dagblog - Comments for "Is Tim Tebow’s Mother Breaking the Ninth Commandment?"

I just saw this article and

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:49:00 +0000

In reply to As I mentioned, I'm sure she

I just saw this article and wanted to remark on your comment, "because they might be depriving the world of a child who might grow up to be extraordinary.." All children are extraordinary and your comment is actually the offensive one. The article is meant to show that when an abortion happens we lose a human being who in some way contributes to society and to their family. That is a fact, not an opinion, and all people contribute in some way.

I appreciate your blog and

Luke — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:52:00 +0000

In reply to Is Tim Tebow’s Mother Breaking the Ninth Commandment?

I appreciate your blog and I'd like to add something, yes I fully agree it is a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, absolutely, but does she have the right to take the life of another human inside of her body?

Wow! really wonderful and

ian — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 07:30:39 +0000

In reply to Yes, I read that too. And had

Wow! really wonderful and creative post, I just visited first time on your blog by searching letter format. Thanks, i'll back to reply.

Good catch Nebton. That's

Contrarian — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:40:10 +0000

In reply to I try not to pontificate too

Good catch Nebton. That's what bothers me about it.

I haven't brought it up because the people who are offended by this ad seem to be: 1. offended by the idea of a prolife ad; 2. inferring weird intended meanings (weird in that they rely on prochoice assumptions and it's a prolife ad); 3. going after the poor guy's mom (there's a guaranteed way to lose a PR battle).

Practically everyone who is prolife- heck, probably 90% of those active in the movement - are in favor of some 'hard case' exceptions. (Most of that 10% are priests and nuns.)

I don't personally know anyone advocating that abortions are always wrong, even if it the life of the mother is at risk.

Also there's the fact that it was expected that Tim would be severely brain damaged. I do know people who would still oppose abortion in such cases, but I consider them to be quite extreme. (They're all very religious - which is something that can make me a bit uncomfortable.)

I try not to pontificate too

Nebton — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:32:18 +0000

In reply to Maybe I got schooled on the

I try not to pontificate too much on abortion as it's a very complicated issue, and I like to keep to simple things like quantum mechanics, but I'd like to point out something else that seems to have been glossed over here. If taken at face value, what Ms. Tebow really seems to be advocating is that abortions are always wrong, even if it the life of the mother is at risk.

Maybe I got schooled on the

Orlando — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:34:12 +0000

In reply to Wolfrum, it's a rare pleasure

Maybe I got schooled on the Superbowl (which I didn't care about even when I lived in the U.S. ) But I think my point still stands. Abortions are illegal in the Philippines in all cases. There is no exception for the live of the mother, although in the late 1980s there was a confusing addition to the law that said the life of the mother and the "life" of the fetus should receive equal consideration. This could be taken to mean it's okay to save the life of the mother, but since there are still prison terms for anyone involved in the decision to have or to carryout an abortion, including the pregnant woman, her doctor, her husband, her parents, and her friends, I find it highly unlikely that a licensed practicing doctor would take the risk. And, even if a doctor would take the risk, the fact that there are several different versions of the story (she was told to abort in the 7th month for her own health, she was told to abort after the dysentery because the fetus was certainly damaged beyond repair) suggests that either reporting is shoddy or Ms. Tebow has told different versions of her story.

I think she should clarify. I don't think a 30-second commercial spot paid for by an organization that lies routinely to advance their agenda is going to provide a clarification.

And, the original point still holds: Yay for Ms. Tebow and her decision. She got the son she wanted. That she is using her good fortune to lecture, or at the very least to lecture by proxy, other women about their own decisions is offensive.

Wait, what? Marxists assign

Nebton — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:41:19 +0000

In reply to Desperate, aren't you???

Wait, what? Marxists assign value or "merit" to the baser bottom line of profit? I thought Marxists eschewed profit and it was the Capitalists who worshipped profit? I am intrigued by this alternative world you live in and desire any pamphlets you may be able to provide…

There seem to be a number of

Bob In Pacifica, California — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:27:48 +0000

In reply to From GenghisL "There is only

There seem to be a number of loose ends to the story, and I don't expect any thirty-second commercial to give the details.

So the question really is, "What is the point of this story?" That pregnancies that aren't aborted can grow into healthy, happy people? Okay. This one did. Others didn't. You could conceivably interview the mothers of people on death row who could give their stories of how they couldn't afford to raise their kids, or how they hated their kids and never wanted them and beat them as children. I doubt that there's anyone who wants to spend a few million for a commercial about that, though.

It turns out that 75% of all pregnancies (fertilized eggs) in humans naturally abort, most within a couple of days of fertilization and without the woman ever knowing she was pregnant. Depending on your belief system and what constitutes the beginning of life and how involved your God is in women's wombs, that would make God responsible for about 20 billion abortions over the last century. If Mrs. Tebow is saying that God intervened with her fetus, then what does she say about the 20 billion He either killed or allowed to die, taking the choice of life out of those mothers' hands? If God saved Tim then He is, by default, The Great Abortionist In The Sky.

Likewise, if one could make

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:26:07 +0000

In reply to From GenghisL "There is only

Likewise, if one could make an ad featuring someone who had been aborted explaining how they'd wished they'd been alllowed to live and develop into someone who could enjoy life and have an opportunity to contribute to society, that might be a good prolife ad.

I'm glad that you made this point because it really gets to the heart of the matter. If you believe that a fetus is a "someone," I can see how this might make sense. But if you see the fetus as a collection of cells with the potential of becoming a "someone," then it makes no more sense than to have all the trillions of potential "someones" from sperm-egg combinations that never happeneded complain that they'd never been given a chance to live. Thus, as always in this debate, it comes back to the question of the whether a fetus is a human being, and all other arguments are essentially irrelevant.

Rather, the point is to attach a face and a voice to a life that came close to being aborted to stand in for those who were.

I won't speculate about the intent of the ad, but I hear in its appeal a suggestion that an abortion would have cost not only the Tebows, but the whole country because we would have lost this fine upstanding athlete. Putting a famous criminal up there would not have had that appeal. People would have muttered "should have aborted." If you don't hear that appeal, OK, but I'm sure that I'm not the only one.

Wolfrum, it's a rare pleasure

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:04:05 +0000

In reply to I struggle to see where

Wolfrum, it's a rare pleasure to spar with you in the threads (over a maligned damsel, no less). As I follow the thread, Orlando accused Pam Tebow of lying about having had a choice to abort because abortions are illegal in the Philippines. A commenter replied that they're legal if the mother's life is threatened. Orlando replied that Tebow never said that her life was in danger. Another commenter (or maybe the same one) replied with a quote from Tebow saying that the doctors said that her life was in danger. If that is correct, and I haven't fact-checked it, it looks like Orlando's accusation, the one from the big comment at the very top, is false.

With respect to the second point, I was just addressing the logic of Tebow's argument, not the rhetorical impact of the ad. I know that people are swayed by all sorts of absurdities much more blatant than my logical parsing. With respect to the possible influence that the ad may have on the electorate, of course it matters.