On this site, Evan Hurst wrote about new suspicions that Tim Tebow’ mother, Pam, may be fudging her story about defying a doctor’s recommendation to abort her unborn football star son Tim (pictured left) when she was facing a difficult pregnancy in the Philippines. CBS will air a controversial Focus on the Family ad during the Super Bowl where Ms. Tebow is portrayed as a hero, ironically, for choosing life.
The problem is, it appears unlikely that Tebow could have made this decision, since abortion is outlawed in the Philippines. Those who violate the law are often prosecuted and jailed.
As the facts come out, Ms. Tebow’ tale is under increased scrutiny. 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 whoppers that often set a compelling narrative, but are left factually wanting.
Let’s be clear. The veracity of Ms. Tebow’s story may be verified. She could be honestly and sincerely recounting a true event in her life.
But, if Tebow is twisting the facts or exaggerating the circumstances to fit a desired storyline, perhaps she thinks that she can get away with it because the alleged incident took place overseas.
However, the truth almost always seeps out. Focus on the Family and Pam Tebow should remember the cautionary tale of another football player, Pat Tillman (pictured left). The military shamefully tried to conceal how the gridiron star turned soldier died at war in Afghanistan. They invented a heroic fictional storyline and thought they could get away with it because the incident took place in a distant land.
They were wrong.
If Focus on the Family executives believe that they can air a hoax and won’t be exposed as frauds, they are in greater denial than the hapless token “ex-gays” they keep on-staff.
A multi-million dollar ad aired during the Super Bowl will likely be investigated. Remember, there is a doctor still out there (unless he or she has passed away) who offered the alleged abortion advice to Pam Tebow. This doctor, if found, could very well contradict the her story.
Focus on the Family is already facing serious challenges, such as cutbacks and layoffs due to the recession. Their founder, James Dobson, is leaving the group next month to start a rival radio ministry with his son Ryan. If Mrs. Tebow’s story turns out to be a con job, her fable could destroy this once venerable, and now vulnerable, right wing organization. (Focus compound pictured left)
If they are wise, leaders of the Colorado Springs-based ministry will immediately dispatch a team of private investigators to the Philippines to rigorously fact check this fishy story. If they find a discrepancy and have the decency to pull the ad, Americans will be very forgiving. If the ad airs, however, and it is a fraud, they will lose face, trash their honor, destroy their reputation, and squander their already low stockpile of credibility.
Focus on the Family’s name is clearly on the line with this ad. If a mistake of consequence and magnitude is made, it will haunt this group and may cause the organization to go out of business.
Bearing in mind Focus On The Family’s recklessness, the most appropriate verse Mr Tebow might apply tomorrow would be Matt 6:34 – ‘take no thought for the morrow’.
Just before the 2006 mid-term elections, Kevin Tillman published his eloquent letter, “After Pat’ Birthday” (truthdig.com). Kevin hoped a Democratic Congress would bring accountability back to our country. But, just as with warrantless wiretapping and torture, those responsible for the cover-up of his brother’ friendly-fire death have never been held accountable for their actions.
Both Amir Bar-Lev’ film “The Tillman Story” and Jon Krakauer”s book, “Where Men Win Glory,” blamed the Bush administration and the Army for the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death.
However, the untold story is the cover-up was actually a thoroughly bi-partisan affair. In particular, the Democratic Congress and the Obama Presidency protected General Stanley McChrystal from scrutiny and punishment for his central role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death.
The following documents at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com describe how General McChrystal has been protected by Congressman Henry Waxman, Senator James Webb (along with Senators Carl Levin and John McCain), the New York Times Pentagon Reporter Thom Shanker, the Center for a New American Security’s (CNAS) Andrew Exum, and President Obama:
“WHERE MEN WIN GLORY” — Andrew Exum, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and the Whitewash of General McChrystal’ Role in the Cover-Up of Pat Tillman’ Fratricide
“LIES … BORNE OUT BY FACTS, IF NOT THE TRUTH” — Senator James Webb, Thom Shanker & The New York Times and the Whitewash of General McChrystal’ Role in the Aftermath of Pat Tillman’ Death
“DID THEY TEACH YOU HOW TO LIE YET? — Senator James Webb, General Stanley McChrystal, and the Betrayal of Pat Tillman
“A SENSE OF HONOR” — Pat Tillman & Senator James Webb
“REMEMBER THE ICONOCLAST, NOT THE ICON — Pat Tillman 1976 — 2004″
“BATTLE FOR THE TRUTH — Iddo Netanyahu, Kevin Tillman and the Cover-Up of Their Brother’s Death”
Note: I believe the best short introduction to the Tillman story is Gary Smith’ Sports Illustrated’s (9-11-06) cover story “Remember My Name.” I’ve placed a link to that article in my document “Remember the Iconoclast, Not the Icon.”
If you want to dig deeper, I would suggest starting with “Where Men Win Glory.” The three documents at the beginning of that binder briefly summarize the story and point to more detailed information within the other documents.
It’ not surprising that after the initial cover-up fell apart, Army officers and the Bush administration lied to protect their careers. Reprehensible, but understandable. But the Democratic Congress, after they took control of both Houses in 2006, could have gone after those responsible. Or at least not promoted them!
Five years ago, Pat Tillman’ family were handed a tarnished Silver Star. It was a travesty of justice that General McChrystal was promoted to the Army’ highest rank, and handed his fourth star.
Tebow has such a finely groomed happy trail.
I wonder who mansplained that sort of thing to him.
“If the ad airs, however, and it is a fraud, they will lose face, trash their honor, destroy their reputation, and squander their already low stockpile of credibility.”
ummmmmm, i don’t think so.
It isn’t a lie if you lie religiously.
Since radical anti-gay activist Anita Bryant, unrepentant homophobes have lied to further their immoral anti-gay agenda. They get away with it again and again and again, despite the fact that what they are doing is forbidden in the Ten Commandments of the very religion they claim to embrace!
Moreover, look at the “tea baggers,” campaigns against Democratic candidates and the commercials against same-sex marriage. All lies.
I hope you are right. I would love to think that uncovering a lie will damage the large, anti-gay advocacy group FOF, but instead I fear they will simply get away with another one. However, this does not mean that we should not uncover the lie and publicize it for all the world to see.
Focus on the Family………Venerable?
Focus on the Family………Decency?
Focus on the Family………Honor?
Focus on the Family………Reputation?
Focus on the Family………Lose Face?
The use of these descriptive terms in reference to Focus on the Family is an oxymoron of epic proportion.
Scott:
Honor, reputation etc, relative to what their reputation would be if this ad was a farce. However low their character may be, it is nothing to the perception of this group if this ad blows up on them.
So, please consider the context of these adjectives.
Interestingly, if her story does prove to be correct, it actually falls more into the pro-choice category.
Bingo, Daniel.
There would be no story if she didn’t have a choice what to do with her body.
Richard Dawkins’s excellent commentary on Tebow, and anti-choice logic… “The sperm that conceived Tim Tebow was part of an ejaculate of (at an average estimate) 40 million. If any one of them had won the race to Mrs Tebow’s ovum instead of the one that did, Tim would not have been born, somebody else would. Probably not such a good quarterback but – we can but hope – a better logician, who might have survived the home schooling and broken free. That is not the point. The point is that every single one of us is lucky to be alive against hyper-astronomical odds. Tim Tebow owes his existence not just to his mother’s refusal to have an abortion. He owes his existence to the fact that his parents had intercourse precisely when they did, not a minute sooner or later. Then before that they had to meet and decide to marry. The same is true of all four of his grandparents, all eight of his great grandparents, and so on back.”
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/02/the_great_tim_tebow_fallacy.html
I got really frustrated reading this. I don’t understand how you can make such a big deal about an ad in which Mrs. Tebow is giving her perspective on her experiences at the time. You seem to parse this like laywers, a common left wing tactic, and you seem to be saying that there is only one thing she can say without being a liar, and that is to just agree with you.
The American people are not like left wing lawyers parsing ever nuance of everything someone says to “fact check” (a term always used to say your opponents are liars because you can always say their “facts” don’t add up but that might just be your opinion). Any thinking person knows that when it comes to “fact checking” facts are not always facts but can be opinions or interpretations.
Bob, I really like your contention that “parsing things like lawyers” is a “left-wing” tactic, because it cedes the point that only liberals really understand the law in this country. I agree.
Oh, and I also like that you concede that “fact-checking” is also a liberal thing, because reality DOES have a well known liberal bias. Conservatism, on the other hand, is about grounded in reality as Sarah Palin’s presidential aspirations.
Bingo, Daniel.
There would be no story if she didn’t have a choice what to do with her body.
The point of the ad is not to say you have no choice but to ask one to consider the consequences of that choice and to consider making the choice for life. You folks seem to think that any and all pro-life speech is about forbidding one to get an abortion but you are wrong. Why do you try to suppress any and all speech that advocates one of the choice of life? That seems both hyterical and hypocritical.
And with this comment
“but to ask one to consider the consequences of that choice and to consider making the choice for life”
you reveal the absurdly misogynistic motivations behind your ideas. Your comment assumes that women just casually get abortions without thinking about it. How utterly stupid, and how stereotypically male. The only people who actually advocate CHOOSING life are PRO-CHOICE PEOPLE. Focus on the Family doesn’t want people to “choose life.” They don’t care about real life, and they don’t care about fetuses either. They care about putting women in their place, where their vaginas are wholly owned by their husbands, or, if they’re not married, by their idea of God.
Wrong bob, pro-choice includes the choice to carry out a pregnancy to full term. That’s part of bodily-autonomy. The reason we are rallying against FOF is that it’s wholly anti-women. It is meant to maintain a patriarchy. Yet FOF gets a spot while another religious group get rejected for being to controversial. In any case, Pam Tebow’s case actually speaks well of the pro choice movement because it shows that she has control of her body.
Bob, anyway you slice it Pam Tebow is a liar. First she claimed she was told the fetus was damaged by drugs and that she was advised to abort. Then when it was pointed out that abortion was illegal in the Phillipines she claimed it was legal if the mother’s life was in danger and that she was advised to abort because her life was in danger. Both scenarios can’t be true, she was lying one way or the other.
“Bob, I really like your contention that “parsing things like lawyers” is a “left-wing” tactic, because it cedes the point that only liberals really understand the law in this country. I agree. ”
Not at all and you fully know it. And I have conservative friends who are professional lawyers. You think you are making a “clever” debating point but not really. You reveal the liberal belief that there are not two valid arguments here but only one valid and one not just wrong but illegitimate, like we are members of some radical group. As a Conservative, I disagree with liberal views but I do not say they are illegitimate. Liberals tend to say Consertvative views are illegitimate, not just wrong which ends debate. Look at the Climate Change debate. One is not even allowed to have a scientific dissenting view and be considered as a valid scientist. Liberals have taken to “denouncing” any dissent. You can’t just be wrong anymore.
“Oh, and I also like that you concede that “fact-checking” is also a liberal thing, because reality DOES have a well known liberal bias. Conservatism, on the other hand, is about grounded in reality as Sarah Palin’ presidential aspirations.”
Again, if you are as smart as you think you are, you know
both what I meant but you are subverting that to make a mere “debating” point. Both Liberalism and Conservatism are modes of thought with biases. No human is wholly one of the other for we all have some of each. Statistically speaking, I am probably one to two sigma’s right but many vocal liberals are six sigma left.
“Bob, anyway you slice it Pam Tebow is a liar. First she claimed she was told the fetus was damaged by drugs and that she was advised to abort. Then when it was pointed out that abortion was illegal in the Phillipines she claimed it was legal if the mother’ life was in danger and that she was advised to abort because her life was in danger. Both scenarios can’t be true, she was lying one way or the other.”
See, you (a different reader now) can’t just say that you don’t like Ms. Tebow’s message, you feel the need to destroy anyone who suggests that one should consider that they should not abort their child. Have you met Ms. Tebow? Do you know her? Or are you parroting what you are told. This is exactly the kind of “legal parsing” I alluded to earlier. It’s not legal, and it’s not moral either. Can you stand before God and say with absolute certainty that you have all the facts sufficient to judge Ms. Tebow’s character? Would you say that to her son’s face? If not, perhaps you should not say it at all.
“Wrong bob, pro-choice includes the choice to carry out a pregnancy to full term. That’ part of bodily-autonomy. The reason we are rallying against FOF is that it’ wholly anti-women. It is meant to maintain a patriarchy. Yet FOF gets a spot while another religious group get rejected for being to controversial. In any case, Pam Tebow’ case actually speaks well of the pro choice movement because it shows that she has control of her body.”
Yet, people go ballistic because she is willing to talk about her choice becasue 1) you don’t like the implied message, 2) you don’t like those who paid for it. Some
of you would actually try to supress that opinion, and don’t say you wouldn’t, because it may have an effect of reducing abortions. When you try to supress speech you are not acting with Liberal values.
Bob said “Look at the Climate Change debate. One is not even allowed to have a scientific dissenting view and be considered as a valid scientist.”
Bob said “Can you stand before God and say with absolute certainty that you have all the facts sufficient to judge Ms. Tebow’ character?”.
No one can stand before an imaginary character. It is an absolute certainty that Pam Tebow is a liar, both things she’s claimed cannot be simultaneously true.
Bob asked “Would you say that to her son’ face?”.
You’re implying that he would assault me for telling the truth. If I thought that was a possibility I suppose I probably wouldn’t say that to her son’s face, but it wouldn’t make it any less the truth.
If all Focus on the “Family” did was discourage women from having abortions I’d have no problem with that. But what they do is raise funds with a disingenous pro-choice message and then use those funds to lobby for denying women that choice. I stand against that.
I wonder if that psycho soldier who wateroarded his daughter because she couldn’t say the alphabet, was insired by Dobson’s view on smacking children.
“Yet, people go ballistic because she is willing to talk about her choice becasue 1) you don’t like the implied message, 2) you don’t like those who paid for it. Some
of you would actually try to supress that opinion, and don’t say you wouldn’t, because it may have an effect of reducing abortions. When you try to supress speech you are not acting with Liberal values.”
NO, Bob. Slowly: People are raising valid concerns because she is speaking for an organization which wants to take that choice away from her!
It’s that simple. And your thing about liberals not finding conservative viewpoints legitimate is whining at best. If you had facts to back up your beliefs, that would be one thing. You probably read that whine-fest by Gerard Alexander about how condescending liberals are and thought you had a new talking point for a few weeks. Yeah, well, I read it too.
“I wonder if that psycho soldier who wateroarded his daughter because she couldn’t say the alphabet, was insired by Dobson’ view on smacking children.”
Either that, or Dobson’s story about that time he beat the crap out of his dachshund.
“And with this comment
“but to ask one to consider the consequences of that choice and to consider making the choice for life”
you reveal the absurdly misogynistic motivations behind your ideas. Your comment assumes that women just casually get abortions without thinking about it.”
God knows my mind and He knows full well that I do not and I do not assume “that women just casually get abortions without thinking about it” You read that pre-concieved notion into my text. It remaind valid and moral
“to ask one to consider the consequences of that choice”
in the sense of a passionate plea to choose not to have an abortion. Are you suggesting I have no right to an opinion?
“How utterly stupid, and how stereotypically male.”
It would be stupid if I meant that but I did not. I am not ashamed of being male.
“The only people who actually advocate CHOOSING life are PRO-CHOICE PEOPLE.”
Oh, but leaving out the ones that supress speech.
“Focus on the Family doesn’t want people to “choose life.” They don’t care about real life, and they don’t care about fetuses either. They care about putting women in their place, where their vaginas are wholly owned by their husbands, or, if they’re not married, by their idea of God.”
God will be the judge of FOF and Dr. Dobson and you and me.
Everyone has a god, either real or of their own making and the worse is when you are your own little god. I hope you can see outside of yourself. But of course you seem to reject most specifically the Christian God. Tell me,
is it moral to do what ever you want with your body? Are there limits? If so who sets them? Can you do anything?
I know you cannot be against all laws. Therefore the principle is that we can and should legislate morality and only the details are what we argue.
By the way, I know a lot of married Christian men. I cannot think of one case where any of them think they own their wives in the crude and debased way your text suggests.
YES! It’s not your business what women you have never met do with their bodies! It’s really not your business what women you DO know do with their bodies! If they ask your opinion, then answer, by all means. But my goodness? Do you see how you’re illustrating my case with your very words? It’s. Not. Your. Body. And for you to ask women to “consider the consequences of their choice,” you are implicitly saying that you think women are so stupid that they don’t know what happens when they have an abortion. You have no right over what women do with their wombs, with their vaginas, with their bodies. That is the entire point.
Prove to me that your god is real, rather than Zeus or Curious George, and I’ll say you have an argument.
Wrong. That’s just one of those things religious people tell themselves in the echo chamber to justify their continued belief. It’s about as stupid as the “atheism is a religion” argument. No. It’s not. Not all humans need religious systems to keep them in line. Some of us do just fine without them.
Only because that’s the one you’re hellbent on convincing me to worship. If you were a Muslim, we’d be having a different discussion.
False construction implying that morality comes from religion, when the truth of the matter is that religion is merely a prism through which we reflect our own notions of morality. Hence why religious institutions have been the instigators of most of the most heinous crimes in human history. No, people are responsible, themselves, for ascertaining right and wrong, but morality does seem to be instinctive, to a point. Animals exhibit forms of morality. Humans, being more highly evolved, exhibit more highly evolved forms of morality. But the brain is a funny thing. If you exchange your own mind for religion, it’s easy to justify genocide as moral, like the good Christians in Uganda.
Adrian, we’ve discussed Dobson’s approval at pharyngula.
I missed responding to one of Bob’s points in my previous comment.
Bob said “Look at the Climate Change debate. One is not even allowed to have a scientific dissenting view and be considered as a valid scientist.”
There is widespread concensus in the scientific community that climate change is happening due to human actions. There is no dissenting scientific view, the people denying climate change are in the vast majority of cases not scientists.
Bob asked “is it moral to do what ever you want with your body? Are there limits?”.
It is moral to do whatever you want with your body as long as you are not harming others. A fetus is highjacking a woman’s body and has no right to it without her permission.
Bob asked “If so who sets [limits]?”
We do as a society.
Bob asked “Can you do anything?”.
Morally speaking, yes of course – as long as you’re hurting no one.
Priya Lynn said:
“Bob said “Can you stand before God and say with absolute certainty that you have all the facts sufficient to judge Ms. Tebow’ character?”.
No one can stand before an imaginary character. It is an absolute certainty that Pam Tebow is a liar, both things she’ claimed cannot be simultaneously true.”
You cannot prove, and you don’t know for certain either that God is imaginary or that Ms. Tebow is a liar for you were not present when she went through her ordeal and you only have likely innaccurate accounts to go by. Frankly,
even if it turns out that she exaggerated the story for impact, and I have no knowledge that is the case, then that makes her no worse than Al Gore inventing the internet or Obama saving the world economy all by himself. Big deal. The only way to make that into some huge “lie” is for the purpose of discrediting her message, then harping on the supposed “lie” is itself disengenuous and is just “selective outrage”.
Besides, the bigger point is that any mother can, and has the right, and it would be both moral and ethical to say, “I thought about getting an abortion but did not and look at my grown child now. If you are considering an abortion, please think about who that child might be in twenty years and the value of their being.”
Regarding God, a lot of Liberals, including President Obama say God exists and not just to get votes. If you know for certain President Obama is a closet athiest then tell me now and don’t hid the truth.
Priya Lynn said:
“Bob asked “Would you say that to her son’ face?”.
You’re implying that he would assault me for telling the truth. If I thought that was a possibility I suppose I probably wouldn’t say that to her son’ face, but it wouldn’t make it any less the truth.”
I think he would turn the other cheek to such a slap but I thnk in fact you are hurting him and her for their heartfelt stand. And I feel hurt at the coldness of your
judgement of Ms. Tebow.
“If all Focus on the “Family” did was discourage women from having abortions I’d have no problem with that. But what they do is raise funds with a disingenous pro-choice message and then use those funds to lobby for denying women that choice. I stand against that.”
Do you stand for the right of FOF or any such group, under the Constitution of the United States, to exist, raise funds and advocate their message? And how exactly do you “stand agaist that”. Do you counter them by using the very legal system to force them into silence? If so, is that the American way?
” and I have no knowledge that is the case, then that makes her no worse than Al Gore inventing the internet or Obama saving the world economy all by himself. Big deal.”
Haha, wow, fantasy world much?
Al Gore never said that.
Seriously, look it up. Find the exact quote, and then realize that everything you believe about the world is likely untrue.
Hilarious.
(Obama never said he saved the world economy by himself either. Now shhhh. Grown-ups are talking.)
“Regarding God, a lot of Liberals, including President Obama say God exists and not just to get votes. If you know for certain President Obama is a closet athiest then tell me now and don’t hid the truth.”
God, I wish he was lying about that.
“I think he would turn the other cheek to such a slap but I thnk in fact you are hurting him and her for their heartfelt stand. And I feel hurt at the coldness of your
judgement of Ms. Tebow.”
YOU feel hurt? Man, I know that there’s a major victim mentality running through your side of the aisle, but WOW.
And nobody tried to “silence” FotF. They called for CBS to stand by their OWN policy of rejecting advocacy ads. That’s all.
Priya Lynn said:
“I missed responding to one of Bob’ points in my previous comment.
Bob said “Look at the Climate Change debate. One is not even allowed to have a scientific dissenting view and be considered as a valid scientist.”
There is widespread concensus in the scientific community that climate change is happening due to human actions. There is no dissenting scientific view, the people denying climate change are in the vast majority of cases not scientists.”
I have a physics degree which you would admit is a science. I know that there are professional scientists, climate scientists, who hold dissenting views. There is
a scientific concensus on Climate change but there is also a political juggernaught of non-scientists loudly denouncing the legitamacy of dissent. That is wrong and now some voices supporting CC are speaking out. There does exist a dissenting scientific view on CC. Some think the solar output is the cause of warming, others think the warming trend is not statistically significant. Still others hold to different models. Under normal circumstances all that is well and good but what is happening is the over politization of the issue, taking it out of science and into politics. Perhaps if a trillion dollars of economic impact were not in the mix it would not be that important and it would all get sorted out in time but I am not sure I support the current proposed measures without further data.
For the record I am a strong supported in alternative energy and new technologies and I probably have heard of some things that would blow your socks off if they pan out. I am also against pollution in general and would like a cleaner planet too but the purity of science is at stake in this debate.
Priya Lynn said:
Bob asked “is it moral to do what ever you want with your body? Are there limits?”.
It is moral to do whatever you want with your body as long as you are not harming others.
==>A fetus is highjacking a woman’ body and has no right ==>to it without her permission.
Is this an intentional provocation? Do most people hear agree with this. I want to understand where you all are comming from. Let me ask this, outside of rape or incest, if a woman freely chosses to have sex, then has she not granted that permission to the fetus already? And once granted, is it right that she can revoke it at any time under any circumstance?
Priya Lynn said:
“Bob asked “If so who sets [limits]?”
We do as a society.”
Then as a society do we have the right to determine that a fetus is a child and has an equal right to exist. In
many (not all or in extreme cases) if you objectively
balance the rights of the woman to not be pregnant vs. the rights of a fetus to merely exist, can you say the right to actually exist is not a greater right than then right not to be pregnant for nine months?
Priya Lynn said:
“Bob asked “Can you do anything?”.
Morally speaking, yes of course — as long as you’re hurting no one.”
We agree here. But then would you say the fetus is “no one” and is not being hurt by its destruction right? How can you be so absolutely sure on this crucual point. I mean really, putting aside all the jargon and speaking from your heart as a caring human being?
(On that note I have to leave now but I will look back tomorrow to see the answers and respond, Thanks.)
[...] Focus on the Family’ Survival On The Line With Tebow Ad (28) [...]
Evan Hurst said;
Bob said:” and I have no knowledge that is the case, then that makes her no worse than Al Gore inventing the internet or Obama saving the world economy all by himself. Big deal.”
Evan Hurst said;
Haha, wow, fantasy world much?
Al Gore never said that.
Seriously, look it up. Find the exact quote, and then realize that everything you believe about the world is likely untrue.
Hilarious.
Bob responds:
What Al Gore said is “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet.”
Nobody believes that Al Gore actually claimed to invent the internet all by himself. But neither did he “create” the internet, for it had already been created, nor did it need his “initiative” to be created. Those claims are also exaggerated. Just reading the exact quote it is clear it is self-serving, misleading, hypes his role and deserves a chuckle. As such, the phrase that “Al Gore invernted the internet” has now become part of our cultural lexicon. It is a joke. You should have realized I was using it in that sense. I think most people understand that but perhaps here you take things hyper literally.
What Al Gore did do was to support the new technologies through legislative action which was good and he should have just said that.
Evan Hurst said;
BOb:
“I think he would turn the other cheek to such a slap but I thnk in fact you are hurting him and her for their heartfelt stand. And I feel hurt at the coldness of your
judgement of Ms. Tebow.”
Evan Hurst said;
YOU feel hurt? Man, I know that there’ a major victim mentality running through your side of the aisle, but WOW.
Bob responds:
You misunderstand. I am not hurt like a victim just that it pains me to see coldness and cruelty of one person towards another. In that sense the statement hurt.
EH;
And nobody tried to “silence” FotF. They called for CBS to stand by their OWN policy of rejecting advocacy ads. That’ all.
Bob;
Why interfere at all?
Uh, because extremist views like those of FotF shouldn’t go without a response, especially when the majority of the country supports Roe v Wade.
Bob said “I have a physics degree which you would admit is a science.”.
Sure its science, but it doesn’t make you anymore knowledgeable about climate change than I am. In fact I spent 13 years as information systems manager at Environment Canada, I arguably have more knowledge than you when it comes to climate change.
Bob said “I know that there are professional scientists, climate scientists, who hold dissenting views.”.
Once again, they are very much in the minority. The consensus amongst scientists is that climate change due to human activities is very much a reality.
Bob asked “if a woman freely chosses to have sex, then has she not granted that permission to the fetus already?”
No, obviously not. That’s like saying “If a woman freely chooses to drive a car has she not obviously agreed to have an accident?”. Clearly one is not a certain consequence of the other.
Bob said “Then as a society do we have the right to determine that a fetus is a child and has an equal right to exist.”.
Yes.
Bob said “In
many (not all or in extreme cases) if you objectively
balance the rights of the woman to not be pregnant vs. the rights of a fetus to merely exist, can you say the right to actually exist is not a greater right than then right not to be pregnant for nine months?”
Fetuses, not technically being people don’t have any rights. The fetus is welcome to exist on its own but if it cannot do so without highjacking a woman’s body that’s its problem.
Bob said “But then would you say the fetus is “no one” and is not being hurt by its destruction right?”.
In the early stages a fetus is indeed “no one”, it does not resemble a person with thoughts, feelings, and desires. It makes a gradual transistion from being “no one” to being a person at birth, at any intermediate point it is distinctly less than a person. I sometimes propose a middle ground which involves consideration for the fetus. I think it would be most ethical to prohibit abortion after the point where the fetus has developed enough to feel pain, excepting of course in the cases of rape, incest, or the mother’s life being in danger.
Further to Bob’s question “can you say the right to actually exist is not a greater right than then right not to be pregnant for nine months?”".
Would you say that a starving third world person’s right to exist is greater than your right to have any money beyond your own subsistance? Do they have a right to your earnings beyond that point? If so, why don’t you donate all you earn beyond what you require for subsistance to charity?
Bob:
Are you suggesting I have no right to an opinion?
Evan Hurst:
YES! It’ not your business what women you have never met do with their bodies! It’ really not your business what women you DO know do with their bodies! If they ask your opinion, then answer, by all means. But my goodness? Do you see how you’re illustrating my case with your very words?
Bob:
Well if I, as a male, have no right to an opinion on the subject, then you don’t either. According to your logic, only women’s opinions matter. So why are you so outspoken if you are male? My point is we both are allowed to have an opinion.
Evan Hurst Continues:
It’. Not. Your. Body. And for you to ask women to “consider the consequences of their choice,” you are implicitly saying that you think women are so stupid that they don’t know what happens when they have an abortion.
Bob:
No, I know women are not stupid, that is just your spin. But a woman has to make an informed choice without being unduely influenced by the folks at Planned Parenthood who have a vested financial interest in her decision.
Evan Hurst;
You have no right over what women do with their wombs, with their vaginas, with their bodies. That is the entire point.
Bob:
First, federal taxes, including my part, pay about a third of PP’s budget so I am paying for aboution’s already. If I am made to pay, I have a right to an opinion. Taxation without representation. Or do you think its right to make me pay for abortion yet have not right to an opinion?
More importantly, in any meaningful relationship both partners have an interest and a stake in not just thier own body but in each others bodies. For example, say you get a disturbing spot on your back and your wife says “Please! Go see a doctor!” and you say “No, it’s my body, mind your own business!” Well, it’s not only your own body you should see the doctor!
Yes, the partner does not have control of the other but they each have some interest. Likewise, a male partner
has some interest and valid opinion when his female parter is pregnant.
Planned Parenthood has a “vested financial interest?”
Wow, you’ve swallowed all the kool-aid, haven’t you? First of all, Planned Parenthood is a non-profit. Secondly, only THREE PERCENT OF THEIR SERVICES involve abortion. 3%!
They serve women AND men in a variety of ways involved with reproductive and sexual health. To think that they’re doing abortions for profit is simply silly.
And no, you fail when you say that because I’m a man, I shouldn’t have an opinion, because I support women’s right to make that decision. You don’t! That’s why you have no right to make the decision. I support a woman’s right to make that decision for HERSELF.
AND I would add that oftentimes men support their partner’s decisions to have an abortion, OR to carry a child to term! Men ARE involved. It’s just not relevant what YOU think a woman you’ve never met should do.
Evan Hurst;
“You have no right over what women do with their wombs, with their vaginas, with their bodies. That is the entire point.”
Bob:
“First, federal taxes, including my part, pay about a third of PP’ budget so I am paying for aboution’ already. If I am made to pay, I have a right to an opinion. Taxation without representation. Or do you think its right to make me pay for abortion yet have not right to an opinion?”
Yes you have a right to an opinion on how your taxes are used, but you have no right over what women do with their wombs, with their vaginas, with their bodies. You can suggest no taxes be used to fund abortions but you have no right to oppose abortions that aren’t tax funded.
Evan Hurst;
“You have no right over what women do with their wombs, with their vaginas, with their bodies. That is the entire point.”
Bob:
“First, federal taxes, including my part, pay about a third of PP’ budget so I am paying for aboution’ already. If I am made to pay, I have a right to an opinion. Taxation without representation. Or do you think its right to make me pay for abortion yet have not right to an opinion?”
Priya Lynn:
Yes you have a right to an opinion on how your taxes are used, but you have no right over what women do with their wombs, with their vaginas, with their bodies. You can suggest no taxes be used to fund abortions but you have no right to oppose abortions that aren’t tax funded.
Bob Responds;
Do you mean by “no right to oppose abortions that aren’t tax funded” that I have no actual right to even have an opinion? Sorry but I assert the right to have an opinion on any conceivable subject that is part of humanity.
Regarding rights over a woman’s body, I never have told a woman what to do but you must also concede that a woman has no right to use or abuse my body either and that means no right to enter a meaningful relationship, pursue the greatest possible intimacy with me, take part of me into herself, pursue a child then just change her mind and say I have no right to even have an opinion on the matter. That’s part of me too in there! I am not saying I should have equal say, just some say, or just the right to even have a say.
What women do with their bodies and what men do always invloves more than just themselves. This is why casual sex is such a distortion and misuse of a sacred act.
Yeah, that’s a really random hypothetical. Rarely does a woman “pursue a child” and then just suddenly decide to terminate.
And you have no business having an opinion on whether or not people are having casual sex either, because it’s, you know, none of your damn business.
Of course a woman has no right to use or abuse your body, but her having an abortion has nothing to do with your body, it remains exactly the same regardless of whether or not she aborts Your suggestion to the contrary is just crazy talk.
Sex is not a “sacred” act. Your god is imaginary and imaginary beings have no right to dictate to real people what they should and should not do.
Missed this the first time around – Bob said “What women do with their bodies and what men do always invloves more than just themselves.”.
Nonsense. Much of what we do with our bodies has no effect whatsoever on anyone else. You’ve masturbated countless times without affecting any woman, you’d be wise to continue to do so.
D’y'all think that you will solve the abortion debate here?
Priya Lynn:
Of course a woman has no right to use or abuse your body, but her having an abortion has nothing to do with your body, it remains exactly the same regardless of whether or not she aborts Your suggestion to the contrary is just crazy talk.
Bob:
If this principle were fully translated into a legal framework then any child born is wholly the right and the responsibility of the mother. The father, if he has absolutely no say, has absolutely no duty either.
Do you accept this?
A related thought is that the fetus is medically, a separate body growing in, but not constituting, the woman’s body. Is is in, not of, the womans’ body. It
is physically derived from equal parts male and female
and is grown from processed matter derived from food.
Suppose, hypothetically, we have an artificial womb. A growing fetus is equally then the interest of both partners (whether the DNA is derived from male/female or
two males or two females). If one partner carries it around to keep it warm and safe, does that partner have the right to turn off the womb without consultation?
Women generally do not have children without involving a man’s body which makes it partly his concern. She cannot
start a life without help from outside herself. Do make that cheap and meaningless? That, I argue is a form of abuse.
Priya Lynn:
Sex is not a “sacred” act. Your god is imaginary and imaginary beings have no right to dictate to real people what they should and should not do.
Bob:
Then you also reject the concept of “Sacred Feminine” and Wicca and all such movements? But we are really debating whether or not other people should be involved in making these decisions.
Michael said;
D’y'all think that you will solve the abortion debate here?
Bob:
Solve, no. Understand other people better, yes.
Priya Lynn said:
“Missed this the first time around — Bob said “What women do with their bodies and what men do always invloves more than just themselves.”.
Nonsense. Much of what we do with our bodies has no effect whatsoever on anyone else. You’ve masturbated countless times without affecting any woman, you’d be wise to continue to do so.
Bob counters;
Even that has effects. In a marrage, it can be a selfish diversion that can hurt the relationship. Or, it can be used to build up one’s ability to better satisfy another person.
Evan Hurst said;
Planned Parenthood has a “vested financial interest?”
Wow, you’ve swallowed all the kool-aid, haven’t you? First of all, Planned Parenthood is a non-profit. Secondly, only THREE PERCENT OF THEIR SERVICES involve abortion. 3%!
Bob:
PP is the largest provider of abortions. 3% of total services is irrelevent to the discussion. Profit, and I checked for that, or not is irrelevent. They get some 300 million tax dollars. I object that my money goes to that organization because of what they do.
Evan Hurst:
And no, you fail when you say that because I’m a man, I shouldn’t have an opinion, because I support women’ right to make that decision. You don’t! That’ why you have no right to make the decision. I support a woman’ right to make that decision for HERSELF.
Bob:
I think you are confused as to what the debate is about. I am arguing that I have a right to an opinion. Priya Lynn and you seem to be saying that I have no right to one at all because of my stand. What do we mean by “right”. I never said I have the right to make a woman’s decision for her only that I have a right as a human being to have an opinion.
Evan Hurst:
And you have no business having an opinion on whether or not people are having casual sex either, because it’, you know, none of your damn business.
Bob:
Casual sex hurts society in many ways. It degrades life and meaning. Leaving religion aside, you can’t give your most intimate inner private self to anyone you meet and still have the same intimacy with the one you really love. You just can’t. Something in a human dies when sex is cheap.
It also creates many of the pregnancies that people don’t want. You say I have no valid opinion on abortion unless I support your view. Nobody likes abortion. Do you want free sex with no responsibilities and then widely available abortion on demand too?
Evan Hurst:
AND I would add that oftentimes men support their partner’ decisions to have an abortion, OR to carry a child to term! Men ARE involved. It’ just not relevant what YOU think a woman you’ve never met should do.
Bob:
I think you have said far more than that: “It’ really not your business what women you DO know do with their bodies!” I presume that meant any woman no matter how close.
Bob:
Regarding rights over a woman’ body, I never have told a woman what to do but you must also concede that a woman has no right to use or abuse my body either and that means no right to enter a meaningful relationship, pursue the greatest possible intimacy with me, take part of me into herself, pursue a child then just change her mind and say I have no right to even have an opinion on the matter. That’ part of me too in there! I am not saying I should have equal say, just some say, or just the right to even have a say.
Evan Hurst:
Yeah, that’ a really random hypothetical. Rarely does a woman “pursue a child” and then just suddenly decide to terminate.
Bob:
Of course you really take that out of context I put it in.
The point is: in the situation I said, when I am the father and both of us decided to have a child together, do I then have a say or not?
“Casual sex hurts society in many ways. It degrades life and meaning. Leaving religion aside, you can’t give your most intimate inner private self to anyone you meet and still have the same intimacy with the one you really love. You just can’t. Something in a human dies when sex is cheap.”
Ugh. What a prude. I’m getting really bored, but it’s not your business what kind of sex people have, as long as they’re consenting. Casual sex only degrades the kind of “life” that pro-lifers talk about — the repressed, dead, Terri Schiavo kind, the kind that’s free of things that Christianists consider “dirty.” Some would argue that sex is one of the most truly human, truly living acts that exists. Sex is whatever two consenting people having sex with other make it. If they want it to be intimate, that’s great. And your contention that “something in us dies” when sex is cheap is moralistic nonsense that you can’t prove. It may be true for you, but that doesn’t mean it’s true for everyone. Regardless, it’s Not Your Business.
“It also creates many of the pregnancies that people don’t want. You say I have no valid opinion on abortion unless I support your view. Nobody likes abortion. Do you want free sex with no responsibilities and then widely available abortion on demand too?”
It’s really prudish and moralistic and again NOT YOUR BUSINESS whether people have sex “with no responsibilities.” Children are not blessings to everyone. I don’t buy your notion that sex should naturally involve the possibility of a child being created, because that’s a man-made religious construct, based in no reality at all. Yes, heterosexual sex can create babies. It can also be just fun, and people should be able to have all the sex they want without having to worry about babies. Personally I wish “pro-life” people would stop being so shamed about sex and promote safe use of contraceptives, and when necessary, the morning after pill (don’t tell me it’s an “abortifacient” because it’s not scientifically true, no matter what any dingbat pro-life leader says), to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And yes, I do believe abortion should be safely available and affordable, but I’d rather do more to prevent the need for abortion. I refuse to use your “pro-lahfe” “abortion on demand” terminology, because it’s nonsense, and it betrays a fundamental misogyny toward women who get abortions, and a willful misunderstanding of the reasons women have them.
Here’s the open secret about pro-lifers, which I’m going to lay on the line right now. Most “pro-lifers” quickly become secret pro-choicers when it’s their daughter. Anyone who’s ever done any kind of work with Planned Parenthood or any group like that can tell you that, unequivocally. I’ve witnessed it close up.
Same with the procedure that pro-lifers incorrectly call “partial birth abortion.” It’s a procedure that is only used in cases of extreme necessity, usually involving grotesque medical problems for the mother and/or the fetus. “Pro-lifers” will rail against that until the second they find themselves unlucky enough to be in a situation that calls for a painful late-term abortion.
Then they STFU forever. I hope you never find yourself in that situation, Bob, because this is one case where your ignorance truly is bliss, and I wouldn’t wish those kinds of situations on my worst enemy.
(Of course, since you’re an anti-abortion internet troll, you’re probably one of those b******s who thinks that if your wife dies during childbirth, she was doing the work of “God.”)
Anyway, Bob. I’m through. Go find another random blog to annoy the p**s out of.
FYI, if there was a god, I would be grateful to her that she created me with a sexual orientation that will NEVER result in an accidental baby, because I detest children.
:)
Feel free to continue commenting, but you’re talking to a wall from this point forward.
Evan Hurst wrote:
(Of course, since you’re an anti-abortion internet troll, you’re probably one of those b******s who thinks that if your wife dies during childbirth, she was doing the work of “God.”)
Your wrong here. I would not say that at all. I would ask the doctors to try to save her first.
I am not a “troll” either. When I found this site yesterday I immediately participated. I do not look for these sites.
Evan Hurst wrote:
Sex is whatever two consenting people having sex with other make it. If they want it to be intimate, that’ great. And your contention that “something in us dies” when sex is cheap is moralistic nonsense that you can’t prove. It may be true for you, but that doesn’t mean it’ true for everyone. Regardless, it’ Not Your Business.
Bob:
But since I have to pay for it. It is my business. Even if it was just a relative truth, you then should not demean it.
Evan Hurst wrote:
Here’ the open secret about pro-lifers, which I’m going to lay on the line right now. Most “pro-lifers” quickly become secret pro-choicers when it’ their daughter. Anyone who’ ever done any kind of work with Planned Parenthood or any group like that can tell you that, unequivocally. I’ve witnessed it close up.
Bob:
Some do. I’ve know others who did not. Besides, are you assuming I am trying to say people should not be allowed to get abortions? Where did I say that? I said I want to
convince people not to get them if possible, not reverse the law.
Maybe it’s a new concept for you a person who is pro-life but not trying to force the laws to change. I would not make my daughter do or not do anything.
Evan Hurst:
Feel free to continue commenting, but you’re talking to a wall from this point forward.
Bob:
I think from the beginning but thanks for engaging at all.(:
The RRRW lying to push their agenda? You’re kidding, right?