Sunday, February 7, 2010

Planned Parenthood, Athletes Respond to Tebow Super Bowl Ad

A reader wrote in to point out this article:

Two former professional athletes are calling for the "respect of women's choices" in response to the upcoming Super Bowl advertisement featuring the pro-life birth story of college football standout Tim Tebow...

In a statement accompanying the video, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said Tebow's story was "compelling," but added that every woman must be able to make important medical decisions for herself and her family.

"The Tebow story underlines what Planned Parenthood has learned from the millions of women doctors and nurses at its health centers have cared for over nearly a century," Richards' statement read. "Women take decisions about their health very seriously. They consider their doctors’ advice, they talk with their loved ones and people they trust, including religious leaders, and they carefully weigh all considerations before making the best decision for themselves and their families."

The Humble Libertarian reader had this to say:

"Why would anyone have to consult their religious leader for decision support concerning a medical procedure especially one to remove a growth or a parasite? I wonder if Lindsay Lohan consulted her priest before deciding to have her appendix removed in 2007. I wonder if Sandra Day O’Connor conferred with her clergyman when deciding whether to have a radical mastectomy when stricken with breast cancer.

This also totally and utterly removes any rights, responsibilities or stake from the father. It’s only up to the woman because she ALWAYS makes better decisions than the man.

Un-freakin-believable."

Agreed.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

So you are equating an unborn baby with "a growth or a parasite" ?

I'm guessing that you failed your biology courses.

Steve June said...

I think that was his point... it's not a "medical procedure", it's a child. If it were a "medical procedure" there would be no need to consult your religious authorities.

The "growth or parasite" reference is actually a subtle jab at the fact that quite often pro-choice people argue that an unborn fetus is not human life, but really just a "growth, or a parasite". If you'd taken the time to read even just a few posts down, you'd realize that the author of this blog unequivically abhors abortion, and is vehemently pro-life.


... or maybe you failed your reading courses.

W. E. Messamore said...

I can see how it may have been ambiguous. Yes- the THL reader who wrote in was being sarcastic in his reference to unborn babies as "a growth or parasite" to demonstrate the absurdity of that view. You can read my entire position on it here:

http://bit.ly/bTRJaa

Grant Davies said...

Good article Wes.

I looked at a different aspect of it on my site today.

Choosing Both Sides - A Super Bowl Story

http://whatwethinkandwhy.blogspot.com/2010/02/choosing-both-sides-super-bowl-story.html

Teresa said...

Great Post, Wes! To classify an unborn baby with "a growth or a parasite" and have such ignorance with regards to biology is utterly absurd. Pro-choice advocates have been spewing hatred with such vitriol over my supporting the Tebow ad over at my site. This ad really has brought out the worst in liberals.

libhom said...

Real libertarians don't want the government involved in the decision of whether or not to have abortions. I know. I used to be a libertarian.

Grant Davies said...

libhom,
In baseball you get three strikes.

I'm a REAL libertarian and one of the few things I want government to be involved with is defending the rights of the people. Even the people who have yet to leave the womb. Strike one.

Not knowing number one, gets you Strike two on the assertion that "you know."

Absent brain injury or illness, no one who was smart, gets dumb. Many people flirt with the concepts of classical liberalism, but if they "used to be", they never really were.
Strike three.

W. E. Messamore said...

Teresa- it really has. It's amazing to see so much vitriol toward an ad about a woman who made a choice...

Grant- your epiphany is EXCELLENT. I'll be linking to it this week. Don't let me forget!

libhom- I think it is perfectly consistent with libertarian principles to be pro-life. Please take a look at this explanation.

http://bit.ly/bTRJaa

Whether you end up agreeing with the conclusion or not, my only hope is to show you that such a position is defensible and internally consistent.

Grant Davies said...

That would be great. Getting to the big time on THL has always been one of my goals! ;-)

Grace said...

I think Mr. Davies, you are incorrect. A real libertarian is against making any laws that affect personal choice. Abortion is one of those choices. While you might believe that it is a life at conception, consider that 'it' is just a mass of cells then and doesn't begin to feel anything until much later. I think you can be pro-life though and a libertarian. But you'll have to put that aside when you aren't the one pregnant. It is unfair to make a women go through the pregnancy that you will never have to experience. I thin laws can and should be in place that protect life after the 25th week, like they are now.

Post a Comment