The issue is that political advocacy ads have been banned during the superbowl before -- Peta is a notable one.

If there were a past pattern of allowing ads on controversial political issues, or even noncontroversial ones (drunk driving PSAs, let's say), you'd be right on. But given past policy, making an exception for this is a double standard.

If running it starts a new precedent that they follow from now on regarding controversial ads, fine. I just don't see that happening. I'd rather look at Janet Jackson's boob.

> short of the old "No yelling 'fire' in
> a crowded theater," we can't...

So if it were an ad supporting the conventional, opposite-gender arrangement for marriage, you'd say...

The money allusion is not clear, and your insistence that this is all about being fashionable deserves to be taken at face value... (Hey, did the President of the United States oppose gay marriage, in a manner that sealed his conquest of the election? Why yes, I believe he did!)

And just to be clear, everybody has the same rights. M'kay, thanks now.

________________________

Offtopic: Two sweet ones from Postrel.

As you were—
________________________

It's always irked me that much of the "pro-choice" rhetoric focuses only on ensuring that people can(do?) chose abortion.

This video seems to be about convincing people NOT to "choose" abortion...the equal and opposite side of the pro-choice arguument.

With the addition of a very real fact that many pro-abortion types would rather people not consider...that having an abortion prevents a person from ever existing.

It's seems to me to be about making an "informed" decision, rather than being bullied into a viewpoint, one way or the other.

I've never understood how opposing abortion shows hostility towards women? They don't want women to be "victimized" by being unable to have unfettered access to abortions?

How about victimizing women by forcing them to hold only one, "acceptable" pro-choice view, or be branded "anti-American" or "anti-choice?"

Look, abortion arguments don't belong on TV during the Superbowl. It's football, not politics! The last thing we need is this crap interferring with the Saints kicking the Colts' collective asses. Get a grip, people. We can argue abortion any other godsdamn day til the cows come home. Why on earth would we want to let that spoil a good godsdamn football game? o.O

Steve B, this ad is not about making an "informed" decision at all. Its saying this mother faced the possibility of dying and she went ahead with a dangerous pregnancy and look, now she has a Heisman Trophy winner as her reward.
I am a big fan of free speech. I'm also pro-choice. While the SuperBowl may not be the place for it, I don't have a problem with this ad. Neither side of the abortion argument really are fair to the other but that's the name of the game. Just as all pro-choice people aren't looking to "slaughter little babies," I don't think all pro-life people are storming clinics and killing doctors.
The Tebow happens to be a nice story that worked out well. But for that one, I wonder how many women died in similar circumstances and whether or not they had a choice.

See, Amy, that's what I so respect about you...and what keeps me hanging around your blog. You are fair minded and truly appreciate free speech and a good argument.

Progressives-they never want to do anything except stop others from doing. They don't want to succeed, they want to stop you from doing so. They don't want to put an ad in the Superbowl, they want to stop you from doing so.

Bravo to his mom. I too wonder how many women in her situation didn't make it. And I wonder how many of them's last thought would have been "save the baby". It would have been (and was) mine (and yes, I've nearly died from pregnancy/childbirth). A parent's job is to protect the life of their child-not protect it unless it's safer to themselves to not do so.

Anyway, the attacks on free speech lately frightens the pants off me. There are tens of thousands-if not hundreds of thousands-of people who died trying to get this right in China, who think we are absolute idiots right now.

The ads that belong in the superbowl are the ones the station sells time to. Period. Don't like them? Take a pee break during them, or go grab another beer.

Actually, Kristen, from what I understand, the issue wasn't whether Mrs. Tebow would survive. She got amoebic dysentary and took the antibiotics that she needed to take to survive. The question was what effect the antibiotics would have on the baby (fetus, if you prefer). She was told that she would likely give birth to a stillborn child; if her child survived, he would be severely disabled. Obviously, this didn't turn out to be the case. I'm not saying that the story doesn't represent a wrenching dilemma for many people...but, from what I've read from multiple sources, Mrs. Tebow's life wasn't at stake. So, it's not a "risk your life and you could end up with a Heisman winner" story, it's a "risk having a severely disabled baby and you could end up with a Heisman winner." Or it could just be, "Doctors don't know everything"....which, much as I respect doctors, is true.

I will point out, though, that we don't know the exact nature of the ad. It could be "Abortion is MURDER OF HEISMAN WINNERS!" or it could be, "I was told my child would never have a normal life. He hasn't. He's Tim Tebow."

The issue is that political advocacy ads have been banned during the superbowl before -- Peta is a notable one.

Yep. Now, that is a valid argument (not that you need my approval, obviously!). But that's not the argument I'm hearing from most of the feminist/pro-choice groups that are being quoted. For some people, advocacy of legalized abortion is a pseudo-religion; they're just as dogmatic about it as religious scholars were of old. I actually think they hurt their cause more than they help, but YMMV.

One reason I enjoy Amy's site so much is that she doesn't replace organized religion with pseudo-religions. She's in favor of (for example) legalized abortion and tougher environmental standards, but she's not dogmatic and she doesn't particularly care about being validated by others for her opinions. Same with Christopher Hitchens. When people laugh at me for attending church and then show mindless, unquestioning devotion to some other cause while chastising me for not doing so, I get cranky.

IIRC the problem with the PeTA ad that got pulled was not that it was political, but that it was too racy.

I always like the hypocritial left who talk about diversity and other points of view until it conflicts with what they think.

Then it's silence the other side, so no one can hear their message.

Elle, if that's the ad I'm thinking of, it was clearly too much of a risk for the network to broadcast, given the FCC's recent history of making up broadcast decency standards as it goes along and then applying them retroactively. My pet conspiracy theory on that was that PETA deliberately produced an ad that they knew couldn't be broadcast, so they could then whine about censorship.

The two big problems with the pro-choice organizations are: #1. They are fascists. #2. They act like getting an abortion is the same as having a tooth filled. Women who have abortions should be at least told the truth about long-term psychological consequences of their choice, and not lied to.

Yeah sure, Scott. Are you for real? Have YOU ever had an abortion? Why do men think they have a right to tell a woman about long-term psychological consequences of their choice, but yet no men ever take the time to tell the women about how much of an asshole the guy they chose to get nekkid with is? And even so, why can't they be told these things at their doctors' offices instead of during a football game? The only controversy that should be going on during this football game is how many points are the Saints going to win by, and who's going to get the MVP trophy. There's a time and a place to discuss abortions. That would be when you're pregnant and in your doctor's office. Period. (oops, missing period!)

Sure, Flynn, as soon as the right to not be offended becomes a Constitutional Amendment. Then I have a whole list of commercials I'm having banned because they offend me.

Scott, have you ever even talked to anyone in a doctors office, or anyone who has ever gotten an abortion? I would wager the answer is no because you dont even know what the hell you are talking about.
The doctors in fact, DO tell the women getting the procedure all the potential risks, all long-term psychological issues they could face because of their choice, encourage them to seek counceling or a second opinion, and some even offer to help the women find reputable adoption agencies instead of doing the procedure right away. It is actually required in some places that the women undergo a complete mental health review before they undergo the procedure. There are also some don't ask don't tell doctors and that is okay too. After all, I can't imagine that any women getting an abortion hasn't thought about it long and hard already. And if they haven't, then that is thier cross to bear. No, it isn't a perfect system but hardly a fasict one.

Isn't this sort of a "defacto" pro-life spot, which is only by inference anti-abortion?

I'd obviously have to see the ad to know for sure, but it looks like it's intended as a "celebrate life" kind of thing which praises her 'brave choice' to keep her baby despite the risks. Which, yeah, sort of suggest than an abortion would have had a "negative" outcome {{shocked gasp!}}

"an ad that critics suggest could lead to anti-abortion violence, even though none of them have seen it."

'zactly. In journalistic circles we call this "prior restraint."

Side note: I personally hate the term "reproductive health" used to describe abortion. Talk about double-speak!

The simple reality of it that abortions for "medical necessity" to save a mother's life a such a minisule percentage of the millions of abortions performed every year that it's statistically insignificant.

It's interesting that on the one hand, much of the pro-choice rhetoric centers on a woman's "right" to choose, and "reproductive freedom," until you back them into a corner, and then it's all about putting a woman's life at risk if abortion wasn't an option!

I guess it depends on the audience, eh?

What "belongs" on the Superbowl is whatever ad a party pays for and the network chooses to allow.

My view on this is the same as my view on what speech should be allowed on television. I'm not for prohibiting speech -- swear words or whatever -- and especially not just on the three networks, while cable channels can do as they please. We have many, many channels now, and if the policies or programming on one channel doesn't suit you, well, pick up the remote and use your thumb.

Would you run an ad for Viagra on Oprah? No. Why? Same reason you don't run ads for automobiles during Dora the Explorer - wrong audience.

So why run an ad about abortions (or the argument against) on a show made up almost entirely of people who will never get one?

Simple - to get talk going.

They're in a win-win situation. The ad is already the talk of the country, and it hasn't even aired yet. If it gets pulled now, that'll only get MORE people to talk about it and want to see it "To see what's so offensive". And they save like two million dollars.

NOTHING attracts eyes like controversy. This group is using the tool that's backfired on them so often. Usually it's the conservatives screaming "Don't look where I'm pointing!" and making heads turn.

Sure, Amy, I get what you're saying. But I also get that it wouldn't be such a big damn deal if it weren't an ad that was going to be aired during the SuperBowl. It's just inappropriate for the audience, as Vinnie pointed out. They're only doing it to generate controversy, and this is really the wrong venue for it. Sure there are many many channels. Why do they have to air it during the SuperBowl, when there are so many other more appropriate venues to air it?
That's all I'm sayin'.

How interesting that all the squawk is in the name of "preventing violence." Please.

What a poor cover for the true fear of these "progressives"...that the msg of the ad might actually give some women pause and influence them to not choose an abortion.

Without having seen the ad, of course, I don't know that it is any more inappropriate/appropriate than any other commercial being aired. That the center of it is a star football player would seem to make it very relevant, IMO. It sounds like a "celebration of life" type slot, not some graphic, gory rant about the evils of abortion.

And, failing all else, as has already been mentioned, there's always the option to walk away or change the channel. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to watch...

To say that no women watch the Superbowl is silly. It is one of the most watched events on television - of course that is when anyone would want to advertise. And the ad has to do with football, too. What the feminazi groups are really worried about is not the far-fetched idea that someone will blow up an abortion clinic solely from watching one commercial. They are worried that some women will see the commercial and - horrors! - might decide not to have an abortion. Because they are not pro-choice, they are pro-abortion. Someone truly pro-choice would only have a problem with the commercial if it advocated making abortion illegal, not with it saying that abortion is not a good thing to do.

The Superbowl commercial controversy has a backstory that is missing here. The reason the left is fired about this is not that just that this is an anti-abortion ad; it's that ads for progressive causes, such as United Church of Christ's ad in favor of marriage equality for gays being banned due to CBS "policy of "prohibiting advocacy ads, even ones that carry an 'implicit' endorsement for a side in a public debate." Accepting the current ad is hypocrisy and in clear contravention the CBS policies that were used to prohibit ads they favored in previous years.

P.S. I'm still a bit fan of Tebow. We'll probably never see another quarterback who made a habit of running over linebackers.

Whoops. Facts wrong. It wasn't a pro gay-marriage ad that was banned, it was an ad that Jesus doesn't turn away anyone. Here is the incendiary United Church of Christ ad that was too controversial to air:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx1u1v7hAtY&feature=player_embedded

This would be like getting nagged by a bitching wife. Just let me watch the damn football game and we’ll talk about the abortion shit later.

As a point of order, the ad is sort of "context appropriate" in that the "fetus" in question is an all-star on one of the teams actually playing in the Bowl. Soooo, uh, yeah. The "subtext" is that one woman's brave choice gave us kickin' QB who took his team to the Superbowl. And how courage is about more than facing the horrific choice of having an abortion. It's about risk, and hope, and inner strength.

How this is "anti-woman" is beyond me.

Still, CBS is a private company that can choose to interpret its own policy in the manner in which it sees fit. There aren't any laws being broken here.

@Roger: see comments above regarding the option to use the commercial break to do whatever strikes your fancy at the moment.

"Focus on the Family should not be allowed to air the commercial because it advocates on behalf of a divisive issue and threatens to "throw women under the bus."

I would just like to express my gratitude to those who want to protect little ol' me and all the rest of us scatterbrained women from the nasty commercial, and from being thrown under a big old bus besides!

Is this really an abortion debate or are we just discussing the possible limitations on free speech should this commercial be banned. And Marion, I will admit that I don't know the details of Mrs. Tebow's pregnancy so it may not have been life threatening. My point was that its not exactly a neutral or informative commercial on the pros and cons of abortion just as the pro choice side would put out a slanted commercial as well.
I consider myself an educated person and don't get my medical advice or choose my morals based on a commercial favoring one side of an issue or another. There are people who do and people who get upset if the opposite view is represented. That goes against what free speech is all about. You don't have to like what's being said, but don't ban it.
I have watched erectile dysfunction commercials, feminine hygiene commercials, etc, while watching certain programs. I don't have a problem with that just as I don't have a problem with a commercial regarding abortion whether it is for or against. I'm pro-choice and I happen to think the Tebow story is very inspirational. It doesn't mean though that everyone should be forced to make the same choice. Keep abortion legal and let people make their own decisions of what is best. Let them get informed by medical personnel not propaganda put out by one side of the debate. And if the Tebow commercial is so strong that it sways some girl to continue a pregnancy then maybe that was what is meant to be. Again, as long as it is her choice and not because one group has more political clout than another and is able to interfere with that choice.

Stop and think for a moment. The economy is in a -- ahem -- downturn. Maybe the usual suspects are tightening their advertising belts a bit so CBS revises it's policies to accept what it can get. Reportedly the ad will cost about $2.8M. Even in the Obama Nation that's a lot of money.

Personally, I am not just pro-choice, I am pro-abortion. However, I have little sympathy for most of the public advocates for keeping it legal. They wouldn't recognize freedom if she descend from the mountain and whopped them with a clue stick.

"Yeah sure, Scott. Are you for real? Have YOU ever had an abortion? Why do men think they have a right to tell a woman about long-term psychological consequences of their choice, but yet no men ever take the time to tell the women about how much of an asshole the guy they chose to get nekkid with is?"

No. I am male. I suppose I can't comment about something that happens in Haiti because I'm not Haitian right?

"Scott, have you ever even talked to anyone in a doctors office, or anyone who has ever gotten an abortion? I would wager the answer is no because you dont even know what the hell you are talking about."

Yes, and yes. If you read my post, instead of just assigning me the argument you wanted to rail against, you would see that I was complaining about pro-choice organizations - i.e. NARAL, and not doctors.

"The doctors in fact, DO tell the women getting the procedure all the potential risks, all long-term psychological issues they could face because of their choice, encourage them to seek counceling or a second opinion, and some even offer to help the women find reputable adoption agencies instead of doing the procedure right away. It is actually required in some places that the women undergo a complete mental health review before they undergo the procedure."

It may be required in some places, but they are an extreme minority. I actually oppose such regulations. It's none of the state's business. As I said, my criticism is not with Dr.'s.

Who cares?

Scott, I am just a little curious. Have you ever been counseled by a pro-choice organization to know that all of them lie and misrepresent abortion or is that just your opinion based on some other information? And are you open to the possibility that there are organizations that are honest and genuinely want a woman to have a choice and one that is safe or are you just against anyone who would choose an abortion? I don't ask this as a means to harass or make fun of you. They are legitimate questions asked because I wonder how much opinion gets mixed with fact when people discuss their position.

If we repeal the abortion laws, I’m going to become a coat hanger salesman.

Roger:

You're sick. Please don't reproduce.

Beth,

To late and I think you missed the point.

As a point of order, the ad is sort of "context appropriate" in that the "fetus" in question is an all-star on one of the teams actually playing in the Bowl.

Dude, you so outed yourself as not a football fan. Tebow hasn't yet been drafted.

I have no problem with this, and I hope next year I will see an ad about a woman who was able to go on to have an amazing career because she didn't have to quit school early to raise a child.

Also, abortion is always a women's-health issue. Because if abortion becomes illegal, lots of soon-to-be dead women will be buying coat hangers from Roger.

I'd much rather see people being convinced to choose life than forced to "choose" life.

Still, CBS is a private company that can choose to interpret its own policy in the manner in which it sees fit. There aren't any laws being broken here.

You're right. They're being hypocrites and douchebags. But not breaking laws.

I hope next year I will see an ad about a woman who was able to go on to have an amazing career because she didn't have to quit school early to raise a child.

Not a friggin' chance. Our major media can no longer tell any story in a positive light in which a character chooses abortion. Either the woman chooses to have the baby, and all is win. Or the woman chooses an abortion, and tragedy befalls her.

Nothing quite as exciting as watching a fetus win the big game.

Not that the lives of people touched by unaborted fetii like Hitler, Amin, Bundy, Gein, and Dahmer weren't exciting in their own fashion.

As a point of order, the ad is sort of "context appropriate" in that the "fetus" in question is an all-star on one of the teams actually playing in the Bowl.

Dude, you so outed yourself as not a football fan. Tebow hasn't yet been drafted.

C'mon (Steve B) Man!

Roger is kinda sick, but the point that abortions happen whether they are legal or not is an extremely valid one that all you the anti-choice folks ignore. Fine, air the ad, I don't care, but if CBS has in the past restricted political ads from airing then I think it's also fine to point out that discrepancy.

And really, it's a stupid ad. I won't ever get an abortion but I don't need to be patted on the back for it. It's my business and no one else's. I don't know why Mrs. Tebow feels differently.

> Who cares?

> Our major media can no longer tell any story
> in a positive light in which a character
> chooses abortion.

Our sullen teenagers have been heard from! The world's going to Hell, man... I'm just sure things didn't used to be this way....

> Nothing quite as exciting as watching
> a fetus win the big game.

Comment of the Month contender.

I'm just sure things didn't used to be this way....

You'd be right, too! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083929/

Roger-
No, you cannot sell clothes-hangers to DIY abortion clinics. They only use old clothes-hnagers, at least according to urban leghend.

They are always referred to as "dirty clothes hangers," as in "she went to one of those places where they give you an abotion with a dirty clothes-hanger.":

I don't know why they never wash the clothes hangers. They certainly never use new ones.

I still don't care what ads run on the Super Bowl, or if Janet Jackson dances naked at half-time. Actually, if Jackson would dance totally nude, then I might watch.

I doubt even one person will be influenced by the ad, and anyway it is their choice to run the ad.

It does seem like the horse-faced crone sticking her face into the free-enterprise brothel when everybody is humping away and having fun.

As a point of order, the ad is sort of "context appropriate" in that the "fetus" in question is an all-star on one of the teams actually playing in the Bowl. Soooo, uh, yeah. The "subtext" is that one woman's brave choice gave us kickin' QB who took his team to the Superbowl.

Tebow plays college (amateur?) football. The Super Bowl is a professional football game. He'll be a highly-paid and much-watched pro next year. Which is probably why this commercial made it past the ideological speed bump.

How this is "anti-woman" is beyond me.

I'm still trying to figure out how it's "un-American."

I don't know why they never wash the clothes hangers.

No sinks in that back alley.

"Roger is kinda sick, but the point that abortions happen whether they are legal or not is an extremely valid one that all you the anti-choice folks ignore."

That in itself is not persuasive. DUI happens whether it's legal or not; does that mean it should be legal?

Wasn't there an old C&W faith-n-football tune that went "Drop-kick my fetus through the goalpost of life?".

> You'd be right, too!

Fast Times is where free speech made its stand? You really are a sullen teenager!

Fast Times is where free speech made its stand? You really are a sullen teenager!

I'm saying it wouldn't be made today. If it did, the girl would have the kid, not the abortion.

That in itself is not persuasive. DUI happens whether it's legal or not; does that mean it should be legal?

It is persuasive against a certain type of anti-abortion rhetoric. Many people will say that they wan to make abortion illegal because it 'causes harm to women'. Other than being horribly paternalistic (Whose right is it to make my decisions for me?) these people fail to understand that making abortions illegal will cause greater harm to women through back-alley/at home type abortions.

As far as the commercial in question, the same CBS standards should be applied to it as all other commercials. If it meets those standards the commercial should be allowed to show. It won't change anyone's mind, but it might make Focus on the Freaks feel a little better.

-Julie

Look I really don't care if it airs or not, I just don't want to be subjected to the possible backlash from the people who will take offense and/or use it to push their agenda. There's already enough electricity in the air - it the Saint's first time ever in the SuperBowl!! I bees escited, man! I've got a big pot of gumbo simmering on the stove right now (chicken and andouille sausage, babee!), and I plan on making a bigger pot on Game Day (and adding some shrimp to the mix, too!). If Drew Brees can kick some good ol' fashioned N'awlins ass on Peyton (pass the Oreos) Manning, I'll be a happy camper. (Young Mr. Tebow isn't anywhere near this caliber, yet. But good for him and his mom. Whatever.)

...but it might make Focus on the Freaks feel a little better.

Well, then I guess we can all rest easy, eh?
(Now where's my black and gold #9 jersey?)

That in itself is not persuasive. DUI happens whether it's legal or not; does that mean it should be legal?

Social conservatives seem to want to make abortion illegal so they can pat themselves on the back about not being the sort of people who condone that sort of thing. And there's the naive idea that if they just make it illegal, people will stop doing it.

If they really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, they would go after demand, not supply. They'd push for comprehensive sex-ed in all schools; easily accessible and even free birth control; and social programs that make it easier for women to work or finish school and raise children. (Whether those social programs would be good for society as a whole is another matter; their goal is saving the fetus.)

Thank you MonicaP, you are being much more eloquent than I was.

> it wouldn't be made today

Yeah... Right. And a brilliant, instructive, compelling piece of Americana would have been lost... Because there's never been a more sexually oppressive culture than this one, right here, in this nation, at this instant... 1:18 pm. And you're suffering, suffering terribly... We're ALL suffering! Because people can't say what the think! THEY CAN'T SAY WHAT THEY FEEL.

Time to get sullen and say "Whatever, dude."

Besides, there's just no reason to think that's true. Who knows how many teenage movies have abortions nowadays? Media is about market exploitation. It's not about rhetorical leadership: The people who think it is are the tragically lonely ones who LET television tell them what to think. It's like discussion we used to have about women's magazines (and Playboy etc) at Seipp's: If you let those people tell you what to think, you DESERVE whatever happens to your immortal soul... These sources are panderers, and you should have known better.

The absolute moral bankruptcy of feminist abortion proponents has never been more clearly revealed. "Pro-choice" my ass!

Smoking cigarettes is legal, yet public money is spent trying to get people to quit smoking, or never start. Those who smoke are made to feel ashamed of what they have legally chosen to do, and their right to smoke is subject to ever-increasing regulation.

Obama says he wants abortion to be "legal, safe, and rare." He and other "pro-choice" abortion proponents are liars. When will we ever see a PSA urging women to be responsible about birth control (forget chastity, that outmoded concept), and not to have an abortion just for the sake of convenience?

The idea that any abortion is "safe" is of course ridiculous: a human life is always terminated.

Even those in favor of "choice" should condemn abortion as evil. Perhaps a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless. When has any "pro-choice" advocate ever had the integrity to take this stand? (... and crickets chirp) There is NOTHING inconsistent about being "pro-choice" and strongly ANTI-abortion at the same time.

The vast majority of women who abort their unborn children do so for selfish reasons (no rape, incest, or threat to physical health), and they SHOULD BE SHAMED for their choice, even if it is legal. Men who encourage a woman to abort should also be SHAMED for their selfish cowardice (feminists have no trouble doing that, do they?).

"My body, my choice" is bullshit. Women have the right not to have sex, and the right to use multiple, redundant forms of birth control. Once you have created a new human life (what is it, if not that?), things are different. Men, after all, are held to their responsibility NO MATTER WHAT if a woman CHOOSES to have the baby she created -- even if she stole his semen from a waste basket, or raped him (statutorily or otherwise). Women, apparently, just don't have enough adult agency to be held responsible for ANYTHING.

When feminists and other "progressives" chant, "My body, my choice, my responsibility", then we will know that hell has truly frozen over.

"Scott, I am just a little curious. Have you ever been counseled by a pro-choice organization to know that all of them lie and misrepresent abortion or is that just your opinion based on some other information?"

It is NOT my opinion that "all of them lie and misrepresent abortion". Please re-read my original post. I think most of the big organizations, the ones who's talking heads we see/hear on CNN, FOX, NPR, etc., etc., do not significantly address the downside to abortion. I have not been counseled by a pro-choice organization. I have spoken to several, including Kate Michelman and others in one on one, hours long conversations.

"And are you open to the possibility that there are organizations that are honest and genuinely want a woman to have a choice and one that is safe or are you just against anyone who would choose an abortion?"

You make the stupid mistake of thinking I am anti-abortion. I am not. I don't think it's any of the government's business. I also think both the pro-life and pro-choice people are often their own worst enemies. If people wanted to have their own feet surgically removed because of a fad, I would champion the right to do so. If however there were an organization that kept screaming "This is merely a medical procedure" and didn't address the profound repercussions, I would call them out.

Many people will say that they want to make abortion illegal because it 'causes harm to women'.

Baby women, in particular. Especially in places that value males more, like China.

People who want to make abortion illegal believe that it's murder. They use words like "holocaust" to describe it. It amazes me how little abortion-related violence there is.

And a brilliant, instructive, compelling piece of Americana would have been lost.

True! It is a great film.

And you're suffering, suffering terribly.

No. I'm making an observation about a trend in our media, the motivations for which I'm well aware. Once again, you're way off base, but since it seems to help you liberate your inner drama queen, you go have fun with that.

You know why you'll never ever see an ad that shows a woman who had an abortion in a positive light, or what a great life she goes on to have? Because-at it's best-abortion is the end of a (potential) life by someone who could not use birth control correctly. That is nothing to celebrate. And it's nothing anyone, woman or man, would crow about.

I don't care that abortions would still happen-and unsafely-if illegal. Murder still happens too, but you don't see people howling to legalize it. And I'm sure we can figure out a way to keep the 1% of abortions that happen for health legal while criminalizing the rest. Just like killing in self defense is legal while other killing is murder.

You know why you'll never ever see an ad that shows a woman who had an abortion in a positive light, or what a great life she goes on to have?

Because it might upset the pro-lifers who make up a large portion of the media-consuming public.

Loving Whatever today!! And Scott, I asked a legitimate question because your comments kept speaking of psychological issues being kept from women and the agencies lying about abortion. Saying your not anti-abortion is not the same as being pro-choice. Just because I want women to have access to safe and legal abortions does not mean I am pro-abortion.
As far as the comment that women having abortions only do it for selfish reasons....Jay R, don't let that lucky lady in your life escape from her tether in the basement.

And Flynne, I want some of that gumbo!!! I will be rooting for New Orleans in my black and gold as well!

> It is a great film

"Great"?

> go have fun

You make it so easy; it's your love of histrionics that imagines that somehow America has become less tolerant of abortions because of a 1980's teen comedy from Hollywood.

Be scared about this, dude. Tremble. Quiver. Quake. The best film of Sean Penn's career... And it couldn't be done today! NIGHTMARE.

There is NOTHING inconsistent about being "pro-choice" and strongly ANTI-abortion at the same time.

Agreed. I am both pro-choice and anti-abortion. I want to see no one ever have to get an abortion, which is partly why I'm fine with a pro-life TV commercial. If a woman is swayed to give birth because she saw a convincing TV commercial, then she didn't truly want the abortion in the first place. But too many people are getting caught up on legality, as if that mattered to someone so desperate to not be pregnant.

Even if conservatives manage to get abortion banned, they have failed if their goal is to reduce or eliminate abortions. On the other hand, they would get to pat themselves on the back, so there's that.

Also, I'm a bit curious about what the punishment for getting or attempting to get an abortion would be. If it is murder, would we be tossing 15-year-olds into general population? What about their boyfriends, who may or may not have wanted the abortion? What about the kids, if the women already have kids? Do we toss both parents into prison with life sentences and send their existing kids into the foster care system? Where is the money for the new prisons going to come from? And what about the increased legal costs?

> There is NOTHING inconsistent about being
> "pro-choice" and strongly ANTI-abortion
> at the same time.

Word

Also — MonicaP, I love your blog comment.

"Also, I'm a bit curious about what the punishment for getting or attempting to get an abortion would be."

Please ask this out loud. I have the impression that many people have not thought this through.

If you want to make abortion illegal, name the penalty. Jail time. Fines. Step up to a protester outside a clinic and ask, "What prison do you want that girl coming out of the clinic sent to?"

I have read somewhere that someone did ask, and they got blank stares. "Whut?"

And figure out what to do with totally unwanted babies born to the uncaring. Make sure you realize that they're not perfect little angels, too.

Gee. Force people to have kids they seriously don't want, and stigmatize them when they have them but are single. What idiot thinks that's the way to advance society?

You make it so easy; it's your love of histrionics that imagines that somehow America has become less tolerant of abortions because of a 1980's teen comedy from Hollywood.

You're a ninny. Read what you wrote. I'm not arguing that America is less tolerant of abortion because of Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

Then what are you arguing? A wound with no blood?.. Not even an itch?

We'll deal.

"Roger is kinda sick, but the point that abortions happen whether they are legal or not is an extremely valid one that all you the anti-choice folks ignore."

That in itself is not persuasive. DUI happens whether it's legal or not; does that mean it should be legal? Cousin Dave

Weel on another thread we were discussing the legal practice of jailing people for DUI who werent even driving - infact I could give you a few cases for AZ where people werent even drunk

So legailty seems a moot point dont you think

And incidentally JayR there are nearly 9 billion people in the world. Far more of whom die from starvation, poor sanitation, and due to the ravages of nature. That a few tens of thousands die in an office suite before they ever attain sentience or sapience(something hich most of the adults I know have yet to attain) is not that big of deal.

That a few tens of thousands die in an office suite before they ever attain sentience or sapience

They don't just "die." They are killed.

Football? Wazzat? Did he hit a homerun and score two points by getting the puck in a hole in one?

Yeah, well, I mean, STILL!

Okay, I tubed that pretty seriously. I think I meant to say the he COULD lead his team, that the potential was there, etc. Or something.

And, no, I really don't watch football much. Just the SuperBowl and the All Stars game...

"What idiot thinks that's the way to advance society?"

Worked pretty darn well prior to the 60's. Or did I miss the stories of gangsta-thugs running all the inner cities back then?

Prolife people would LOVE to see the people who get abortions become intelligent and use birth control. How do you suggest we achieve that? Don't tell me we need to educate people-everyone in this country knows sperm meets egg and makes baby, and condoms prevent that. They JUST DON"T BOTHER. They play baby roulette and then abort. I see no reason to keep it legal and make it easy on them. If it weren't easy, maybe they'd bother with the rubbers.

And the argument of "throwing parents in jail and sending their kids to foster care" is really specious at best. Married women just aren't abortion-seekers. They are maybe.001% of abortions. And what we people who want it illegal suggest is putting abortion givers in jail. Although personally I'd be fine with tossing the women in too, or at least making them serve community service at an orphanage or crisis pregnancy center.

Don't tell me we need to educate people-everyone in this country knows sperm meets egg and makes baby, and condoms prevent that. They JUST DON"T BOTHER.

Some don't. But the amount of ignorance is staggering. Take a look at abstinence-only education results if you want to be horrified.

Married women don't get the most abortions, but the numbers for single women who already have kids are higher. What happens to their kids? And why, if abortion is murder, do they get away with no punishment or community service? Why aren't the standards the same for someone who kills someone who has been born? Is it because we really don't see a fetus as having the same value as someone who has been born?

My issue with prosecuting abortions isn't in the morality of the "is the fetus a baby?" debate. We will never resolve that. It's in the ability to prosecute. If I killed my fiance today, there would be a body, and people would realize he was gone. The odds of me being convicted are reasonably high, since I am not a criminal mastermind. What are the odds of getting an abortion conviction on someone nobody even knows is pregnant?

Ultimately, the prosecution of abortions will be a joke, like the prosecution of prostitution is a joke. If I desperately don't want to be pregnant and have to weigh the slim chance of getting caught vs. definitely getting caught when I begin to show, I'll take my chances with an illegal abortion. Or, if I have a little money, take a 4-day vacation to a country that has abortion.

If I were opposed to abortion, I would want to keep it legal. Pro-lifers can push for all kinds of restrictions on abortion now. Once you drive it underground, you lose all ability to control it.

Then what are you arguing? A wound with no blood?.. Not even an itch?

I was making an observation about a change in the way our media handles the issue of abortion. Not a Federal case. I tend to agree with Saletan's thesis that while the right has failed to make abortion illegal, it has largely won the culture war over abortion.

And, no, I really don't watch football much. Just the SuperBowl and the All Stars game...

What's the All Stars game ;)

Prolife people would LOVE to see the people who get abortions become intelligent and use birth control. How do you suggest we achieve that

Implement broad and thorough sex education in our public schools, instead of the abstinence only nonsense that we know is a failure. That would be a start. But prolifers can't get behind what we know works. Can't have young people armed with good information about sex and avoiding pregnancy.

If you want to make abortion illegal, name the penalty. Jail time. Fines.

It's not a hard question:

If it were determined that a fetus was to be treated as person for the purposes of manslaughter and murder laws, we could just use those, taking into account all of the usual things that we take into account, such as the ages and roles of the various people involved, whether or not it was an accident, how many were committed, and so on.

If, knowing that abortion is illegal and will be treated as murder, someone sets out to do it anyway, they would be treated like someone who sets out to murder a child. People who believe abortion is OK don't believe that a fetus is equivalent to a child, obviously, but for penalty purposes that's irrelevant: we don't give a KKK-affiliated murderer the benefit of the doubt because she believes that black people are subhuman. She knows that if she kills a black girl she'll face the full penalty.

We do let mentally ill people off the hook, but believing that abortion is OK is not mental illness.

Take a look at abstinence-only education results if you want to be horrified.

I'm no fan of abstinence-only education, but it sounds like you're referring to the study that showed that it was as ineffective as regular sex education.

> did I miss the stories of gangsta-thugs
> running all the inner cities back then?

T'was ever thus. I believe in stigma, truly I do, but it's not just patience with abortion that's making it happen.

> Married women just aren't abortion-seekers.
> They are maybe.001% of abortions.

Whence the number?

> They play baby roulette

This understates things. In most species, females under stress are first to reproduce. To think this is purely a matter of recklessness and values understates things. And while I like your question about how to achieve a better circumstance in parts of our civilization where abortions happen, it's wrong to imagine that some sort of hamfisted authoritarian slamdown will get the job done... Many of these women are already being squeezed by irreconcilable forces and Old Testament thunderbolts.

Even if is abortion is abhorrent death, and I think you're right, punishing abortionists but not their customers is very much like arresting prostitutes but not their johns. (Again...)

> Some don't. But the amount of ignorance
> is staggering.

It ain't ignorance that gets these girls pregnant.

"Don't tell me we need to educate people-everyone in this country knows sperm meets egg and makes baby, and condoms prevent that. They JUST DON"T BOTHER. They play baby roulette and then abort."

That's a pretty big assumption on your part, Momof4. Did you personally interview all of those women having an abortion to come to this conclusion? What research do you have to show that most abortions are sought by women who would rather walk past protesters than have a man slap on a condom. And speaking of condoms, they are not 100%. And I'm glad that you speak for all married women. I'm relieved to know that marriage is a solution to the abortion problem. We all know that every married woman who gets pregnant only does so because it is planned.
It's one thing to be against abortion. And again, being pro-choice doesn't mean I love abortion and can't wait to kill all the little babies in the world. It just means that I am not naive enough to believe that by making it illegal will mean women won't have them. They will have them under more desperate circumstances and possible pay with their lives or future fertility problems. Maybe you think that's a fair price, but then doesn't that mean the only value you place on a life is as long as its unborn?

> I was making an observation about
> a change in the way our media handles
> the issue of abortion.

It was a silly one... bluff called. Also, media is plural. Also, to imagine that the right has "largely won the culture war over abortion" is a pathetic distortion. Any morally sentient being recognizes that abortion is, at best, unnecessary killing. That you could describe this awareness as the product of manipulative churchgoers is grotesquely telling, and casts the left as inane, ethically vapid nihilists. It's just not all about you....

Luj writes: "on another thread we were discussing the legal practice of jailing people for DUI who werent even driving - infact I could give you a few cases for AZ where people werent even drunk"

Darn it, as soon as I posted that, I knew I shouldn't have used that particular example...

MonicaP writes: "Social conservatives seem to want to make abortion illegal so they can pat themselves on the back about not being the sort of people who condone that sort of thing. And there's the naive idea that if they just make it illegal, people will stop doing it."

Here's where I want you to sharpen your argument. The gist of the above statement seems to be that abortion must be kept legal in order to defy the social conservatives. That strikes me a passive-aggressive form of reasoning. Allow me to explain: Social conservatives, by and large, aren't naive enough to think that they can make a behavior disappear simply by passing a law against it. There are far too many counter-examples to ignore. And one of the reasons many social conservatives are pro-Second Amendment is because they know good and darn well that a piece of paper with a law written on it will not physically restrain someone from breaking into your house.

The first sentence of your argument is better, if you re-word it to take the pejorative out of it: "Social conservatives want to make abortion illegal because they don't want to give the impression of condoning that sort of thing." Here is where you have identified a real shortcoming in social conservative thinking: the belief that law=morality. You can very easily point out all kinds of tyranny that would occur if this were actually true, such as all of the "blasphemy" prohibitions that radical Muslims use in an attempt to suppress everything they don't like. Law is only a set of minimum rules for the purpose of preventing civil disorder; it can never be anything more.

So fine tune your argument; get rid of the straw men and stop reacting to the other side's accusations. (Anti-abortion side, same goes for you.)

It amazes me how little abortion-related violence there is.

I'm amazed how little press the existing abortion related violence gets. Try walking into a Planned Parenthood to get a well woman visit and see how you are treated. I did that throughout my college years (when I could afford nothing else) and was accosted at every visit. The sad thing was that the office I was visiting DIDN'T OFFER ABORTIONS. They were done at another facility. Just because no one is killed doesn't mean that there isn't violence.

I don't care that abortions would still happen-and unsafely-if illegal.

So, your response is "Let all of those women die, as long as I don't have to admit to myself that it still occurs". Why is the life of a parasitic growth inside a woman more valuable to you than the woman? Why do you see a woman so desperate to not be pregnant that she will attempt surgery on herself as a good result?

Don't tell me we need to educate people-everyone in this country knows sperm meets egg and makes baby, and condoms prevent that.

You might be surprised. Most kids have been told in their 'abstinence only' sex education that condoms don't provide safe sex. Their parents aren't explaining things to them, and the school only says "Don't have sex and you will be okay." Do you want to know how well that works? According to a study of school children done by the University of Texas School of Public Health, 13% of 6th graders are having anal sex. No one is talking to these kids. Although it is the parents responsibility, most are dropping the ball.

-Julie

Also, to imagine that the right has "largely won the culture war over abortion" is a pathetic distortion.

Like the logos, the power of Crid's assertions is such as to create reality anew.

...the belief that law=morality

And why is it that there are so many people so vested in trying to legislate morality? Can't be done. Can't legislate the ways, hows, and whys of what people think. Although some people would have you believe it can be done. Can't. No though police. Yet. If we're lucky, there never will be.

I don't think they should ban the ad. I don't think they should ban PETA ads either, but they do.

My concern is that with most TV stations owned by 5 or 6 companies, if they all only air ads whose messages they like, some points of view are going to get a lot more air time than others. I think this could be dangerous in the long run.

But I don't think banning ads is the way to fix it... supporting other media outlets is.

Because-at it's best-abortion is the end of a (potential) life by someone who could not use birth control correctly. That is nothing to celebrate. And it's nothing anyone, woman or man, would crow about. -momof4

On the other hand, every time a woman has her period that it the loss of a potential life as well - should the pro liferes mandate forced pregnaices in every woman who has hit puberty?

And what about masterbation? How many possible lives are lost every time some guy jerks off?

And what about masterbation? How many possible lives are lost every time some guy jerks off?

This is why many religions don't condone masturbation. They claim that all sex should be 'procreational' sex and that any barriers to that, including screwing yourself are a crime against God.

-Julie

They don't just "die." They are killed.
Posted by: kishke

And how many people(who are acctually alive) are killed every day becuase our government would rather spend billions in a pointless exercise in security theater and hunting down desert rats because you dont want to pay $16 a gallon for gas like the rest of the world?

People die kishke, people lie kill cheat and steal were animals who simply were lucky enough to develop the abitity to think rather than just react - some of us anyway

The quickest way to stop abortions is to give people accurate birth control information, but apparently if we did that jebus would cry and his daddy would would have to kill a bunch of non white people in a different country to 'teach us a lesson'

luj: You think killing people here is okay b/c people are killed in Iraq. I think that's ridiculous, but I guess you're entitled to your opinion. It doesn't obviate my point, which was that you were comparing natural deaths to death by human hand. They are not comparable.

You think killing people here is okay b/c people are killed in Iraq.

I'm going to throw my hat in on this one. It appears to me that Luj's point is simply that most anti-abortion/make abortion illegal types aren't actually working to reduce abortions. They are working to criminalize them, which is an entirely different goal. If you want to criminalize abortions you attempt to make them illegal. If you want to stop abortions, you hit up the 'demand' side of the curve. You educate kids HONESTLY about sex, birth control, and consequences and make sure that they have access to birth control when they need it. You make it easier for women who get pregnant to be able to educate themselves and earn a living with a small child. You provide support for teen-aged parents to inform their parents. You reduce the number of unintended pregnancies while providing additional support for the people who get pregnant, so that keeping the kid doesn't feel like an impossibility that will ruin their lives.

You don't want to stop abortions, you want to criminalize them, and that is where many of us draw the line. Most people want abortions to be safe affordable and rare.

-Julie

Wow! This board really got the feminist crowd riled up. Even the closet fems are coming out.

Oh yeah, for those of you who cannot seem to get a paragraph on the page without 10 cuss words: CLASSY!!!!

Best two comments on the thread:

"What a poor cover for the true fear of these "progressives"...that the msg of the ad might actually give some women pause and influence them to not choose an abortion."

and:

"I would just like to express my gratitude to those who want to protect little ol' me and all the rest of us scatterbrained women from the nasty commercial, and from being thrown under a big old bus besides!"

Why all the fuss? Has any one of you idiots seen the commercial? NO! Do you have any idea what the actual content is? NO! Are you the president of CBS? No!

It is all about the money!

What happened to "tolerance"????? I thought so- called "progressives" were for tolerance? Why can't you ever be tolerant of everyone else?

This is stupid. It is like several years ago when NOW turned their fury to the "men only" Master's golf tournament. Who cares? It is their country club and their CHOICE to not allow women.

Abortion is YOUR BODY/YOUR CHOICE...remember? So, this is CBS station/THEIR CHOICE.

"Married women just aren't abortion-seekers. They are maybe.001% of abortions."

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0100.pdf

This was not hard to find. For those who don't feel like clicking the link, during the time period 1990-2005, between 21 and 17 percent of women undergoing abortion procedures were married. Aggressively uninformed people like momof4 do no credit to the pro-life side of the debate when they simply make up lies and present them as fact.

Julie: I was responding to this comment by luj, which equates death from natural causes to the deliberate killing of fetuses:

And incidentally JayR there are nearly 9 billion people in the world. Far more of whom die from starvation, poor sanitation, and due to the ravages of nature. That a few tens of thousands die in an office suite before they ever attain sentience or sapience(something hich most of the adults I know have yet to attain) is not that big of deal.

I think the comparison is ridiculous. If a fetus is a person, then killing it is murder. Are we to justify murder here b/c people die of poor sanitation in Calcutta?

Regarding the chart CB references: Interesting, isn't it, that more than 50% of aborters have given birth before, while close to 50% have aborted before, many of them more than once. So they evidently do know where babies come from. What was that again about more and better sex ed being the solution to the problem?

"You educate kids HONESTLY about sex, birth control, and consequences and make sure that they have access to birth control when they need it. You make it easier for women who get pregnant to be able to educate themselves and earn a living with a small child."

Er, Julie, all of the services you're asking for are available and have been for decades. When I was in college in the early '80s, birth control and STD testing was available free and anonymously from the local Planned Parenthood chapter. I never noticed that it had any impact on the campus pregnancy rate.

As for the "women who get pregnant to be able to educate themselves and earn a living with a small child" bit, they can already do that: it's called welfare. And we've seen the result of that.

"Fix the problem by passing a law" is a stock answer that has been proven not to work. "Fix the problem by throwing a bunch of taxpayer money at social services" is also a stock answer that has been proven not to work.

"Interesting, isn't it, that more than 50% of aborters have given birth before...What was that again about more and better sex ed being the solution to the problem?

Yes, it is interesting. What was that about women who get abortions being selfish and just not wanting to affect their lives by having children?

If a fetus is a person, then killing it is murder.

Actually no. Murder is illegal killing. If someone attacks me and I kill him/her in my own defense, I haven't murdered him/her. Since abortions are not illegal, the are not murders.

But you either chose not to respond to, or completely didn't read his main point:

"The quickest way to stop abortions is to give people accurate birth control information, but apparently if we did that jebus would cry and his daddy would would have to kill a bunch of non white people in a different country to 'teach us a lesson'"

What is the point of criminalizing an activity when it is possible to significantly reduce its need, therefore reducing the 'victims'.

-Julie

Actually, that wasn't his main point; it was in his response to my response to his first comment, which said nothing about sex ed. I responded to the part that pushed my button: i.e., the suggestion that it's okay to kill fetuses b/c people die of bad sanitation elsewhere.

As for his statement that the problem is a lack of info about birth control, I don't know whether or not he's right, but the chart CB referenced certainly suggests otherwise, as I pointed out just above.

kiske given the majority of people who oppose abortions due so on reigious and moral grounds I see no difference between equateing

a woman going to get an abortion,

a soilder honor bound to a corrupted government killing for cheap gas

you refusing to send every penny you earn that doenst provide you food and shelter to charity,

and god creating mircobes

If you're going to take the 'all life is precious' route then morally there is no diference in any of the deaths resulting from the above senarioes

How many people have died do to your refusal to take meaningful action?

Life is. Its not sacred, cruel, kind, it just exists, and then it doesnt. That you are capable of comprehending yourself and are aware of the passage of time and your own mortality is meaningless. The real tragedy of abortion is not that it happens but why it happens.

If a fetus is a person, then killing it is murder.

Actually no. Murder is illegal killing. If someone attacks me and I kill him/her in my own defense, I haven't murdered him/her. Since abortions are not illegal, the are not murders.

The legality of abortion is based on the assumption that a fetus is not a person, but is merely an appendage of the mother's body. If a fetus is a person, the basis for abortion's legality disappears. Tell me, if a law were passed permitting the killing of, say, blacks, for no reason other than their race, would their killing not be murder? I say it would.

I don't know whether or not he's right, but the chart CB referenced certainly suggests otherwise, as I pointed out just above.

Sexual education does reduce teen pregnancy. Reductions in pregnancy will reduce abortions:

http://www.sph.uth.tmc.edu/uploadedFiles/Centers/TPRC/Summer%20course%20whatworks09.pdf

The link that you provided indicates that 70% of abortions were for women under 30 and 80% were in unmarried women. Reducing unwanted pregnancies will reduce abortions.

-Julie

"are we just discussing the possible limitations on free speech should this commercial be banned"

That's easy - there are none.

CBS is a private company who may make its own decisions on what it chooses to air or not air, "limited" only by the strictures of the FCC. If a sufficient number of people disagree with the shows or commercials they air (or choose not to), they will make their opinions known via blog, letter or turn of the proverbial dial, and CBS will consider changing its content. If people keep watching, they will make no such changes.

There is no free speech argument to be made. There's a potential double-standard one, certainly, perhaps one for cowardice on CBS' part. But the very fact that the commercial is being so widely discussed and transcribed for perusal indicates that no limitation of freedom of speech is taking place.

I don't even have to pull out the "It's only to prevent the Government from stopping you" chestnut. If you wish to espouse the glories of wearing cotton shirts, you may do so. If you wish to hold a pro-cotton shirt rally in the middle of a mall, the mall has the right to tell you that you may not, because they own the property, and may control what goes on in its borders. This does not limit your rights at all.

"Prolife people would LOVE to see the people who get abortions become intelligent and use birth control."

I'm not sure that's true, at least not all of them. Many pro-life groups are also anti-birth control as well. It's a more far-reaching moral judgement for them. You were wrong to have sex in the first place, says they.

"the abstinence only nonsense that we know is a failure"

Abstinence is a nigh-foolproof method for not getting pregnant. Expecting kids to DO so in this modern world is a fool's quest.

"If it were determined that a fetus was to be treated as person for the purposes of manslaughter and murder laws..."

...then women who tripped and fell down stairs while pregnant could concievably be brought up on manslaughter charges. Women who smoke or drink while pregnant could be accused of child abuse or endangering a minor, as opposed to simply being foolish. You could take a child off as a dependent on your taxes as soon as you're pregnant, or get a life insurance policy, and file for Social Security death benefits (or collect on the policy) if you miscarry.

Legally, as opposed to morally or emotionally, until birth occurs, the fetus is a part of the mother and not an independent legal entity. It can not be otherwise without opening up a massive can of worms.

The part that I find the most fascinating is when people who are vehemently "a fetus is not a legal citizen" pro-choice come out demanding double-murder charges when a pregnant woman is killed, never grasping that they're undercutting their own case. It can't be murder if one person does it (and you don't want them to) and not so if another does it (and you do).

"And how many people(who are actually alive) are killed every day becuase our government would rather spend billions in a pointless exercise in security theater"

You'll forgive the obvious cliche, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Kishke's point was germane to the discussion; yours was not. You can't (ok, shouldn't) drag in facts that aren't connected to the discussion and expect them to be accepted as valid)
You know who else made bad comparisons in debates? Hitler.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am pro-choice, but I consider abortion to be a major deal emotionally, and carries as much risk (ie, small but still extant) of any invasive medical procedure, and as such should be avoided if at all possible, preferably by avoiding getting into a situation where the decision is required.

"I am pro-choice, but I consider abortion to be a major deal emotionally, and carries as much risk (ie, small but still extant) of any invasive medical procedure, and as such should be avoided if at all possible, preferably by avoiding getting into a situation where the decision is required."

Well-said, Mr. Bartilucci!

In the interest of full disclosure, I am pro-choice, but I consider abortion to be a major deal emotionally, and carries as much risk (ie, small but still extant) of any invasive medical procedure, and as such should be avoided if at all possible, preferably by avoiding getting into a situation where the decision is required.

I really think down deep that this is the true opinion of the majority of pro-choice people. I know that it is one I agree with.

-Julie

It amazes me how little abortion-related violence there is.

I'm amazed how little press the existing abortion related violence gets. . . . Just because no one is killed doesn't mean that there isn't violence.

There is an astonishingly small amount of it when you consider the feelings of the anti-abortion movement. They consider abortion supporters to be as bad as Nazis: people who support organized murder against millions of innocent people.

To them, it's as if Planned Parenthood chapters are going around killing Girl Scouts in cold blood, and yet hardly anybody notices. Violence is a typical, and correct, response to such events.

I'm not sure how to compromise with someone who thinks you're a modern day Nazi.

vinnie if your aversion to abortion is based on your religious morals then my point was germane.

If she finds the deaths proto humans the size of a goose egg so fucking horrible what about all the real people in the world who die

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/insight/1226reimer_edit.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=45

A nice little article recently on the fact that people in their 20's do pretty much nothing to prevent a pregnancy they don't want. Do you really want to tell me that educated college grads in their 20's don't know that sex makes baby? Really, do you want to go there? That they can't ask their Dr about birth control-it's not like mom's going to be in the room with them getting pissed any more, is it? One of the things that sent me from prochoice to prolife (aside from becoming a parent, and prior to that) was an article written by a man for Jane magazine. He and his girlfriend had been using withdrawal-and usually not even that-for a few months. When she didn't get preggers, they decided they had nothing to worry about and went at it like bunnies. Gee, big surprise, in a few months she's pregnant. They of course go for an abortion, and he talks all upliftingly about how when they get married and want kids, they'll love those ones all the more for having killed this one they couldn't be bothered to prevent. I'd put any amount of money on them being no more responsible afterwards either. Which follows right along with the CDC's findings that at least half of abortion-seekers had had a prior abortion. (http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL09/cdc.html)

"Maybe you think that's a fair price, but then doesn't that mean the only value you place on a life is as long as its unborn?"

Do I think innocent life is more important than the life of someone willing to kill their own offspring? You betcha. Just like I think your life is more important than a child molester's or rapists.

Sex Ed doesn't prevent pregnancies, although I am all for it and my 5 year olds already know about sex. And while this is 100% unscientific, I've lived a LOT of places being a military and oil company brat, and I've never been somewhere that didn't have comprehensive sex ed. It started for me in 4th grade and was at every school I attended in every grade till junior in high school. I'm in my 30's now, so sex ed covering birth control is nothing new or rare. And ain't working.

To them, it's as if Planned Parenthood chapters are going around killing Girl Scouts in cold blood, and yet hardly anybody notices. Violence is a typical, and correct, response to such events.

But that is the thing. 'The Movement' is beating up and threatening pregnant women every day. I understand your point, that the fact that we don't have more tombstones is a miracle. I'm someone who grew up in The Movement, with magazines filled with aborted fetuses on the coffee table and everything. My point is that the 'peaceable assembly' is very often an excuse to act like a bully to some of our most fragile and vulnerable citizens. And the small amounts of violence may be enough to vent things to keep more severe violence from happening.

-Julie

Nice to see that you've learned to use Google, momof4. Care to offer any reasons we should find you remotely credible, given your demonstrated propensity for saying things that are demonstrably untrue?

Momof4 givn you yourself used as an example a couple who thought pulling out was a viable form of birth control I really ont think any of us need to resopnd to your chalage of 20 somethings who are clueles about sex

> Do I think innocent life is more important
> than the life of someone willing to kill
> their own offspring?

So after you've swung your magical scythe, judging the "innocent life is more important", and Mom's dead (or imprisoned, as those who intend murder should be), and then the baby dies in the third month anyway, what have you got?... Aside from a stone-age culture of mindless retribution and violence, I mean?

I'm with Paglia: Women are at war with nature in their bodies. No holds-barred, babe. They're gonna do what they need to do. Our mother, sisters and daughters deserve to have the best, safest arms.

> You betcha.

Don't be so folksy about it!

Sex Ed doesn't prevent pregnancies

You didn't read my link, did you?

http://www.sph.uth.tmc.edu/uploadedFiles/Centers/TPRC/Summer%20course%20whatworks09.pdf

Sexual education can influence behavior in young people and reduce their likelihood of engaging in risky behaviors.

One of the things that sent me from prochoice to prolife (aside from becoming a parent, and prior to that) was an article written by a man for Jane magazine....

This is the equivalent of saying because some people eat to corpulence that no one should be allowed to keep sugar in their homes. I don't ever consider abortion 'good', but it is necessary sometimes and if you want to influence the number of abortions done then do what we've mentioned above. If you just want to make criminals, go to work for the DEA, they are much more efficient at it.

I've lived a LOT of places being a military and oil company brat, and I've never been somewhere that didn't have comprehensive sex ed.

But you live in Texas now, right? Texas schools only do 'abstinence-only' sex education. Any other types of education (at least for public schools) and the schools start to loose funding.

-Julie

Man, this topic just keeps goin' round and round and round. Can't we all just agree to disagree? No one here is going to change anyone else's mind at this point. Let 'em air the commercial, and let the chips fall where they may. Go SAINTS!!

No, Texas schools do not do abstinence-only. I can tell you this because I attended many of them, my daughters attend them, my nieces and nephews attend them in various grades and various districts. Can we lose that outdated talking point? Whether they get funding from the state for it or not I don't know, but comprehensive sex ed is what they have.

We reserve the right to be folksy at all times here in texas, Crid. And I know no one at war with their own body, except one really obese friend. And he's male.

No, Texas schools do not do abstinence-only

Ummm...

Texas is regularly singled out for its clashing statistics. More government money is spent on abstinence education here than any other state, but Texas leads the country in the percentage of teen mothers who've given birth more than once. It has the country's third-highest teen birth rate.

Relevant excerpts from the statute:

HUMAN SEXUALITY INSTRUCTION. (a) Any course materials and instruction relating to human sexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, or human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome shall be selected by the board of trustees of a school district with the advice of the local health education advisory council established under Subsection (e) and must:

(1) present abstinence from sexual activity as the preferred choice of behavior in relationship to all sexual activity for unmarried persons of school age;

(2)devote more attention to abstinence from sexual activity than to any other behavior;

(3) emphasize that abstinence from sexual activity, if used consistently and correctly, is the only method that is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, infection with human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and the emotional trauma associated with adolescent sexual activity;

(4) direct adolescents to a standard of behavior in which abstinence from sexual activity before marriage is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and infection with human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome;

None of the above says anything about "abstinence-only."

...abstinence from sexual activity before marriage is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and infection with human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome....

Actually, abstinnence after marriage is pretty good at preventing those things, too. But it can be fatal to a marriage.

None of the above says anything about "abstinence-only."

Splitting hairs. If they're obeying that law, especially (2), there ain't much room for anything else.

I'm not sure where this comprehensive sex ed is in the schools. Here in NY which is rather liberal, especially on Long Island, I never had a sex ed class and none of my three children have had one in school either. That's of course unless you count "the movie" that I saw 30 years ago and told the girls they'd be experiencing some "changes" and pretty much told the boys the same thing only in separate assemblies. My daughter saw it this year and it hasn't changed from when I was 12.
I wonder though if they learn the same sex ed in Texas that Bristol Palin learned. Now that she is a single teen mom, she has decided to pledge that she will not have sex until she gets married. I guess that makes her a virgin all over again. Problem solved!

Here's a solution to all the abortion sucks/un-parented children suck/single mothers on welfare suck argument:

Mandatory, but temporary sterilization of the general population.

Not until candidates reach an eligible age, are shown to be in stable marriages, want to get pregnant, have taken classes on parenting skills, go through financial reviews, undergo psychiatric evaluation, do they get the go-ahead to bear and raise children. My view is that only responsible adults should get the privilege to pro-create.

Young adults have to be licensed to drive a vehicle. We put age restrictions on alcohol. Why not legislate the root of the problem - unwanted pregnancy? Just because it's a natural outcome/condition we take for granted? Seems to me that outcome and how to address it has been an on-going and divisive argument to concerned taxpayers and citizens, both pro-life and pro-choice, for the past 30 plus years now.

If they're obeying that law, especially (2), there ain't much room for anything else.

Why not? They can teach other methods, but are mandated to spend more time on abstinence.

> I know no one at war with their own body

Not their own bodies, their own NATURE.
_______________

Why does Whatever always want the gummint ot be his Mommy & Daddy? Wassupidat?

'The Movement' is beating up and threatening pregnant women every day.

I'm skeptical. Cite?

Why does Whatever always want the gummint ot be his Mommy & Daddy? Wassupidat?
Shhhh... children. Uncle Crid is drunk. He doesn't know what he's saying.

Yeah yeah, you and Jody are confounded in the same way tonight, but no one else complains that way.

I love how people in New York and whereever this particular "whatever" is from know so much better what goes on in Texas than we who live here do. Gosh, I'm so glad I have others to tell me what I was taught, and what my kids and other family are being taught. We're too dumb down here to figure it out on our own you know!

I not only was taught how to use a condom (and that they aren't 100% effective-cause they're not, so one should use other methods too and be discriminate with who one fucks) but also about douching and why it's not a good idea, and symptoms and treatments of yeast and bacterial vaginal infections, and STDs. Seems like us redneck republican wacko-christian texans are getting a better education that liberal new yorkers. Whodo thunk it?

Oh, and texas has millions and millions of illegals who breed like sewer rats, in their teens, so I imagine if one controlled for that, our teen preg rate would be much lower and more in line with other places, if not lower.

Momof4, I wasn't telling you what you learned or didn't learn in Texas. I was responding to your comment regarding sex ed being taught everywhere. You keep making sweeping comments that are not backed up by any fact. Its ok to have an emotional view on abortion, but better to state its your personal belief as opposed to all these "facts" you keep throwing out without basis.

Yeah yeah, you and Jody are confounded in the same way tonight, but no one else complains that way.

You wrote my name in apparent response to a comment someone else made...

>>The part that I find the most fascinating is when people who are vehemently "a fetus is not a legal citizen" pro-choice come out demanding double-murder charges when a pregnant woman is killed, never grasping that they're undercutting their own case. It can't be murder if one person does it (and you don't want them to) and not so if another does it (and you do).

Vinnie,
I am probably being stupid, but I don't understand this.

It's an assault with a deadly weapon (or whatever) if a stranger sticks a knife in my stomach when I'm walking down a dark alley.

But it's nothing of the sort if a surgeon sticks a knife in my stomach during an operation.

Seriously, what's the problem?

It's a happy story with an inspirational ending, but pro-choice critics say Focus on the Family should not be allowed to air the commercial because it advocates on behalf of a divisive issue and threatens to "throw women under the bus."

Abortion throws babies under the bus, but if the Planned Parenthoodlums are so fired up over this commercial, why don't they pony up for their own ad?

Approximately 25% of U.S. pregnancies are terminated by abortion.

Pro-abortionists should be ASHAMED. That they are not is quite revealing... .

Some people cannot differentiate between pro-choice and pro-abortion. As someone who is pro-choice I wonder how it is that someone claiming to be pro-life can be so unconcerned about some poor young girl who is in a desperate circumstance and wants an abortion. If she chooses abortion over adoption or raising a child, these pro-lifers no longer value her life. I see that as a huge contradiction, but that's just me.

I read in some medical journl at a doctors office that something like 20% - 50% of eggs that are fertalized never implant or miscarry before a women gets a non 'piss on a stick' pergnacy test.

If true then god kills more babies then aborionists.

Once you pro lifers straighten god out and get him so stop killing, then I might care what you have to say about abortions

Luj,

What about those of us that don't insert god into the equation?

> apparent response to a comment someone
> else made...

Nope, you're the one who was prattling about how schools need to teach sex. I checked.

Luj,

What about those of us that don't insert god into the equation?

Posted by: E. Steven Berkimer

Then you need to do a few things.

1.tell the anti all forms of birth control people to stop interfering
2.tell the abstinace only people to pull their heads out of their asses
3.lock down at what point a mass of cells becomes a person
4.put your money where your mouth is by donating every spare dime you have to pay for premature c sections and nicu wards so women who dont want to be pregnant dont have to be and pay for the ubringing of all hose unwanted babies out of your on pocket

because if you are not willing to do that, then you really dont have a problem with abortion

Jody-

When people demand double-murder charges when a pregnant woman is killed, they are opening the door to someone claiming "well if it's two murders, then they're two separate beings, equally protected under the law." Which will rapidly take us down the road I mentioned above.

It's an emotion-based double standard that could eventually bite them in the ass if someone with a little savvy cites it as precedent.

Inside the body, the fetus is part of the mother. It has to remain thus or things will get legally murkier than they already are.

"Worked pretty darn well prior to the 60's."

Oh, yeah. Back to the coat hangers.

Clue: this isn't then. I hope you can tell. Apparently, your personal outrage is more important than figuring out answers that everyone can live with. That doesn't mean everyone will be comfortable.

And if you want to go back, sorry. You can't.

So, please - elaborate. Take a couple of deep breaths and write a little bit about what you want to happen - and how to get it to happen.

Prior to the 60's, red meat, cigarettes and segregation was the norm.

Do tell.

Vinnie says: "Inside the body, the fetus is part of the mother. It has to remain thus or things will get legally murkier than they already are."

Are we all agreed on this point?

K.

Then how about this:

It has been determined that a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb (on its own, without any assistance from the mother) until around 22-26 weeks, ( http://www.psych.wright.edu/gordon/psy105/Psy105Module7-outline.pdf pg. 2, para. 10), at which time the lungs are close to being fully formed. So, if we determine that the fetus was 22+ weeks old at the time the mother was (deliberately) killed, it's a double-murder. Likewise, if a baby is aborted before that 22 weeks is up, then, it's not murder - it's still a part of the mother's body, because it still depends on the nutrients supplied by the placenta and umbilical cord. It isn't a viable, sentient being, because it cannot survive on its own. Savvy? Will this put an end to the contiual go-round? (I realize it probably won't, but I was willing to give it a go.)

'The Movement' is beating up and threatening pregnant women every day.

I'm skeptical. Cite?

Try walking into a Planned Parenthood or abortion clinic on 'protest day' (Sometimes everyday is protest day, it depends upon how active things are in the area). You will have a crowd of people shouting and pushing everyone who attempts to enter, waiving signs with pictures of aborted fetuses. Calling the women murderers and whores. Women seeking services (and not all of the women are seeking abortions) often need escorts to make it through the crowd to the front door.

For those arguing about Texas sexual education, this webinar should provide some enlightenment:

https://uthconnect.uth.tmc.edu/p35149603/

Oh, and Momof4, you also live in Austin, which is a liberal pocket in a very conservative state. I live in Texas as well, and things aren't as liberal down here in east Texas.

-Julie