Whoa nelly.
As Joe Jervis points out, we’ve been hearing the propaganda for weeks now about how Tim Tebow’s mother was confronted with a difficult pregnancy, encouraged to have an abortion, and made the heroic and courageous choice to carry the pregnancy to term, so that her son Tim would one day sport Bible verses in his eyeblack and have a really hard time at NFL tryouts. As you all know, the propaganda has become even fiercer as Focus on the Family has spent $2.5 million on an anti-choice ad to be aired during the Super Bowl featuring Tebow’s story.
Yeah, well, Gloria Allred begs to differ:
In her exclusive interview with RadarOnline.com Allred slams the ad and CBS’s decision to air it, pointing out factual inconsistencies with Pam’s story. One glaring one is the fact that the act of abortion is totally illegal in the majority Catholic country of the Philippines – under all circumstances including rape and incest, and even without a provision in the circumstance that the mother’s life is in danger. The law has been in effect since 1930.
Allred says she believes it an impossible scenario to believe that [Filipino] doctors would [have] ever suggested abortion as a viable option for Tebow in the first place. And when you learn that physicians and midwives who perform abortions in the Philippines face six years in prison, and may have their licenses suspended or revoked, and that women who receive abortions – no matter the reason – may be punished with imprisonment for two to six years, it’s easy to see why.
Oh boy! You see, Ms. Tebow is being hailed as a hero for “choosing life.” Let’s get something out of the way before we move on. When Focus on the Family and other anti-choice groups raise women like Sarah Palin, like Pam Tebow, onto pedestals for “choosing life,” they are ceding the pro-choice argument, that women should be the ones to decide what to do with their bodies. They don’t realize it, and it’s not pointed out nearly enough, but they’re arguing by pro-choice parameters. In the dreams of anti-choice conservatives, in a fantasy-land where Roe v. Wade has been overturned, no woman is a hero for making that choice, because under draconian abortion bans, the only choice women have is to abide by the law or to seek reproductive health care through other, possibly unsafe means.* As an American living in the Philippines, Pam Tebow found herself in the same situation. There are no exceptions to Filipino abortion law. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, abortion in the Philippines is
unsafe, potentially deadly and highly stigmatized. Every year, more than 500,000 women in the country try to terminate their pregnancies. In 2008 alone, criminal abortions resulted in the deaths of at least 1000 women and 90,000 more suffered complications.
So, that was the “choice” Pam Tebow had to make. Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check expands on this:
During a bible study class, Pam Tebow related that “during that pregnancy, a Philippine doctor suggested that she abort the fetus because the strong medications she was being treated with for amoebic dysentery, which she had contacted early in the pregnancy, could cause serious disabilities to the fetus.”
Suggested that she abort the pregnancy? Or laid out the various risks that were possible, leaving her to her own judgment and choices? Made a definitive judgment that the fetus would unquestionably be harmed? Or described the risks of the medication necessary to treat the dysentery, including possible risks to the fetus? All of these are very different scenarios than the ones earlier suggested.
(…)
So…was Tebow’s doctor ignorant of the law and policy of his or her own country? Or, was the doctor willing to skirt the law for a relatively wealthy (in the context of the extreme poverty in the Philippines) white woman from the United States? Or did the doctor, again, merely lay out the range of options should it be found that the possible risks of a medication or the possible side effects of the medication should she opt to take it?
Pam Tebow is making a name for herself, and presumably a lot of money, as an anti-choice activist. But considering what’s coming to light, simply by analyzing a few names, dates and places in her account, I think it may be fair to say that for her to portray herself as some sort of “hero” is a joke. In fact, Pam Tebow’s own account, when bolstered by the necessary background information, is actually a fairly strong defense for the justice contained in Roe v. Wade. If she had been in the United States, she could have made the very same choice to go through with a risky pregnancy, having weighed her options, and having analyzed the pros and cons of her specific situation. But yet she and Focus on the Family are advocates for taking those rights away from other women!
And if I may be quite frank: women deal with difficult pregnancies all the time. By all accounts, Pam Tebow’s pregnancy was not off the charts when it comes to danger or risk. Women every day deal with more painful, more difficult choices in pregnancy, than what she went through. I don’t mean to negate her experience, but on this day, as the guilty-on-all-counts verdict came down against American terrorist Scott Roeder for his assassination of Dr. George Tiller, who before his death was the foremost American specialist in treating women in ghastly situations that none of us would wish on our worst enemies, it’s important to realize what these anti-choice advocates wish to take away. The testimonials of Tiller’s patients, so many of whose experiences are the true definition of going to hell and back, bear out the reality of what Pam Tebow and Focus on the Family seek to take away from American women. Those testimonials are tough reading. I recommend them, with boxes of tissue handy. And then ask yourself how grotesque it is that a woman like Ms. Tebow is steamrolling all over those very real experiences on her newfound crusade, enabled by the coattails of her teary-eyed football-playing son and the insipid demagogues at Focus on the Family.
Jodi Jacobson concludes her piece with these words:
Each woman is unique; each situation is unique; each woman acting as a moral agent on behalf of herself, and her family, with her medical advisors or whomever she chooses to engage has the right and the need to exercise these choices in the moment in her life such choices are relevant and based on her own “celebration of life.”
And on this the vast majority of Americans agree.
Pam Tebow is no “hero.” She’s simply a woman who may or may not have made a difficult choice. Regardless, things turned out well. And she may be lying. Questions!
For her part, Gloria Allred is threatening to sue CBS if they run the misleading ad:
Allred warns, “If this ad airs and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time Ms. Tebow made her “choice”, then I intend to file a formal complaint of misleading advertising with those federal commissions.”
On a final note Allred says that she hopes that if any of the women that watch the ad are in the position of evaluating their own pregnancy options, that they “get all the facts before you make a decision. Don’t let any other person influence you. You are going to live with the consequences of that choice for the rest of your life. Make sure it’s your choice and you feel confident you can live with that choice for the rest of your life.”
We’ll be watching closely to see what CBS does, now that this new information is seeing sunlight.
*Including those women who end up having to choose to terminate a wanted pregnancy due to threats to their health or their very lives. And we do know, through years of research, that abortion bans don’t reduce abortion rates anyway. They simply make abortion more dangerous, healthcare worse, etc.
Related posts
68 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The goal of the anti-choice and/or anti-gay “movement” is to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. If we want to see a glimpse of the future should these Christian Taliban obtain power in the US, look no further than Uganda where, thanks to interference from US militant anti-gay activists, death will be the result of anyone who dares to question the “party line.”
CBS should not run this ad in the first place in light of their past refusal to run an ad from a pro-equality church. CBS is showing an ugly radical conservative bias by snubbing the religious liberty of pro-equality Americans while promoting the pseudo-religion of those equating denying choice with the love of Christ.
Comment by Michael — January 29, 2010 @ 11:25 pm
No, the info you parroted from Allred, Jacobson, etc., is bogus. Pam Tebow is not the joke. Folks lying through the teeth to slam her are the joke- they make themselves look deceitful, spiteful, vindictive, etc., by stooping this low to resort to character assassination over an ad they have no idea what it says.
Here’s the lie: “There are no exceptions to Filipino abortion law.”
Here’s the rebuttal:
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.”
Like I said there is zero evidence Pam Tebow lied.
But you, Jacobson, Allred, all the diehard abortionisd propagandaists have exposed yourselves as the ones lying.
Shame on you for this tactic.
Comment by Punisher — January 29, 2010 @ 11:29 pm
Hum, so you show me where it says that Pam Tebow’s life was threatened.
Nice pivot, though. It’s almost like you had an argument. I’m sure you’re the expert though. I mean, it’s not like Gloria Allred is one of the most accomplished attorneys in the nation or anything.
Good evening, troll.
Comment by Evan Hurst — January 29, 2010 @ 11:35 pm
Also, way to not quote the paragraph directly after the ones you quoted from that link, the ones that hurt your case:
“This silence of the law on any exception, even if to save the mother’s life, however, may have a chilling effect to medical practitioners and thus imperil women’s lives.
Nonetheless, despite the restrictive legal regime, abortion is widely resorted to by women faced with unplanned pregnancies and while they are arrested by police and maltreated by medical practitioners, women, however, rarely get prosecuted.”
And again, nighty night, troll.
Comment by Evan Hurst — January 29, 2010 @ 11:37 pm
Anyone that tries to assassinate the Tebow’s character is walking into the biggest mistake they could possibly make for their cause.
Anyone that knows ANYTHING about this family knows how incredibly classy they are. I consider myself as cynical as anyone.. and have no party ties and am not political in anyway.. but I can tell you from what I have seen these are some of the finest people to ever live. You may be doing more damage to your cause than you can possibly fathom by taking this stance against Pam and Tim.. especially for what will likely amount to a completely innocuous commercial with a heart warming story about the value of human life — not an anti abortion commercial.
Comment by charlie — January 29, 2010 @ 11:52 pm
Um, it’s a Focus on the Family ad. It’s obviously about abortion. That’s their entire angle. Have you not been paying attention?
Comment by Evan Hurst — January 29, 2010 @ 11:54 pm
Evan wrote: 4.Also, way to not quote the paragraph directly after the ones you quoted from that link, the ones that hurt your case:
“This silence of the law on any exception, even if to save the mother’s life, however, may have a chilling effect to medical practitioners and thus imperil women’s lives.
Me: Nice spin. Regardless, the proof is there that the law in that country does indeed allow abortion in the case of mother’s life in danger. Allred and the abortionists LIE.
And you support that.
And look up the facts for yourself where Tebow’s mom had life threatening issues with her pregnacy.
Call me troll what you want but the abortionists are caught red-handed lying to smear the Tebows.
Comment by Punisher — January 30, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
1) If abortions are illegal in the Philippines, then did Ms. Tebow take the initiative to seek out a doctor or midwife who would perform an abortion? If so, it was Tebow who made the choice to inquire about the procedure, not the unsolicited advice of a doctor. If this was the case, she weighed her options, a right she wants to strip from other women.
2) What is the name of this alleged doctor and where is he/she currently practicing? Ms. Tebow should disclose this information, so the practitioner can confirm her claim or mount a defense against a lie. There is no coherent reason why she cannot disclose the name.
3) The act (abortion) is criminalized by the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which was enacted in 1930 but remains in effect today. Articles 256, 258 and 259 of the Code mandate imprisonment for the woman who undergoes the abortion, as well as for any person who assists in the procedure, even if they be the woman’s parents, a physician or midwife. Article 258 further imposes a higher prison term on the woman or her parents if the abortion is undertaken “in order to conceal [the woman's] dishonor”.
There is no law in the Philippines that expressly authorizes abortions in order to save the woman’s life; and the general provisions which do penalize abortion make no qualifications if the woman’s life is endangered. It may be argued that an abortion to save the mother’s life could be classified as a justifying circumstance (duress as opposed to self-defense) that would bar criminal prosecution under the Revised Penal Code. However, this has yet to be adjudicated by the Philippine Supreme Court.
Comment by Wayne Besen — January 30, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
Punisher, the type of pregnancy Tebow had is not life threatening. Unless you’ve got some proof that she had a life threatening pregnancy you’re just another lying partisan.
Comment by Priya Lynn — January 30, 2010 @ 12:52 pm
Ms. Tebow’s tale does, indeed sound suspicious. And if there is one thing we know, fundamentalists love magic stories of transformation, even if they are not true. In fact, the entire “ex-gay” industry is built on fake stories that often set a compelling narrative, but are left factually wanting. Here is one example of an “ex-gay” fairy tale that recently unraveled in real time.
http://www.truthwinsout.org/news/2007/12/310/
If Ms. Tebow is not telling the truth, perhaps she thought she could get away with it because the alleged incident took place overseas.
However, the truth almost always seeps out. Remember how the military tried to conceal how Pat Tillman died? They too made up a heroic story in a far away land that misled the public. But, even the military PR machine could not hide the truth forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman
Word of warning: You can’t put a high profile ad on the Super Bowl and think no one will investigate. If her story checks out, than all is well for Focus on the Family.
However, if it turns out to be a hoax (and it already smells of possible con job) it will destroy this right wing organization. They will have lost their founder, James Dobson, who is leaving the group, and their credibility at roughly the same time. Focus on the Family will not survive this double catastrophe in a time of deep recession, when they are already laying off employees.
Focus, you better fact check get this one right before it airs. You aren’t dealing with gullible fundies this time and will suffer great shame if this is a hoax. People will forgive you if you pull the ad — but once it airs, your honor is on the line. And once your name is soiled – it is almost impossible to recover.
Comment by Wayne Besen — January 30, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
[...] this site, Evan Hurst wrote about new suspicions that Tim Tebow’s mother, Pam, may be fudging her story about defying a [...]
Pingback by Truth Wins Out - Focus on the Family’s Reputation On The Line With Tebow Ad — January 30, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
[...] Pretty interesting, don’t you think? An entire media mythology has grown up around the noble missionary who carried her child to term against a doctor’s advice, and the child grows up to become a devout Christian and football star. [...]
Pingback by Is Pam Tebow A Liar? Abortions Were Illegal In The Philippines When Her Doctor Supposedly Urged Her To Get One | India News Blog, Latest News From India, Latest Blogs From India — January 30, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
You quote Jodi Jacobson. She’s a riot!
Here’s her response to me (see her comments at RH Reality) when I asked if she was aware that Pam’s reported medical issue was a placental abruption.
According to Jodi:
“Nowhere in the continuously varying stories apparently told by the Tebows has placental disruption been mentioned except for your reference to Tim Tebow’s bio, to which you also do not link.”
But as I pointed out to Jodi, they are sooo easy to find!! Why I found the details at:
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20071007/NEWS/710060317?p=2&tc=pg
and here:
http://www.tebowzone.com/about/
and OMG here’s another!!:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/15/home-schooling-breaking-records-stereotypes/
But the funniest part is when Jodi (in the same post in which she denies that Pam’s placental abruption is reported anywhere) gives us this gem:
“However, if it were placental disruption, it seems to make it even less likely that a physician in the Philippines, unless they were not a very good physician, would in that stage suggest an abortion unless in fact it was clear the baby would be stillborn and even then given law and policy there, i am not convinced this would be the case. I would think that a physician would put Mrs. Tebow in the hospital and wait it out, monitoring mother and baby as is suggested by, for example, the Mayo Clinic. Without such care, placental abruption would likely kill both the mother and the fetus. ”
But if Jodi had done the slightest bit of research, she would know that Pam’s doctors expected the baby would be stillborn.
Jodi obviously has CHOSEN to have no clue what she’s talking about, so its very revealing that you choose to quote her.
Anyways, Carry on…. It’s so very entertaining!!!
Comment by lbruf — February 1, 2010 @ 8:07 pm
Okay, except all of that testimony comes from Pam Tebow herself. The Rev. Moonie Times link is an editorial which lifts the testimonial from the Tebowzone site almost verbatim.
That’s the point…her integrity is being called into question, because her story doesn’t match up with the laws of the country where she was at the time.
So, if all we have is Pam Tebow’s word, then…you know…why trust it? Because she’s a Christian? Because in my experience, fundamentalist Christians are the most shameless liars on the planet.
I’m sorry that you think your people are honest, but there’s no reason to believe it at face value, because fundamentalist Christianity is devoid of integrity.
Comment by Evan Hurst — February 1, 2010 @ 8:19 pm
OK Evan, you say
“her integrity is being called into question, because her story doesn’t match up with the laws of the country where she was at the time. ”
What’s ironic to me, is how Jodi Jacobson, while still doubting a placental abruption took place, and while defending Gloria allred’s argument relates the only circumstances under which she believes a Philipino doctor would perform an abortion.
Jodi writes “unless in fact it was clear the baby would be stillborn”. It so happens, that that is exactly what the Tebow’s consistently report. above all, the claim that doctors expected her baby to be stillborn is absolutely key. If the baby dies in-utero, maternal risk is significantly increased – but don’t take my word for it, here’s a more objective source.
http://www.glowm.com/?p=glowm.cml/section_view&articleid=122
(From the Global Library of Women’s Medicine)
Abruptio placentae must be included among the most dangerous of obstetrical complications, with hazardous implications for mother and infant. For both, the total morbidity and mortality are determined by the severity of the separation, prematurity of the fetus, amount of blood lost, and degree of difficulty in the delivery process.
The following are the principal maternal complications associated with premature separation of the placenta: (1) hemorrhagic shock resulting from acute whole blood loss and resultant contraction of the intravascular compartment; (2) generalized coagulopathy occurring because of active consumption of clotting factors within the vascular tree and consequent secondary fibrinolysis; (3) ischemic necrosis of distant organs. The organs most frequently involved are the kidneys and the anterior pituitary gland. Acute renal failure is a serious complication and may lead to maternal death; and (4) preterm PROM resulting from decidual hemorrhage.
A recent study examining maternal outcome after abruptio placentae found that women presenting with a stillborn infant on admission were more likely to require transfusions and have complications, such as DIC and acute renal failure, than women presenting with a live fetus.127
So I doubt Pam Tebow, is lying as this site suggests. She certainly presents a scenario under which a Philipino doctor might suggest termination of pregnancy.
Comment by lbruf — February 1, 2010 @ 9:05 pm
If the fetus died in utero, the fetus would be DEAD. Surgical proceedires to remove an already dead fetus are not and never have been considered abortions.
Comment by John — February 1, 2010 @ 11:45 pm
What’s sick, though, John, is that anti-choice groups (the actual anti-life people in this debate), in their zealotry, have actually called those procedures into question in their obsession with going after the women who have to have late-term abortions, the ones who are carrying wanted pregnancies, but who run into terrible medical problems none of us would wish on our worst enemies, and have to make the painful choice to terminate. And these lying, sanctimonious ghouls have made those women Public Enemy #1 and they’ve murdered the foremost doctor in the nation who treated those women in their time of need.
Comment by Evan Hurst — February 2, 2010 @ 4:28 am
The anti-Tebow slams falls apart for these reasons: 1) 21 percent of illegal abortions annually out of hundreds of thousands performed are done by doctors. That disprove the notion no doctor would risk their careers and being imprisoned in that country, 2) while the law in itself may be strict, prosecution is RARE for illegal abortions (in other words, if a law so strict is not enforced most of the time, it is almost as good as having no law at all), 3) according to UN report on the Philippines, abortion is indeed allowed in the case of mother’s life in danger, so if that is true, nothing illegal was involved if a doctor suggested abortion if Mrs. Tebow’s life was in danger.
Those who slam Mrs. Tebow leave out a lot of these facts that totally invalidate their slams and smearings.
The UN info here:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/philippines.doc
ABORTION POLICY
Grounds on which abortion is permitted:
To save the life of the woman Yes
To preserve physical health No
To preserve mental health No
Rape or incest No
Foetal impairment No
Economic or social reasons No
Available on request No
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.
Despite the severity of the law, abortion appears to be widely practised in the Philippines as a means of birth control and is rarely prosecuted.
The International Planned Parenthood Federation reports estimates ranging from 155,000 to 750,000 induced abortions PER YEAR.
In a context of poor health conditions and widespread malnutrition, and where some 76 per cent of deliveries occur at home and only 21 PER CENT are attended by a PHYSICIAN, induced abortions are poorly performed and result in high maternal mortality and morbidity.
Comment by Punisher — February 2, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
Since the Tebows are involved in multimillion-dollar ad campaign, the burden is upon THEM to substantiate their claims with more than anecdotal piety and the “trust us because we’re Christian” meme.
Millions of Christians have discovered that the conservative anti-life movement relies heavily upon lies, obfuscation, and false piety. That’s one reason (among several) why the pro-choice movement remains strong and abortion remains legal in the United States.
Comment by Michael Airhart — February 2, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
it was to terminate a fetus harmed by drugs
NOT SAVE THE MOTHER’s life
you pathetic lying christians
Comment by nick — February 2, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
Pam Tebow said herself that she was advised to abort because the baby was likely harmed not because it endangered her life so this “her life was in danger” bit doesn’t fly.
Comment by Priya Lynn — February 2, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
Exactly.
Comment by Evan Hurst — February 2, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
“Anyone that knows ANYTHING about this family knows how incredibly classy they are. I consider myself as cynical as anyone.. and have no party ties and am not political in anyway.. but I can tell you from what I have seen these are some of the finest people to ever live. You may be doing more damage to your cause than you can possibly fathom by taking this stance against Pam and Tim.. especially for what will likely amount to a completely innocuous commercial with a heart warming story about the value of human life — not an anti abortion commercial.”
Hmm. Let me paraphrase. “I am not cynical or partisan, and I have no opinion on the abortion issue. But the Tebows are the bestest, most awesomest people that on the face of the earth. EVER. And I support their pro-life views.”
Hey, Mrs. Tebow, er I mean, charlie, a little intellectual honesty never hurt, ok?
Comment by Jane Roe — February 3, 2010 @ 11:41 am
“Anyone that knows ANYTHING about this family knows how incredibly classy they are.”
Yes, and we all thought Tiger Woods was a good family man a few weeks ago. Why are people so gullible and believe appearances when it comes to public figures?
Comment by Wayne Besen — February 3, 2010 @ 12:39 pm
I have no problem with anyone’s view that abortion is a bad choice, but I do have a problem with anyone thinking they have a right to make that choice for others while doing their own superior dance.
Comment by Martin Pal — February 3, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
I love how half the people here are resorting to some ad hominum attacks, one of the signs of a weak argument and/or arguer. Anyway, from what I’ve read about the ad, it’s not anti-choice or pro-life, it’s simply the Tebows trying to encourage people to make wise choices.
What people don’t seem to think about is that Pam Tebow could very well have left the country if she’d wanted to have abortion. If I understand correctly, abortion was legal in the US then.
Wayne, please don’t try to use Tiger Woods in comparison with the Tebows. They’ve been missionaries to foreign countries for years (if not decades) and have more than proven that they aren’t putting up a false front like Tiger did. People just assumed he was a good guy ’cause he hadn’t been proven wrong since he hid his evil deeds well.
This whole thing is a mess
Comment by Dan — February 3, 2010 @ 9:31 pm
If you think a Focus on the Family ad featuring a football player whose entire buzz is built around the fact that Mommy didn’t abort him (I mean, he’s failing miserably in NFL tryouts b/c he’s not that good) is not anti-choice, I have a bridge to sell you.
Also, it’s “ad hominEm.”
Comment by Evan Hurst — February 3, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
My mother didn’t abort me either, despite my own medical issues.
So what??
I don’t go on national television and waste $5 million on ads pretending to be better than everyone else, as Tim Tebow and FOTF do.
There is nothing “classy” about such shameless self-promotion.
Comment by Michael Airhart — February 3, 2010 @ 10:02 pm
Plus, it’s bad logic, since Tebow could have just as easily grown up to be homosexual.
Comment by Evan Hurst — February 3, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
The reality, to me, is both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice factions are pure ridiculous that there is NO middle ground. We have children living in this country who are homeless; raped, abused and neglected…and yet we continue to go on and on over who gets to choose life; what it makes them, etc.,
Personally, I wonder how many Pro=lifers are concerned about out service people..where were they when they were marching off to death? Do they help those young, poor and under-educated women who have 3, 4 and 5 children with the upbringing or education so that they don’t live in poverty??? NO…
How about finding a common ground and stop promoting some religious agenda….whomever; whatever faction you are a party too.
Comment by G. Basimane — February 5, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
By allowing themselves to be used by Focus on the Family as part of an anti-choice campaign, they have called into question the selfless sacrificing public front they developped for themselves by their missionary work for the last few decades. They have jumped feet first into the culture wars.
Also, American missionaries to foreign countries aren’t always forces for good. So, the fact they were missionaries doesn’t predispose me to having a positive view of the Tebows. Far more important to me would be what they did while missionaries.
Comment by John — February 5, 2010 @ 9:27 pm
G. Basimane: There is no common ground on reproductive rights between pro-choicers and anti-choicers.
Pro-life groups lie when they say they’re concerned about life. The only group that is actually “pro-life” is pro-choice people. Pro-choice people support women throughout whatever decisions they want to make. This is why every “common ground” initiative ends up failing. When one side actively promotes the lie that the other side supports a genocide worse than the Holocaust, there is no common ground to be found.
Comment by Evan Hurst — February 5, 2010 @ 10:16 pm
“Do they help those young, poor and under-educated women who have 3, 4 and 5 children with the upbringing or education so that they don’t live in poverty??? NO…”
A lie on your part. Pro-lifers are the ones who set up charities, shelters, food drives, etc., etc., all over the country to help women, children, the poor, etc., out. Not to mention work done all over the world for the same reasons.
The fact that the Tebows exist and do medical work overseas to help others disprove your lie pro-lifers don’t care about those who are out of the womb.
Comment by Punisher — February 6, 2010 @ 8:13 pm
Nah, Punisher, you’re just making shit up.
I’m not saying that pro-lifers never do any good, but Planned Parenthood does more to prevent abortion than all the pro-life organizations combined. Fact. Backed up by numbers.
Oh, and isn’t daddy Tebow a preaching missionary? That’s not charity work. That’s proselytizing.
Comment by Evan Hurst — February 6, 2010 @ 8:22 pm
@Evan. A few questions for you:
1). How do pro-lifers “lie” as you put it? Unlike some with the “win at any cost” mentality, it is against my beliefs to lie. Same for the people I run with.
2). The majority of charities are run by people with convictions and most of these people happen to be “religious.” If the pro-death people want to start a charity (food shelf/orphanage/missionary, etc), go right ahead.
4). You always claim it’s the Christian Taliban that’s against abortion, but do you realize that the Buddhists, Mormons, Catholics, followers of Islam, Hindus, Scientologists, and most of the rest of the world realize that you cannot kill your offspring and survive? If you’re paying attention, none of those groups are “Christian.”
3). Now that the ad has come out, don’t you guys feel a bit foolish with all of your hate-filled comments? No, because you sure LOOK foolish.
It looks to me like you guys were pawned by Focus on the Family and the Tebows.
Comment by The Real Truth — February 8, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
Pro-lifers lie when they say they’re concerned with life because they support only the kind of life that they can project their insecurities and biases onto. The braindead vegetable Terri Schiavo. Fetuses. They don’t support the women as human, sexual beings.
You’ll have to come up with some numbers on the idea that most charities are religious. I think you’re making things up or just spitting out what you’ve always been taught.
Buddhists do not have such a strict position on abortion. I’m really not too interested in what the Mormons think. But for you to say that Mormons and Catholics aren’t Christian is the height of insipid fundamentalist Christian (unmerited, intelligence-free) arrogance.
And no, I don’t feel foolish at all, because I believe, from reading the Christian sources, that the entire point was to make an ad that people looked at and said “is that it?” It allows insipid, dishonest groups like FotF to more slyly insert their anti-family, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-human message into peoples’ lives.
Comment by Evan Hurst — February 8, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
Anti-family, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-human message. That’s just rich.
While I don’t have numbers of religious vs. non-religious charities, it is a proven fact that the “religious” (and I HATE that term) do indeed give more to charities than those who are not.
And while I was not stating that the Buddists, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus, et al have official stances against abortion (some do, some do not), my point was that the majority of the followers of those “religions” are against abortion, not the “Christian Taliban” as it is so often claimed.
And yes, the Mormons are a cult. The Catholics are the largest cult in the world. So are so many other groups like the Scientologists, etc. So it’s arrogant to call a spade a spade? Meh.
Regarding the ad, it indeed did make all of the anti-life groups look foolish. Planned Parenthood, N.O.W., and the others were in such an uproar before the ad aired that it makes you look hateful after the fact.
I know, how dare someone choose life. For shame!
Comment by The Real Truth — February 8, 2010 @ 2:01 pm
Fundamentalist Christianity is also a cult, dear.
Why do you hate the term religious? It’s what you are.
Don’t give me that silly nonsense about how Christianity is “different” from other religions, how it’s a “faith.” That’s just one of the meaningless things fundamentalists tell each other to convince themselves that their religion is right.
And no, it doesn’t make us look hateful. We were correct. FotF had to lie about their message to make it palatable.
There wouldn’t have been an ad if women didn’t HAVE a choice. That’s the point. That’s why we’re the real pro-life ones. We support the rights of women to live and thrive, and to make their own decisions on what’s best for their bodies and their lives. Women are fully functioning breathing people with lives.
It’s beyond me how you people think that a clump of cells should have more rights than more than half the population of actual people.
But then again, the pro-life movement is about misogyny at its heart.
Comment by Evan Hurst — February 8, 2010 @ 2:10 pm
Focus on the Family had to lie? Where is the lie? The only lie I see is what you’re saying about Focus.
The fact that the majority of abortions are because of convenience seems to be lost on you. There are very, very few done to “save a life.” My wife was in a situation similar to the Tebow family. Her doctor told us to abort our son or else my wife AND my son would die. They told us my son wouldn’t live past the 10th week. After he made it past the 10th, then they changed it to the 20th, and so on.
The doctor was wrong, just like the Tebow’s doctor was wrong. How many other people have killed their babies because they believed the doctors were right?
Way too many.
For the record, I’m not religious and never have been, but I do think that Catholics, Mormons, and Scientologists are a bunch of cultists.
I don’t have time right now to continue this discussion, but I do appreciate you not getting into a complete flaming hate war. (some of your accusations are very broad, but no sense in going there).
I hope you have a great day.
Respectfully submitted,
TRT
Comment by The Real Truth — February 8, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
Even those who, like me, believe that an embryo or fetus might qualify as a human being with substantial rights, must admit that the modern “pro-life” movement has come to hate pre-born individuals.
The pro-life movement obstructs alternatives to abortion, ranging from condoms to subsidized prenatal care, to adoption by non-Christian or LGBT couples.
The pro-life movement opposes regulation of air pollution, water pollution, and food safety to ensure that pre-born individuals and their parents have fair and reasonable access to good health.
The pro-life movement supports political candidates who refuse to support rape-prevention programs, who refuse to punish rape harshly and refuse to provide support to rape victims.
The pro-life movement supports billions of dollars in government subsidies to large companies that provide no parental leave and no child health insurance.
And the pro-life movement adheres to an anti-science, anti-evolution ideology which precludes factual gene-related education and medical research to prevent genetic abnormalities.
After birth, of course, the “pro-life” movement works obsessively to cut government programs that ensure maternal and infant health. The movement blindly supports catastrophic wars and deliberate public-private destruction of the environment for profit (mammon).
Comment by Michael Airhart — February 8, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
The Real Truth,
Your anecdote isn’t very convincing. In fact, it’s rather pro-choice because you had the option to keep the child. Furthermore your situation doesn’t speak for all people. If you want to play that game, what about the story about the 12-year-old Yemenese girl who died because her family refused to allow her to have an abortion? Are you saying that girls like her don’t deserve the rights to abort? You seem to think that people who chose abortion are irresponsible, but that’s far from the truth.
Comment by Gyeong Hwa Pak — February 8, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
Yeah, I love the notion that because one couple was lucky, other women who died probably deserved it.
And no, most abortion isn’t done out of “convenience.”
What a misogynistic thing to say. As if women take the decision SO lightly that they just have abortions and go get manicures.
This is why pro-choicers and “pro-lifers” should not speak. It’s like talking to children.
Comment by Evan Hurst — February 8, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
The Real Truth feels so strongly about Scientologists, Mormons and Catholics that he calls them cults. He defends Evangelical Protestants. Then he bristles at the term “religious.” He also jumps into this Tebow debate, defending Focus on the Family. He goes so far as to say that Focus on the Family doesn’t lie (despite their track record). Non religious people usually don’t care enough to get involved in debates about cults, true religions and the relative merits of Focus on the Family.
I think The Real Truth is truth challenged.
Comment by John — February 8, 2010 @ 5:10 pm
“36.Pro-lifers lie when they say they’re concerned with life because they support only the kind of life that they can project their insecurities and biases onto. The braindead vegetable Terri Schiavo. Fetuses.”
World Vision. Harvest. Compassion. Samaritan’s Purse.
All such chariatable organizations domestically and worldwide to shelter, feed, clothe, etc. women, children, poor, etc., etc. So much for the idea that pro-lifers don’t care about life in general. No, sir, you are a liar.
Comment by Punisher — February 9, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
“The pro-life movement supports political candidates who refuse to support rape-prevention programs, who refuse to punish rape harshly and refuse to provide support to rape victims.”
Another lie.
Comment by Punisher — February 9, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
“34.Nah, Punisher, you’re just making shit up.”
No, I am not. You made stuff up about them not caring about human life outside of fetuses and Terri Schiavo, so you can throw more lies out that they are about oppressing women’s sexuality.
Funny, since besides the many charities I pointed out, pro-lifers also OPPOSE abortions when those are FORCED on women in other countries.
So much for your claim about pro-lifers being about anti-women rather than pro-life.
But then honesty is not your trait.
Comment by Punisher — February 9, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
And the troll returns.
Pro-choicers oppose forced abortions too, dingbat.
But pro-lifers are anti-woman. This is why they oppose contraception, this is why they contribute to the spread of AIDS in Africa by denying women access to quality healthcare which includes contraception, this is why Republicans voted against Franken’s amendment which allowed female employees of US contractors to seek redress for sexual assault in criminal court, this is why Phyllis Schlafly doesn’t believe that marital rape exists, this is why they oppose sexual education which empowers women, etc. I could go on forever, but you’re a troll and I’m not feeding you anymore.
Go back to your wussy baby Men’s Rights forum or wherever it is you came from.
Comment by Evan Hurst — February 9, 2010 @ 12:59 pm
Punisher, I worked in rape prevention for much of the 1990s. The local pro-life groups offered no help at all.
They argued that rape was a non-issue, yet they took time to obstruct local medical care for women immediately following a rape because they wanted nothing to interfere with conception.
Comment by Michael Airhart — February 9, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
Punisher, You’re either a liar or extremely deluded. “Pro-life” is entirely misogynist. They wish that the a woman is force to relinquish her bodily-autonomy. If abortion concerns you so much perhaps you should invest in planned parenthood and safe sex.
Comment by Gyeong Hwa Pak — February 9, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
Real “truth” said “The majority of charities are run by people with convictions and most of these people happen to be “religious.””.
False, most charities are secular:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Charities
Real “truth” said “the Mormons are a cult. The Catholics are the largest cult in the world. So are so many other groups like the Scientologists, etc.”.
All religions are cults. The Mormon, Catholic, and Scientology religions deserve just as much respect as any other religion.
Real “truth” said “My wife was in a situation similar to the Tebow family.Her doctor told us to abort our son or else my wife AND my son would die.”.
That’s just way too convenient a story – I don’t believe you.
John said “Non religious people usually don’t care enough to get involved in debates about cults, true religions and the relative merits of Focus on the Family.”.
Exactly. Lots of religious people like to claim to be non-religious because they think it gives them more credibility, but if they were truly non-religious they’d call themselves atheists. They don’t do that because they’re lying about their relgiosity.
Punisher said “pro-lifers also OPPOSE abortions when those are FORCED on women in other countries.”.
Pro-”lifers” oppose all abortions, they want to FORCE women to go through with childbirth. As Evan said pro-choicers also oppose abortions when they’re forced on women so spare us your feigned superiority – pro-”lifers” are about FORCING women to behave as pro-”lifer’s” want whereas pro-choicers are about women having the right to control their own bodies.
Comment by Priya Lynn — February 9, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
Is it really true that NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, “demanded” that CBS refuse to run the Focus on the Family ad?
You say you are for choice but you really want to suppress any speech that advocates the choice of life so really, you are not pro-choice at all for you only allow one choice to be valued.
Comment by Bob — February 9, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
Bob, I think it would have been fair for CBS to run the FOTF ad if the network had restored the ad time that it denied to the United Church of Christ and to other non-Christian-Right organizations.
Instead, CBS pandered to people who would rather throw away $5 million on self-promotion than make a real difference in the lives of the born and unborn.
Comment by Michael Airhart — February 9, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
Priya —
No, not all religions are cults. Not all religions practice groupthink, not all religions are authoritarian, exploitative, and dangerous.
Comment by Michael Airhart — February 9, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
I disagree. Every religion that exists fits at least a couple of the definitions of a cult:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult
Comment by Priya Lynn — February 9, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
“49.Punisher, You’re either a liar or extremely deluded. “Pro-life” is entirely misogynist. They wish that the a woman is force to relinquish her bodily-autonomy.”
Nope, not lying or extremely deluded. You’re just a bigot against those who disagree with you, that’s all.
And, no, we do not all hold to all abortions must be banned. Many of us hold to exceptions for rape and incest. And most of us, including me, hold to for the life of the mother.
But if you want to play that card of yours, based on your own bigotry, I guess that makes you someone who hates men if you want to have laws to restrain them from having bodily autonomy. Like when laws say men must be held responsible for their child if they don’t want the children they help bring into the world on grounds if the women can opt out, the men should also. Or laws that say men cannot kill, rape, assault, etc., another human being. Yes, laws do restrain their bodily autonomy there.
Of course, maybe you might like to say that people who wrote laws against pregnant women must really hate women.
Keep fooling yourself with your hate-filled rant that the motives of pro-lifers are out to get women.
Comment by Punisher — February 10, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
Bob,
Most of the pro-choicers who talk about choice should be allowed, as obsfucation as to what that choice really is (murdering unborn) are the same ones who deny women (and men), who don’t believe in abortion, right NOT to pay for abortions of others. They have no problem demanding we pay for THEIR ABORTIONS with our tax dollars. Many of them have no problem restricting our rights to bear arms. Many of them have no problem not giving women (and men) parents any choice on what kind of values their children are taught when it comes to sex education.
And obviously, if they can, they will muzzle our free speech.
You are sooooo right. Pro-choice for them only means one thing- right to have abortions. They don’t care for other people’s choices or rights, and they sure don’t care if their demands for choice infringes on rights of others.
Comment by Punisher — February 10, 2010 @ 9:05 pm
Evan,
Nice try, but if Republicans are so pro-life, why when they had power, they did absolutely nothing on the issue like the last 30 years? They talk a good game, but they don’t follow through. They want our votes and loyalty basically for nothing.
And pro-lifers, sorry, are not monolithic.
Comment by Punisher — February 10, 2010 @ 9:07 pm
As Evan said pro-choicers also oppose abortions when they’re forced on women so spare us your feigned superiority – pro-”lifers” are about FORCING women to behave as pro-”lifer’s” want whereas pro-choicers are about women having the right to control their own bodies.”
Yet, pro-choicers have no problem saying men does not have a choice whether they can be fathers or not, if the woman chooses for or against the life of the unborn. It is not just the rights of the unborn that’s violated, but those of would be fathers who want to keep the babies, even if means by themselves.
And pro-lifers do not believe the issue is the woman’s body, but the body of ANOTHER within the woman. Nice misrepreentation there. The majority of abortions all over the world is done ON HUMANS. Even when done VOLUNTARILY, the majority aborted are FEMALES. If anything by dehumanizing the unborn, your side is as bad as any anti-woman folks you want to demonize as such. Or worse.
So if we have laws against murder, rape, incest, etc., etc., it must mean by your logic those who pass these laws to restrict such choices are into forcing folks to behave as those who pass those lawa want them to, rather than allow them to have bodily autonomy to do as they please.
Sorry, that’s where your logic ends up if applied consistently.
Bottom line- is wanna have sex? Assume the risks. That goes for BOTH male and female. Not just the woman.
With rights come responsibilities.
Comment by Punisher — February 10, 2010 @ 9:13 pm
“If abortion concerns you so much perhaps you should invest in planned parenthood and safe sex.”
PP was founded for one purpose- eugenics, especially to keep the black population down. Why would I want to invest an organization founded for RACIST PURPOSES?
And safe sex? No sex is hundred safe from causing pregnancy.
Abstinence when practiced is 100 percent gurantee against pregnancies.
Funny thing you folks should accuse us of being anti-science, when science validates those who are the unborn are real persons and human beings.
That very fact totally dismantle the argument that pro-lifers want to tell women what to do with their own bodies. No, they are saying do not violate the bodily autonomies of OTHERS.
Comment by Punisher — February 10, 2010 @ 9:16 pm
I guess Susan B. Anthony and the earliest feminists must really despise women, by you folks logic, since they had no problem calling it abomination, awful, infanticide, child murder, etc.
The funny arguments you all raised tend to be red herrings. Or did you forget there exists feminists for life, libertarians for life, atheists and agnostics for life, Democrats for life, and gays/lesbians for life?
Naw. You just want to throw arguments out there to put the pro-lifers in the worst possible light and pretend such other groups don’t exist to make your points.
Comment by Punisher — February 10, 2010 @ 10:28 pm
Susan B. Anthony was a lesbian.
But you have to realize…Feminists for life and atheists for life, etc., work with pro-choice groups and don’t hate women like “pro-laaaaaahfers” do. They’re different. They support contraception. They support real sex education, not that abstinence-only BS.
Etc.
Anyway, I’m done talking about abortion with you little cowardly MRA trolls or whoever you are.
Comment by Evan Hurst — February 10, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
As usual, when you can’t make your points, you make things up. Falsely claim pro-lifers hate women as your talking point without offering proof other than they oppose right to abortion which they see as murder in cases other than extreme ones like mother’s life in danger.
And how can pro-life feminist groups work with pro-choicer groups when pro-choicers tell them consistently they are not feminists for their stance on abortion? How can pro-life atheists/agnostics work with pro-choicers when they oppose right to choose abortion with or without extreme exceptions, on grounds abortion IS murder? You are being absurd.
Let’s look at the feminist for life, atheist for life, etc., sites you so claim are on your side on the issue of abortion and you so claim work with pro-choicers:
The atheista/agnotic for life statement on the issue of abortion:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
Accordingly, I have created this web site as a virtual rallying point and clearinghouse for all atheists, agnostics, and other “godless” people who call themselves “pro-life.”
Though I am a Republican and a conservative (both social and economic), I intend for this site to be nonpartisan and nondiscriminatory. AAPL is for all nontheists regardless of political affiliation, political alignment, age, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, etc.; the more diversity, all the better. Even so, there are three requirements (explained in further detail on the Membership Form page) for AAPL membership; one must:
1) be an avowed atheist, agnostic, or other nontheist
2) oppose abortion and desire its abolition (with or without exceptions)
3) support nonviolence as the sole legitimate means of achieving the goals of the
pro-life movement
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace2.html
As I contemplate the Declaration of Independence on the anniversary of its signing, I am chastened by the tragic fact that too many Americans are denied their “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Ironically, these same rights are used as an argument for alienating these oppressed and persecuted Americans from their rights as human beings. These Americans are the more than one million preborn children violently killed annually by abortion.
We cherish the freedom to order our lives in the most personally satisfying way. Abortion denies preborn Americans this right to the pursuit of happiness.
We cherish the freedom which empowers us to take advantage of our myriad opportunities. Abortion denies preborn Americans this right to liberty.
We cherish the life for which freedom is so vitally important. Abortion denies preborn Americans this right to life.
The day will come when we as a people will live out the true and full meaning of our dearest creed: All human beings are equal under the law. We will no longer deny the humanity and the human rights of preborn children. Freedom will cease being corrupted into the right of a mother to slaughter her innocent and helpless child within the sanctum of her body. The inhuman and barbarous genocide that is abortion as birth control will end. On that day, all Americans will be free at last.
Comment by Punisher — February 14, 2010 @ 10:40 pm
And this atheist/agnostic for life article documents the treatment that feminists for life got from pro-choice feminists, putting the lie that they are working together:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/trageser1.html
While many were shocked at the American Civil Liberties Union’s support of police abuse of anti-abortion protestors, numerous efforts by other supposedly liberal/leftist organizations to squelch dissent went mostly unnoticed:
At a “Take Back the Night” anti-crime rally in Rochester, N.Y., this past October, the National Organization for Women told the local chapter of the FFL that it could not be a co-sponsor because of FFL’s opposition to abortion. FFL marched anyway, 60 women strong.
This past year, the Minnesota Peace and Justice Coalition, in a closed meeting, expelled JustLife Minnesota, a local chapter of the Seamless Garment Network (which opposes all violence, including the death penalty, war, poverty and euthanasia). This despite vehement protest from several other Coalition member organizations and the Coalition’s own statement of purpose, which includes a pledge to “challenge each other on issues of inclusivity … and subjects controversial within the peace and justice community.”
Perhaps the most egregious example of an establishment organization censoring dissent was the recent case of the liberal/left publication the Utne Reader refusing to run an ad from the FFL. The advertisement, which quoted early feminist opposition to abortion by leaders such as Matilda Gage, was refused on the grounds that “… henceforth advertising must reflect editorial views.” (This followed a dishonest and failed attempt to claim FFL had quoted Gage out of context.)
In all the above cases, and dozens more like them detailed in FFL’s (now defunct) quarterly magazine, SisterLife, the common tactic of the establishment Left is to claim that anti-abortion leftists are not true leftists. In other words, they are excommunicated as heretics.
What should be truly disturbing to all of us is this dogmatic approach shared by most members of the establishment Left: One is a liberal or leftist based (at least partly) on one’s position on abortion.
A truly intellectual approach would, of course, be the obverse: As a leftist, how does my value system prepare me to deal with the question of abortion?
Without such a non-dogmatic approach, we are susceptible to sociological schizophrenia, condemning the violence of rape, domestic violence, militarism and capital punishment on one hand while denying the violent nature of abortion on the other.
The anti-abortion Left offers a vision in which one may oppose the violence inherent to abortion and also support issues of gender justice and other progressive causes, and in which one opposes abortion not in spite of one’s leftist value system, but as a result of it.
From this leftist viewpoint, opposition to abortion is not an aberration, but a natural, organic and logical outgrowth of one’s leftist whole. In other words, we oppose abortion for the same reasons we oppose violence against women, gays and lesbians, or ethnic minorities. Our anti-abortionism is the only response possible with our dedication to and demand for social justice.
In the end, it is the establishment Left which is resorting to the tactics of extremism: applying dogmatic loyalty tests, employing exclusivity by branding all dissidents as disloyal or heretical, and using intimidation tactics to silence the opposition.
It is difficult to find anything much progressive about that.
Comment by Punisher — February 14, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
And this article from same website calls YOUR SIDE of the debate on abortion fascists:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/trageser4.html
What is shameful is that many progressives believe as I do — that abortion is simply another manifestation of social inequality and America’s inclination to solve all problems with violence — yet don’t speak out. With the Politically Correct movement acting as all fascists do and bullying anyone who dares to question or challenge, too many progressives have allowed themselves to be silenced out of fear.
An unwanted pregnancy? No different than an unwanted CD player — simply get rid of it and go on to the next commodity.
When abortion opponents warned 25 years ago that Roe vs. Wade would result in a steady erosion of societal value for human life, they were scoffed at. Today we have Jack Kevorkian killing off people whose primary illness is depression and driving around L.A. with their organs in an ice chest, hawking them to the first taker.
This is progressive?
It is fascism, born of the same American shallowness that gave us child labor and chattel slavery. Twenty-five years after we legalized killing our own unborn offspring, we now have the government imposing the death penalty on children and the retarded, doctors proposing that we withhold food from handicapped infants, and parents suing hospitals for NOT aborting their children.
Where’s Josef Mengele when you need him?
Out here in California, the two most “liberal” candidates for higher office (Barbara Boxer and Gray Davis) in 1998 both ran on a consistent death ethic: they support the death penalty, abortion and welfare reform.
This is progressive?
To be sure, there are remnants of the old-style Left still out there fighting for the little person. Maya Angelou and Nat Hentoff, for instance. Phillip and Daniel Berrigan. Martin Sheen. Eunice and Sargent Shriver.
But the vast majority of those claiming to be leftist are far too busy marketing their politics of materialism to the white middle class to be bothered with defending the voiceless.
Comment by Punisher — February 14, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
And here is a whole series of Q and A on Feminist for Life site:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/taf/2005/PWA2005.pdf
Their stance are precisely the very pro-life stance you deem as “hate.” Heck, they allow even less exceptions for abolition of abortion then even many mainstream pro-lifers allow, like cases of rape and incest!
Comment by Punisher — February 14, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
“Feminists for life and atheists for life, etc., work with pro-choice groups and don’t hate women like “pro-laaaaaahfers” do. They’re different. They support contraception. They support real sex education, not that abstinence-only BS.”
You are the one with the BS. Feminists for Life on issues of contraception and abstinence don’t have a stance, since they have members on both sides of those issues:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/FAQ/index.htm#contraception
What is your position on birth control?
Feminists for Life advocates practical resources and support to address the unmet needs of pregnant women and parents. Preconception issues are outside FFL’s mission. Feminists for Life members and supporters hold a broad spectrum of opinions regarding preconception issues, and FFL welcomes anyone committed to working alongside us in our shared mission.
Comment by Punisher — February 14, 2010 @ 11:37 pm
Another atheistic/agnostic pro-life site, which in clear terms are totally at odds with your side of the debate:
http://secularprolife.org/
Welcome to SecularProLife.org. The pro-life movement is expanding beyond the cathedral walls and we want you to be a part of history. If you are pro-life because abortion violates the Constitutional right to life, science shows that human life begins at conception, abortion hurts women, or for any other non-religious reason: make yourself at home! Here you will meet like-minded atheists, theists, and agnostics who are eager to save lives and fight the media portrayal of pro-lifers as “religious extremists.”
Comment by Punisher — February 19, 2010 @ 12:03 pm
Punisher,
The vast majority of your comments on this page have been strawman arguments — unsubstantiated and false characterizations of the views of people who disagree with you. You have also repeatedly and falsely portrayed this issue as if there were only two sides to the issue.
Since you’re not capable of discussing what other commenters are actually saying, and since you seem to be talking right past the various other sides, I’m closing this discussion.
Comment by Michael Airhart — February 19, 2010 @ 4:17 pm