The Tim Tebow Super Bowl furor is one of those teapot tempests which blow in every once in a while. The pro-lifers support the ad, which reportedly discusses his mother’s choice not to have an abortion, and the pro-choicers claim that it is an attempt to turn public opinion against abortion. CBS changed their long-standing policy against controversial ads during the Super Bowl and will now accept this advertisement from the conservative group, Focus on the Family.
The focus of the ad is that Tim Tebow’s mom was advised, for health reasons, to abort her baby, but she declined the doctor’s advice and Tim Tebow was born. Tebow is a devout Christian, as fans already know, and he has decided to put his money, well, you know where.
Public opinion is already against abortion. Who sits around thinking what a dandy thing it is, how everyone should have one, and how great a job it is? Let’s be rational. It’s not abortion that needs PR, any more than cancer needs a defending spokesperson. The reasons women have abortions are varied, and for many it is not an easy choice. What pro-choice activists should be promoting is abortion rights. If the public does not perceive they are doing that, then they are failing at their mission.
It would be disingenuous of me to write an article that confronts the issue of abortion without clearly identifying my side of the fence. That’s a problem. I have never been one to fence-sit (in my misguided imagination I always imagine sitting on a picket fence. Ouch!). I have very strongly held feelings and opinions about the issue of abortion rights. I believe that a woman should have the right to have an abortion if she so desires. I believe that for whatever reason a woman might seek an abortion, it’s none of my business. I believe I would never have an abortion. Lucky for me, I’ll never have to make that decision. I can’t choose between pro-life and pro-choice because neither is right for me.
Let’s say I’m pregnant (just don’t say it to my husband, he’d have a stroke. Or he’d call the National Enquirer). Okay, I’m pregnant and, to put it nicely, it’s an unwanted pregnancy. I understand that pro-lifers interpret that as an unwanted child, but bear with me, this is hypothetical. What are my options? I could have an abortion, I could give birth and give the child up for adoption, or I could give birth and keep the baby. Unfortunately in our society, some women choose a fourth option: give birth, then throw the baby in a dumpster and hope never to be caught. Pro-choice should mean pro-options. A woman should be aware of all the options and be allowed to make the choice that’s right for her.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jon Sobel
I don't know, Miss Bob... I'm not sure how your "none of my business" opinion is distinct from what most people would think of as "pro-choice." To me, whatever a person's views on what they would do themselves, it's their views on the rights of others that matter in this context.
2 - Neil
I have to second Jon's comment. The pro-choice movement is not named so accidentally; the idea is that legal and safe access to abortion be a freely available *choice*. I don't think you'll find many pro-choice advocates advocating abortion as the best or only choice, so...where do you part ways with the pro-choice movement, precisely? There are plenty of advocates who feel they wouldn't *personally* make that decision, but still value their right to do so.
Here's NARAL's position page on abortion. Where do you part ways?
3 - Jim
What does the author and the first couple of commentators mean? That woman have rights, even value the right, to be able to allow a physician to kill (I'll save you the descriptions of the brutal methods) the vulnerable human life that is completely dependent at this time and that this innocent one doesn't have the right to continue living? Because of the unjust law that legalized abortion we have over 3000 a day killed, countless woman trying to live out their lives in denial of the real pain, and countless men who are too cowardly to support the woman (over half would have carried their baby if the fathers were supportive), and men who have had no say in their child's fate. We have lost the sense of the common good and the meaning of life and love. Imagine one saying I wouldn't personally abuse my loved ones, but I wouldn't intefere with a person's right to choose to do so in the privacy of their homes. That is almost as ludicrous as what many are saying today about abortion except that abortion is even more brutal. Woman will find real choices from the many pro-life groups such as Birthrite and real healing from Rachel's Vineyard.
4 - Neil
No Jim, that's not what we're--or at least *I'm*--saying. What you purport to be fact--your framing of a fetus as "an innocent life"-- is anything but. You're discussing a matter of faith, opinion, and personal philosophy. Think about how disgusted you feel when you hear someone call a fetus "nothing more than a collection of cells". That's roughly how I feel about you when you try to get away with imposing your, in my estimation FLAWED worldview on this contentious and personal issue. I find it otherly unconvincing and naive to pretend complete equivalency to a human life for a fetus at all stages of development.
For what it's worth, there *is* a strong philosophical argument for believing in the fetus as human life and *still* advocating a moral right to an abortion. It's not my belief, but it's a good read, that may make you think.
I'll find the link and post it.
5 - Neil
Judith Jarvis Thomson, from 1971.
6 - Jim
Neil,
I hoped that we have gone beyond the rhetoric that would frame human life in the womb a matter of personal philosophy, religion or opinion. Science alone validates the reality, all that we are is present at conception and the heart of the little one (latin meaning of fetus) is beating before the woman even knows she is pregnant as was my heart and yours when we were there. I'm happy you don't believe in that moral right of taking the life of a human being and I just ask you to research the science. Indeed, when one realizes we are talking about human life or sees the results of abortion it is moving. Yes, woman are profoundly hurt by abortion. In my activities as an advocate for both the woman and the little one I've seen a lot of hurt. Please reflect on this ultimate question, but don't confuse the claim of my imposing personal beliefs with my real hope for changing hearts for a greater good.
7 - Neil
You say that science validates the reality that "all we are" is present at birth. As someone well-versed in the science, I'm *very* curious as to what you think you mean here. Please explain what you think science has proven. If you mean DNA, that's a pretty weak leg to stand on. Every hair you've ever pulled out by the root, every malignant cancer cell, and so on contain this sane information.
Do you mean that science has long since established that the neural connections necessary for any empirical definition of consciousness--much less HUMAN consciousness--don't form anywhere NEAR conception? Do you mean that the circulation of blood caused by a beating heart is a necessary but NOT sufficient condition to establish empirically the presence of consiousness?
If you continually embed your own assumptions into your reading of "the science", as you understand it, confirmation bias is going to render you completely incapable of considering other points of view. Inasmuch as is possible, I suggest coming at the scientific literature agnostically, and try to see what it *really* says, divorced from the press releases and moralizing propaganda of the pro-life movement. It does not mean what you think it means.
Further, your claim that "women" are "hurt" by abortion may be an attempt at compassion, but it comes off as reductive and anti-woman. I don't doubt that some women are deeply hurt by the feelings that follow choosing an abortion. Do you think that's helped along by outdated sexist cultural moors pushed by anti-choice groups, which celebrate victories on shaming women into regret?
But to claim that you know what's true of all women, or even most women, is to pretend a though your sheltered experience of regretful testimonials is absolutely representative of the whole. My experience tells a different story, but I'm not so brash as to presume that I therefore know something secret about the feelings of "all women"
Your scientific arguments fall short because, well, they lack science. As is the case with many pro-life advocates, you confuse an entity with the potential to become a human life with that itself. To claim that you know better is to, consciously or not, to LIE. As someone well-versed in the science and deeply invested in the morality of such decisions, I wish you'd be more careful with your argument. I can tell that you mean it, but you don't have the empirical support you think you do.
8 - Neil
I don't want to spam this page, but I feel obligated to apologize for the frequent typos in my responses. This conversation is taking place, for me, on an iPhone, and my editing and typing skills fall short on this tiny screen. Thanks to everyone for bearing with me.
9 - Arch Conservative
"Public opinion is already against abortion. Who sits around thinking what a dandy thing it is, how everyone should have one, and how great a job it is?"
Apparently Planned Parenthood feels it's something to be celebrated Miss bob. A few years back they were actually selling t-shirts that read "I had an abortion."
As someone who is pro-life I can really appreciate the logic and rationality in your article Miss Bob. Too often the twos sides of this issue do nothing but scream at each other without even attempting to understand the others' point of view.
As someone who is pro-life I understand how very unfair it must feel to a woman who finds herself pregnant when perfect strangers tell her that she must bring the baby to term. When people would call her a horrible person for not doing so....When those strangers are forcing her to make a very personal decision which will affect the entire course of her life. This aspect of the whole debate is not lost on me and in fact I often feel many on my side can be hypocritical. It doesn't sit well with me that the Catholic Church would deny woman birth control and then chastise them if they consider abortion for an unplanned pregnancy. While being pro-life I am a very strong proponent of birth control use and education. I think it's a shame that insurance companies do not cover it.
Here comes the but...........
For me the bottom line is that it IS a baby. I'm not religious at all. My opposition to abortion doesn't stem from Jesus or some church telling me it's wrong. It comes from my own conscience. I don't see how any caring human being can look at a picture of an aborted fetus and their heart not ache, if even a little. I find it absolutely disgusting when organizations like Planned Parenthood market t-shirts celebrating abortion. I find it bizzarre that anyone who actually understands what a partial birth abortion is would support the practice. I also believe it to be extremely disengenous when pro-choice groups seek to paint this elective procedure a vital ubiquitous womens' health issue that is basically a choice between the mother's life of the baby's.
We have become so desensitized to the reality of abortion. Many of us treat it as cavalierly as we treat oil changes for our vehicles and that is downright disturbing.
As for CBS and the Tebow add. Miss Bob hit the nail on the head. They are a private company and as such entitled to decide which ads they will air and which they will not. Anyone that has a problem with that is free to change the channel.
10 - Ruvy
We have become so desensitized to the reality of abortion. Many of us treat it as cavalierly as we treat oil changes for our vehicles and that is downright disturbing.
Bing,
You do not realize how sensitive you truly are. It was just a couple of centuries ago that the allegedly civilized Europeans would "lose" their kids in a forest because they didn't have enough food to feed them (Hansel & Gretel), or in the alternative, bring them to some old woman who would kill them (how BIG your teeth are, grandma!). Or put unwanted babies in trees to fall down (lullaby baby...) They would lock the retards or epileptics in institutions or closets. And that's the "civilized" countries, Bing. The other countries all over Asia and Arabia sell kids into slavery routinely - even today. And the Chinese and Indians have been aborting female fetuses for decades now. G-d help you if you do not shake you head like a dummy and say, "but they're also civilized!"
But here is the nasty catch in arguments against abortion. What do you do with the unwanted baby? Whose responsibility is he? If he is to live and have a decent shot at a decent life, you can't tell some witless teenage airhead, "you spread your legs, now you live with what you've done." The teenage airhead is not going to provide any decent life for that baby at all. And Bing, babies cost money. And they don't sop costing money as they grow, either. I'm a father, and that is one fact I can confirm for you.
The standard solution has been orphanages. I leave those who have been in orphanages to comment on them, if they choose. I do not know and dare not comment.
11 - zingzing
"The pro-choice people don’t want me; I defend a woman’s right to choose."
that makes no sense.
12 - Arch Conservative
Yes it does.
13 - Neil
Arch conservative,
Only if you misunderstand the prochoice position. No one in the mainstream glorifies abortion. Those t-shirts mentioned earlier celebrate the freedom to have made a choice WITHOUT SHAME, *not* to say "abortions are great let's all get one!"
it's your prerogative to think that there's an immeasurable component to human life that is present at conception, and I encourage you to advocate other people to share your beliefs. But that's not what you're doing; the "pro-life" movement pretends to have special KNOWLEDGE as to the nature of life, knowledge which is unsupported in any emperical sense, and then goes further in seeking to MANDATE its particular subjective thoughts on "truth" as the law that everyone must follow. If your position is so strong, why do you have to try to legally force so
many people to share it?
14 - Miss Bob Etier
Oh the attention! I feel faint -- where were y’all when I wrote about pancakes? I avoid responding to comments because I like the forum of opinion to be “open”; since I’ve already made mine known, I want to read what others have to say. Since I broke my rule about keeping my opinion about abortion to myself, I am breaking my “no comments” rule.
#1 #2. Jon Sobel, Neil. I am pro-choices. Every side of an argument should be able to make their case, even repetitiously if they so choose. I am anti-censorship. If what you have to say may influence people to choose other than what I have to offer, I don’t have the right to shut you up. The thrust of my opinion piece is that “pro-choice” is a misnomer if its proponents will not allow other choices to be presented. In the case of the Super Bowl ad, a certain faction of the pro-choice movement chose to smear CBS and others in an effort to prevent the ad from being aired. The “choice” we’re talking about is a legal right that pro-choice allegedly wants to protect. Using censorship to do so is simply trampling on another legal right.
#3. Jim. Abusing your loved ones is illegal, abortion is legal.
#9. Arch Conservative. Wow! T-shirts that said, “I had an abortion.” I wonder how many were sold. Abortion is a very private matter, and advertising that one has undergone the procedure seems nearly obscene. Is there a market for “I had a wart removed”? Perhaps, wearing an “I had an abortion” t-shirt is like advertising “I’m available with no strings attached.”
#10 Ruvy. Your comments define much of my philosophy. One of the reasons I support abortion rights is that over 1000 children are murdered in the United States every year by their parents or care-givers. Thousands more are abused, neglected, and/or abandoned. It makes me wonder why there are so many activists interested in the rights of the unborn and so few interested in these young, sentient victims. I hope it’s just my imagination, but it seems safer to be a child abuser/killer in America than to be an abortion provider. Maybe I suffer from too much -- or too little -- media.
#11. Zingzing. The pro-choice response to the Super Bowl ad would be “Yes, that’s one choice, here are others…” instead of “you’re brainwashing people against abortion” (NOT a direct quote). Maybe I misunderstood your statement. Did you, perhaps, mean that it makes no sense for any group not to want me? (chuckle)
EVERYONE: You disappoint me. I was sure someone would jump on this statement: "Accusing CBS of sexism…is like accusing CBS…of promoting obesity, alcoholism, and promiscuity based on the commercials they show.”
Thank you all for your thoughtful and thought-provoking comments, and especially for keeping them civil.
15 - Neil
The complaint I have towards CBS is one of hypocrisy, not of silencing voices. That they claim to have a "no-controversial-isues" policy and reject ads of similar heated nature but air this one particular point of view one or particular subject--it strikes me as being dishonest in thir previously established policy. That's all.
16 - Arch Conservative
Neil....look at a picture of the result of an abortion and tell me it's a ball of cells or some other benign term, and not in fact a human being.
You can claim science is on your side but all I see is a bunch of hi falutin semantic rhetoric.
If you find it so easy to dismiss my argument then may I suggest you actually go watch an abortion being performed in person. See what the end result is. Unlike your pontifications on the legal and scientific aspects of the issue you will find something very real. Something concrete and undeniable. Something you could actually reach out and touch with your very own hands if you were so inclined. Tell me it wasn't a living human being Neil.
Ruvy...You're usually one of the more lucid and reasonable people on this. Which is why it's disappointing to see you bring up the pro lifers don't care for the baby after it's born cliche. I usually use this analgy when someone brings up that retread. If I believe that it would be wrong for someone to break into my neighbor's home and shoot him in the head, ending his life, does that make me responsible for his welfare for the rest of his life? Or does it simply mean that short of immediate self defense I believe he, just like a child in the womb, has the right to their life? Do any of us have the right to claim we know with certainty how a life will turn out and thereby have the right to end it before it begins if the outlook isn't sunny Ruvy?
I think the best solution to the problem is for society to do all that it can to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through the dissemination of education pertaining to birth control and the actual birth control methods themselves. That's where I am in a nutshell on this issue. People aren't going to stop screwing any time soon so we need as much birth control as possible and we need insurance companies to start covering.
With the exception of the author of this article I haven't really seen any attempt by the alleged pro-choicers to see my, or another view of the issue different from their own.
The more I read of Miss bob Etier, the more I come to appreciate the opportunity to share this site with her.
If you really wanna get your hands dirty Miss Bob suit up and join the rest of us in the deep, dark end of the pool in the politics section.
17 - Neil
Arch conservative,
Being careful with my words (if not my spelling--again, iPhone apologies) does nor mean I'm trying to dazzle you with empty rhetoric. There's plenty of substance here, which you aren't really addressing. Interestingly, I also haven't seen any thoughtful responses to Thomson's argument, which momentarily grants you the fetus-as-child fiction.
Do fetuses, after a certain point of development, look like human beings. Undoubtedly, and that can stir emotion. But that doesn't make the emotional response correct. Can you provide any evidence that what appears, to your untrained and subjective eye, to be human life actually is? I doubt it.
At some point, Michelangelo's David was an unadorned block of marble. Was it a priceless work of art at that point? What about the day after he started carving it? The day after that? You and I may disagree about WHEN blowing it up is a crime against art rather than mere destruction of masonry, but that doesn't grant you the fact that it was *always* priceless.
18 - roger nowosielski
Interesting analogy, Neil.
There are arguments along similar lines as regards the subject of personal identity. For example, is a ship that has been rebuilt plank by plank - so that not one original part of it remains but everything has been replaced - the same ship?
19 - roger nowosielski
But the analogy here has a different point - for example, is the RoboCop officer Murphy?
20 - roger nowosielski
"the complaint I have towards CBS is one of hypocrisy, not of silencing voices. That they claim to have a "no-controversial-isues" policy . . ." (#15)
However, it goes beyond "no-controversial-issues" policy. Apart from that, it continues to still be a hotly-debated political issue, which puts it in a wholly different category.
21 - Arch Conservative
"Do fetuses, after a certain point of development, look like human beings. Undoubtedly, and that can stir emotion. But that doesn't make the emotional response correct. Can you provide any evidence that what appears, to your untrained and subjective eye, to be human life actually is? I doubt it."
Neil, you claim to have an appreciation for hard science and then you offer..
"Do fetuses, after a certain point of development, look like human beings. Undoubtedly,
I find this rather vague and unscientific. So I'll help you out.
Four weeks after fertilization...organs begin to develop
Ten Weeks...a full set of functioning vital organs are present
Twelve Weeks....the child will begin to move his appendages..although very small all the features of a human body are present.....
24 weeks (the point at which most states with late term abortion bans draw the line) the baby's brain and other organs are in the stages of advanced development
That's a link to a week by week description of the process.
I do think you hide behind words and rhetoric to assuage your own conscience of the position you've staked out if nothing else Neil. Your crass analogy of an inanimate, lifeless statue to a living human being is further evidence of this.
You can no more define life than I can but common sense dictates that more share my view and that it is the correct one. No one walks up to a pregnant woman and says "hey how's the fetus doing?" It's more like "how's the baby doing." It only becomes a fetus and ceases to be a baby when it's deemed unwanted.
22 - roger nowosielski
It's not a crass analogy, Archie, but a very challenging one in fact.
Which isn't to say it's necessarily a proper one.
There are definitely analogous elements - the most important one being "value."
Of course, I have to agree with you that the value of human life is not the same as value of a work of art.
23 - Arch Conservative
I find it crass that one would equate human life with a block of marble but that's just me.
We are uniquely unique and I feel sorry for anyone that cannot recognize that.
24 - roger nowosielski
There is no equating going on here, Arch, at least not for me - only a suggestion as to how one might think about the issue. That is the whole point behind analogizing, merely offering an aid to thinking.
And I'm surely glad that you're holding human life as incomparably unique. So do I.
25 - roger nowosielski
You do realize, of course, Archie, that in so doing (i.e., holding human life as the insuperable value) you may be charged (by some) as committing the sin of "species-centrism" - or to put it simply, that you're merely being "self-serving."
For what if it turns out to be that the species is inherently flawed, beyond redemption, and as such, that it doesn't deserve therefore to be the focus of such abject admiration?
Just asking.