeling of shame be a normal follow-on result?

Conflating a “different decision” to be a morally superior one to a “fundamentally right” decision is an improper comparison

gnite. till later.

ted c on February 2, 2010 at 11:10 PM

Question for the men. Have you truly ever talked about this on a personal level with women in your life?

Is the discussion just always the same kind of religious morality deal?

“We” don’t believe in this. OK, good, move on now.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 11:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7