Orlando's picture

    Is Tim Tebow’s Mother Breaking the Ninth Commandment?

    By Orlando on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 11:01pm | Politics

    During the Superbowl, Focus on the Family, James Dobson’s group, will run a commercial spot featuring Tim Tebow’s family. Family lore has it that in the late 1980’s, while pregnant and living in the Philippines, Tebow’s mother became ill with amoebic dysentery and doctors there recommended that she abort the pregnancy because they said the medication she took to recover from the illness would cause damage to the fetus.

    She refused to have the abortion and twenty some years later her son is a star college quarterback about to go through the NFL draft. And—oh my goodness—if she had listened to doctors’ advice the world would have been deprived of a super-athlete-all-around-good-guy.

    I don’t mean to diminish Mrs. Tebow’s decision. She is, of course, entitled to make her own choices about her own body. She believed abortion was the wrong choice for her. It is the leap of reasoning that I find offensive: I didn’t end my pregnancy, even though doctors told me to, and I ended up with an extraordinary athlete for a son. If you abort your pregnancy, you might be giving up your avenue to fame and fortune.

    Now, as it turns out, the story may not be as clear cut as it seems. According to Gloria Allred, in the Philippines, abortion is illegal and punishable by imprisonment in all circumstances, and it has been since 1930. The law also mandates a prison sentence for anyone who assists in the procedure, including doctors.

    I don’t know if Mrs. Tebow is lying, but I am interested to hear the story fleshed out in more detail. Did the doctors suggest she travel back to the United States for the medical procedure, for example? It seems highly unlikely to me that a doctor in the Philippines would risk his or her career, let alone a few years in prison, to perform an abortion, especially considering the diagnosis doesn’t appear to have included a risk to her own health.

    In any case, Mrs. Tebow is confident that she made the right decision. That’s great. She has a son to be proud of. But I’ll thank her and all anti-abortion advocates to be confident in their own decisions and leave the rest of us to be confident in ours.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    "Now, as it turns out, the story may not be as clear cut as it seems. According to Gloria Allred, in the Philippines, abortion is illegal and punishable by imprisonment in all circumstances, and it has been since 1930. The law also mandates a prison sentence for anyone who assists in the procedure, including doctors."

     

    That makes Allred the liar, not Mrs. Tebow.

    Allred claimed that under the law in that country, abortion is not allowed in any circumstance, not even danger to mother's life.

    Allred told a blatant lie there. Here's proof:

    http://www.asap-asia.org/country-profile-philippines.html

    although the Penal Code does not list specific exceptions to the general prohibition on abortion, under the general criminal law principles of necessity as set forth in article 11(4) of the Code, an abortion may be legally performed to save the pregnant woman’s life.2 A decision of the Supreme Court also impliedly recognized abortion to save the mother’s life.3 The United Nations recognizes that abortion in the Philippines is permitted only in instances in which the pregnant woman's life is endangered.4


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 11:46pm

    Yes, I read that too. And had the story told by Mrs. Tebow implied that her life had been in danger, I might have found it relevant. Her story, however, implies that the medication she had to take to cure the illness would have irrevocably harmed her fetus, not her. There is nothing in the code you quote that exempts an abortion under those circumstances.


    by Orlando on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 11:50pm

    And are you saying that doctors of affluent women never lie about such things? In the US, long before abortion was legal, would regularly lie for wealthy women patients to get approval to provide them an abortion claiming their lives were at stake.


    by mm232 (not verified) on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 6:46pm

    "had the story told by Mrs. Tebow implied that her life had been in danger, I might have found it relevant.' -Orlando

    Wow.  It took less than 3 minutes for me to find this:

    Coaching character


    By BY SUZY A. RICHARDSON
    Sun staff writer

    Published: Sunday, October 7, 2007 at 6:01 a.m.
    Last Modified: Saturday, October 6, 2007 at 12:00 a.m.

     

    Just before her pregnancy, Pam fell into a coma after contracting amoebic dysentery, a bacteria transmitted through contaminated drinking water. During her recovery, she received a series of strong medications. And even though she discontinued the regimen when she discovered the pregnancy, doctors told Pam the fetus had been damaged.

    Doctors later told Pam that her placenta had detached from the uterine wall, a condition known as placental abruption, which can deprive the fetus of oxygen and nutrients. Doctors expected a stillbirth, Pam said, and they encouraged her to terminate the pregnancy.

    "They thought I should have an abortion to save my life from the beginning all the way through the seventh month," she recalled.

    [emphasis added mine]

    http://www.gainesville.com/article/20071007/NEWS/710060317?p=2&tc=pg&tc=ar


    by Contrarian on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 9:28pm

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


    by ian (not verified) on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:30am

    And of all people, Allred as a lawyer should know laws get broken everyday in this country and around the world, regardless of the profession of those breaking the law, including doctors, so even if abortion is banned in all circumstances, the claim the law could not possibly be broken is laughable. And let's keep in mind here the abortionist argument is that prior 1973, women did have abortions, reardless of the laws against it. Allred is being disingenuous.

    And let me remind you on the Scott Peterson case, it was Allred who said that he needed to be charged with double homicide.

    So there and then when it suits her agenda, she admitted to the unborn (in this case of Laci Peterson) is a human being and to cause death to that unborn is homicide.

     

     


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 11:52pm

    I think I've confused the issue by quoting Allred. She was simply noting a law that has existed in the Philippines since 1930. She didn't write the law and her previous cases and arguments are irrelevant.

    by Orlando on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 11:59pm

    From that website posted, the likelihood that medical professionals in an accredited hospital in the Phillippines would break the law in such a detailed way explaining how the fetus was supposedly "damaged" (Pam Tebow's description of the incident) seems remote judging by the passage:

    "Because of the strong influence of the Catholic Church on framing the issue of abortion merely as mortal sin, and the media’s adoption of such framing, doctors and medical practitioners are also at the forefront in condemning women who have undergone abortion. Accounts of women being labeled criminals, and maltreated in various ways in hospitals when seeking assistance for a botched abortion, or even a spontaneous abortion, are widespread."

    It is likelier, according to the website, that a doctor or nurse would CONDEMN a woman if she were to contemplate an abortion. 

    Also, historically, abortions prior to Roe v. Wade in the U.S., and indeed in many societies where abortion is prohibited, rarely ever took place in "hospitals" and with help of well-trained medical professionals.  In most of these cases, the abortions were held in secret, oftentimes in unsanitary conditions.  This is apparently the case in the Phillippines. The idea that a physician would risk prison time, loss of reputation and revocation of livelihood by recommending a procedure that has such heavy legal and social repercussions in the Phillippines is somewhat dubious without additional confirmation.

    Still, I won't outright claim that Pam Tebow is a liar. She was very ill at the time, and was in a coma at some point. It was also a long time ago. She may well have misheard or misremembered what was communicated to her by an attending physician. In any case, people are right to at least be wary of accepting her anecdote on face when it is being used as a lynchpin claim for a controversial agenda.


    by skrybe (not verified) on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 12:27am

    Your headline reference to the Ninth Commandment will confuse the hell out of anyone raised Catholic or Lutheran, Orlando. You mean she's lying.


    by acanuck on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 3:06pm

    Anyone who is taught the 10 commandments know that it refers to lying, but it also refers to making false witness, which coincidently is what the author of the blog article is doing.


    by mm232 (not verified) on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 6:41pm

    It's called bearing false witness. But the point I was making is that Catholics number the commandments differently. Nine is about coveting your neighbor's wife. Ten is about coveting his goods. Eight is about lying.


    by acanuck on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 8:06pm

    Sorry. I looked that one up and the list I found had it as ninth. How was I to know that religion is inconsistent?


    by Orlando on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 8:23pm

    Desperate, aren't you??? ;)

    Not surprised that your ilk would reduce the woman's son down to a thing. As a mother, he's the son who she loves, who made her proud, from the time he was born, for things that you would dismiss, because you find the concept of love inconvenient. Perhaps you assign value or "merit" to the baser bottom line of profit, but then again, that is what Marxists tend to do. Which is why all the things of great beauty, of depth, that have inspired people the world over for centuries have not come from Marxist societies. Communists and socialists are only capable of slaughter, genocide and slavery, because they destroy anything that doesn't conform to a cog like state.

    Abortion is illegal in the Philippines, but it is not rare. There is one legal option for abortion in that nation, and that is if the life of the mother is at risk. The physician recommending the abortion goes before a panel to make the case. There are many illegal abortions in the Philippines, and rarely are those performing them prosecuted.

    What's more, women since the '70s who could afford it are informed of their options as to where they could travel to, to have a legal abortion performed. I do not doubt that Mrs. Tebow was informed that she could travel back to the States or elsewhere to have the procedure done. But again, you need to attack, demean and slander this woman, because she refuses to become just another cog in your wheel of conformity. You might not understand it, but your ideology is rejected, because it's cold, empty and vacuous.


    by mm232 (not verified) on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 6:39pm

    Mm seems to have laid bare your desperate, unloving, profit-seeking, non-beauty-seeing soul, Orlando. Maybe it's time you packed up your Maxist inclinations to slaughter, genocide and slavery, and high-tailed it to some country where they appreciate your ilk. And they have more interesting food.


    by acanuck on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 8:18pm

    As I mentioned, I'm sure she is happy every day that she made the right choice. For her. But it does not follow that because she is thrilled to have her son, all women should not consider abortion as an option. Because Tebow is a star athlete, the argument insinuated by the story is that other women should not choose abortion, regardless of the circumstances, because they might be depriving the world of a child who may grow up to be extraordinary. That's as ridiculous as it is offensive.


    by Orlando on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 8:28pm

    I like the controversial aspect of your piece, but i think it would have been possible to discuss the issue without implying that mrs. tebow may have been lying. yes, you merely posed the question, but i would agree that engaging in this kind of 'guilt by implication' tactic while discussing an issue as heated as abortion is counter-productive.


    by Deadman on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 9:16pm

    Perhaps. But it is offensive that the story implies that one baby grew up to be a superstar and therefore no woman should have an abortion because of the chance that she'd be depriving the world of an extraordinary person. Maybe that's not Ms. Tebow's intention, but it is certainly the intention of Focus on the Family in exploiting her family's story. Since I assume they are doing so with the permission of the Tebow family, than at least they should elaborate on the story. Who suggested that she have an abortion? The doctors in the Philippines? That seems unlikely, given the law there. In one interview, she says they urged her to abort because the fetus was damaged. In another interview (linked by a commenter above), she says they told her to abort in the 7th month because of her health. So, which is it? Or is it both? Interviewers can skew information, so I'd like to hear it straight from her. Is the Superbowl on tonight? Maybe the ad will clear the story up.

    In any case, it still leaves the basic message: I didn't choose abortion so you shouldn't either. And to that, I say a very impolite "Fuck you."


    by Orlando on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 9:40pm

    'Is the Superbowl on tonight?" ????? you really are in another country aren't you?? it's next sunday. I'll be interested in hearing the commercial as well. If the ad is the slightest bit political my only real beef is with CBS for accepting it. Pro-lifers see abortion as murder of the innocent and feel they have a right to get in the business of others so I just can't find anything surprising about the implication of the commercial, as silly as i find it. by the way, just to get it on the record, even tho this too is beside the point, Tim Tebow will be an inconsequential pro player.

    i just feel that questioning the truthfulness of someone is akin to calling them guilty, like Lou Dobbs questioning whether Obama was born in America but insisting that he didn't have an opinion about it.


    by Deadman on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 9:58pm

    Questioning someone's truthfulness is not the same thing as calling them guilty. Lou Dobbs questioned whether Obama was born in America after he'd released his birth certificate and after he'd been elected because Lou Dobbs is a sore loser.

    This commercial hasn't aired yet and the story she's asserting has, in my opinion as well as Gloria Allred's, some holes. Allred is threatening to file complaints with the FCC over truth in advertising, which I think might be a little over the top. It's giving James Dobson attention he doesn't deserve. But again, Ms. Tebow has willingly put herself into the public eye. I believe she should be accountable for what she asserts.


    by Orlando on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 10:07pm

    Orlando wrote, "the argument insinuated by the story is that other women should not choose abortion, regardless of the circumstances, because they might be depriving the world of a child who may grow up to be extraordinary. That's as ridiculous as it is offensive... it is offensive that the story implies that one baby grew up to be a superstar and therefore no woman should have an abortion because of the chance that she'd be depriving the world of an extraordinary person."

    Are you focusing on cases where birth defects are expected?  If not, I don't see how it is offensive (or ridiculous) if someone suggests that (practically all) babies are born with a chance to become an extraordinary person.



    by Contrarian on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 3:34am

    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.  


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 8:49am

    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…


    by Nebton on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 11:41am

    I have found 3 articles from April 2008, March 2009, and December 2005 that tell a different tale about legal abortions in the Philippines, unlike what is being said in this and many articles about Mrs. Tebow.  The Philippines did allow abortions to save the mother's life.  The pro Abortion movement is what is full of the propaganda.  See the links below to the articles if they are still there.  I had to search long and hard to find anything before this controversy for some truth.  BTW these articles are from pro abortion movement itself when they were pushing to legalize birthcontrol abortion in the Philippines.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2280334020080425

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090302-191913/Having-no-RH-law-is-pro-abortion

    http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/ht/ht005729.htm


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 11:10pm

    The message we should all take away from Ms. Tebow's story, is that she had a choice. She exercised her choice, and it turned out well for her. Every woman should have that same choice.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 4:03pm

    or...

    The message we should all take away from Ms. Tebow's story, is that her son never had a choice. His mother exercised her choice, and he survived.  The world is a better place because of it. In this rather unusual case, the mother's life seems to have been at stake, but under ordinary circumstances we need to maintain that no one should be allowed to choose to take an innocent human life.


    by Contrarian on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 8:03pm

    What a wacky thread this has turned out to be. I do think that you got a bit schooled Orlando, on everything from the facts of the case to the superbowl schedule to the order of the 10 commandments. Not that I would have done any better.

    Personally, I don't see how Mrs. Tebow's ad matters one whit, whether she was truthful or not. While it's always a pleasure to catch Dobson involved in misrepresentation, a lying Mrs. Tebow would have no significance on the abortion debate. But nor would an honest Mrs. Tebow. Sure Gators fans, not to mention Tim, are lucky that Mrs. Tebow didn't abort. They're also lucky that the sperm containing Tim's athletic chromosomes swerved left instead of right or vice-versa. They're lucky that Mrs. Tebow met Mr. Tebow and that the two of the them decided to make a little Tebow together on the very night that the Heisman-ready sperm was ready to do the wild thing with the Heisman-ready egg.

    Or maybe they weren't. Maybe there was a Nobel Prize sperm waiting in wings that never got its moment to shine because of that damn Heisman sperm. If only she'd aborted! And if we're getting into counterfactuals, maybe we should have all the women who gave birth to serial killers, terrorists, and investment bankers get up there and tell the world how they wished that they'd been able to abort so that they might have had a better kid. What an excellent argument that would be for abortion.

    There is only one argument along these lines that would have any bearing on the whole matter and that would be for women who weren't as lucky as Mrs. Tebow, the ones who died in childbirth, to get up and explain how they'd wished they'd had or been able to have abortions so they might have lived (and given birth later to healthy children, maybe even Heisman Trophy winners). But I guess that we won't be hearing from them.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 9:40pm

    A wacky thread indeed, Genghis, and one I'm proud to have played a bit role in. Your dissection of the problem with all "what-if" arguments is masterful. And it brought to mind the Monty Python song, "Every Sperm Is Precious," which always makes me smile. So the Tebows' ad has already, indirectly, brought some joy into the world.


    by acanuck on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 10:32pm

    I struggle to see where Orlando was "schooled." She qualified her point, and linked to the prominent person that made them. Nor was she wrong in the numbering of the commandments. As for the thread itself, this is one of the reasons I rarely comment on my own blog posts. Unless I've truly screwed up the facts (which Orlando did not) my comment is the one at very top, and I try to avoid confusing the issue in comment threads.

    As for Mrs. Tebow's effect on the abortion debate, I have to say I find your opinion on it a bit naive, Genghis. Recent developments especially have shown we have a quite conservative and politicized judicial branch. Should the correct argument come to the SCOTUS, Roe v. Wade will be gone and abortion will be made illegal in the U.S. Of this I have very little doubt. The fact that the ad is sponsored by Focus on the Family, to me, makes the intent of this ad quite clear.

    I have seen someone I know watch a Fox News segment revising the history of Joseph McCarthy, talking about all the spies he outed and what a benefit he was to the nation. The person in question said "how about that" and now believes that report verbatim. To have the mother of a famous athlete do an ad like this most definitely will have an affect. There are swayable "Independents" on all issues.


    by William K. Wolfrum on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 5:27am

    William  K. Wolfrum, I only bring this up because your comment dealt with public perception, naivety, and the susceptibility of low information voters,  You wrote that, "Should the correct argument come to the SCOTUS, Roe v. Wade will be gone and abortion will be made illegal in the U.S."  This is, at the very least a misleading statement.  As you're probably aware, there is a common  misconception amongst the American public that overturning RvW would result in abortion being criminalized in the U.S.  Your choice of words feeds into that.  There are many states in which regardless of the status of RvW, abortion becoming illegal is a virtual impossibility (at least in your and my lifetime, and likely that of the generation to follow ).  Frankly, I cannot imagine a likely scenario which would result in more than 4 or 5 states banning abortion (even with so-called "hard case" exemptions) within half a century of overturning RvW.  Those are the same states BTW where there is already such a lack of abortion providers that there is effectively much less access to abortion than in the rest of the country.


    by Contrarian on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 8:03am

    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.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 8:04am

    Maybe I got schooled on the Superbowl (which I didn't care about even when I lived in the U.S. Laughing) 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.


    by Orlando on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 9:34pm

    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.


    by Nebton on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 9:32am

    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.)

     

     


    by Contrarian on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 6:40pm

    From GenghisL "There is only one argument along these lines that would have any bearing on the whole matter and that would be for women who weren't as lucky as Mrs. Tebow, the ones who died in childbirth, to get up and explain how they'd wished they'd had or been able to have abortions so they might have lived"

    You're getting very close here to making the point of the ad.  If one could make an ad featuring women who died in childbirth explaining how they'd wished they'd been able to have abortions so they might have lived, then that could be an effective prochoice commercial.  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.

    Of course, in both instances you have the problem that the principals are dead.

    "Gators fans, not to mention Tim, are lucky that Mrs. Tebow didn't abort. They're also lucky that .... the two of the them decided to make a little Tebow together on the very night that the Heisman-ready sperm was ready to do the wild thing with the Heisman-ready egg."

    The point of the Tebow ad isn't that if you don't abort your baby you'll become the proud mother of a photogenic athlete with expectations of fame and fortune.  Frankly I'm surprised that anyone would suggest anything along those lines.  As you pointed out, one never knows what sort of person someone will grow into.  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.

    You could do basically the same thing from the other point of view.  It could feature a woman who lived in a country where abortion was illegal and who nearly died from complications of her pregnancy - but despite objections from her family she got an abortion in another country and narrowly escaped death.   If the woman happened to be a successful actress (which would help in getting the ad produced), then only a complete fool would suggest that the message was supposed to be that if you get an abortion, then you'll become a famous actress.

    "Maybe we should have all the women who gave birth to serial killers, terrorists, and investment bankers get up there and tell the world how they wished that they'd been able to abort so that they might have had a better kid. "

    It isn't the case that whether or not saving someone's life is a good thing is contingent upon their leading a praiseworthy life.  It's a good thing because now they'll have the opportunity.


    by Contrarian on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 5:34am

    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.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 8:26am

    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.


    by Bob In Pacifica... (not verified) on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 10:27am

    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?


    by Luke (not verified) on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 7:52am

    Latest Comments