UPDATED: Was Pam Tebow’s Life Ever Threatened in Pregnancy?


This post was updated at 2:10 pm Thursday, January 28th, 2010 to reflect new analysis from the Center for Reproductive Rights.

We have been reporting on the sudden shift in policy by CBS News on accepting advocacy ads during the Super Bowl just in time to accept $2.5 million from Focus on the Family for an ad that features Tim and Pam Tebow.  Tim Tebow is a Heisman Trophy winner and a prospective NFL player.

When pregnant with Tim, Pam Tebow was in the Philippines on a mission and became ill with amoebic dysentery.  Early reports indicated that she was faced with a choice of continuing the pregnancy at the risk to her life.

That appears not to be true.  Indeed the very facts of the situation are now in question.

During a bible study class, Pam Tebow related that "during that pregnancy, a Philippine doctor suggested
that she abort the fetus because the strong medications she was being
treated with for amoebic dysentery, which she had contacted early in
the pregnancy, could cause serious disabilities to the fetus."

Suggested that she abort the pregnancy?  Or laid out the various risks that were possible, leaving her to her own judgment and choices?  Made a definitive judgment that the fetus would unquestionably be harmed?  Or described the risks of the medication necessary to treat the dysentery, including possible risks to the fetus?  All of these are very different scenarios than the ones earlier suggested.

The Tebows are fundamentalist Christians and are "anti-choice" which, as Amanda Marcotte points out, in effect makes them "pro-choice," because they have a choice to make even when circumstances are not ideal.

Pam Tebow relates that given her faith, having an abortion–which no one has suggested she should have done in any case–was not an option.

"We knew that we could not do that," she said of the suggested
abortion. "We all prayed to God for a healthy baby," she recalled. "And
God answered our prayers when Timmy was born."

Again…her choice, and one she seeks to take away from other women, men, and their families.

But….the operative words here: "could cause serious disabilities."

This indeed changes the whole narrative, and makes even more suspicious the trotting out of Pam Tebow as an anti-choice spokesperson.

First, as someone who herself had to be on strong medication during both of the pregnancies with my now 10- and 13-year old children, and indeed whose own health was at serious risk, the issue of "risks that could cause" problems is very different than receiving a definitive diagnosis either that something is proved to be wrong or that this pregnancy might or will kill you.  In conjunction with my physicians, I calculated and considered the risks at every step of the way of two extraordinarily difficult pregnancies.

I took risks in the interest of myself and my children in both pregnancies, hoping for the best.  I don’t consider myself a heroine or with any special story to share.  Millions of women calculate risks every day for the children they have, for the ones they may bear, and for other reasons; indeed we all–men and women–calculate risks every day of our lives, and we do so on behalf of our children, unless of course we keep each of them locked in a closet. (Mine are not.) Moreover, I had an abortion at an earlier point in my life, which was absolutely the right choice for me, enabled me to be a prepared and mature parent when I did have children, and about which I have absolutely no regrets.

But Tebow’s story is being used to "pave the way for her to find a new platform to use her influence."

Since the first interview early last year, for example, "Pam Tebow has been contacted by pro-life organizations requesting her to keynote upcoming conventions and gatherings. She said she is excited about the opportunity to share her pro-life beliefs and has already been scheduled for appearances and speeches in Dallas and Louisville."

So…a story that has been reported for some years on and off, and around which Pam Tebow is now building a career all of a sudden becomes a very promising cash cow for Focus on the Family, which is spending $2.5 million on an ad after having laid off hundreds of employees because of budget crises. Focus on the Family, which describes itself as "helping families thrive," is hoping to use this ad to drive donations to its website.  How’s the thriving going among those families with employees laid off from the organization, Dr. Dobson? 

Moreover, as pointed out this afternoon by the Center for Reproductive Rights, abortion is illegal in the Philippines, again calling the story itself into question.  As noted in a CRR press release today:

“If the
Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad is based on the highly publicized
Tebow story, then it raises a number of serious factual questions.
Abortion has been illegal in the Philippines for over a century—no
exceptions,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for
Reproductive Rights. “CBS recently announced that their policy for
advocacy ads has evolved, easing restrictions. Whatever the evolution,
we are very concerned that the network would air an ad that recounts a
story out-of-context and is paid for by an anti-choice organization. We
strongly encourage CBS to pull the ad.” 

Abortion was criminalized in the Philippines in 1870 and has been illegal in the country ever since. There are no exceptions to the law. Abortion
is even prohibited when a woman’s life or health is in danger. Women
are punished with imprisonment between two to six years if they obtain
one. Doctors and midwives who directly cause or assist a woman in an
abortion face six years imprisonment and may have their licenses
suspended or revoked.

Because of the severity of the Philippines law, abortion is
underground, says CRR:

making it unsafe, potentially deadly and highly
stigmatized. Every year, more than 500,000 women in the country try to
terminate their pregnancies.  In 2008 alone, criminal abortions
resulted in the deaths of at least 1000 women and 90,000 more suffered
complications.
 

So….was Tebow’s doctor ignorant of the law and policy of his or her own country?  Or, was the doctor willing to skirt the law for a relatively wealthy (in the context of the extreme poverty in the Philippines) white woman from the United States?   Or did the doctor, again, merely lay out the range of options should it be found that the possible risks of a medication or the possible side effects of the medication should she opt to take it?

CRR today sent a letter to CBS, calling on the network’s Standards and Practices Department to reconsider running the ad.

"While the exact content of the advertisement has not been revealed yet, the commercial is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow’s pregnancy in 1987," noted CRR.   

Let’s be clear then: Pam Tebow’s story appears to have morphed into something it is not for the purpose of marketing and proseltyzing.  Tebow’s own personal choices are irrelevant to the broader context of every and any other individual woman seeking to become pregnant, avoid pregnancy, or make the decisions that are right for her about a possible or existing pregnancy, no matter what label she applies to herself.  Each woman is unique; each situation is unique; each woman acting as a moral agent on behalf of herself, and her family, with her medical advisors or whomever she chooses to engage has the right and the need to exercise these choices in the moment in her life such choices are relevant and based on her own "celebration of life."

And on this the vast majority of Americans agree.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • iwantmylife

    Why is it whenever pro-life tries to put something positive out they always come back with some sort of excuse as to why the ad shouldn’t run? Why is it that if a person is pro-life we are anti – choice? I’m pro-choice up until the point where it’s no longer life affirming. I wouldn’t mind abortion being legal as long as the US had more life affirming programs. Crisis pregnancy center gets a lot of backlash about their programs however it seems that planned parenthood tends to push abortion the most and I haven’t heard of them providing mother’s who have made the choice to have the baby with shelter and job council. I haven’t heard of pro-choice offering a safe haven for single mothers to leave their babies for an hour or two so that they can have a time out. To me all planned parenthood seems to offer is one option. To me it seems like Planned parenthood pushes the same astigmatism that they did back in the 1950’s only now instead of quietly having the baby you quietly terminate the pregnancy. To them it’s not okay to be a struggling single mother even though many children have survived single parent homes.

  • christian

    I’m sorry, but were you in the room when the doctor’s were talking with Pam Tebow. Have you had access to her medical records? Since you admit that you don’t know the exact content of the advertisement, why are you giving her grief? This is a human interest story about a woman who faced a difficult pregnancy and prayed to GOD – yes that’s right, I mentioned GOD, that her child be born healthy. GOD answered her and she was given a healthy baby boy who went on to become a college football star. What better story to air at the Super Bowl – a football game. If you think this is about Pro-Life, versus Pro-Choice, then you got it wrong. It is all about Faith. Faith that God will provide. Faith that whatever GOD’S will is, even if it doesn’t match your own will, you know HE is right and you will still follow HIM.

  • kate-ranieri

    What is life affirming if not affirming the rights of a woman who is fully alive? Affirming the rights of a woman who is fully alive is but one concrete example. Funding child care centers and schools for children is life affirming. Covering comprehensive care for all people, especially pregnant women and young children, is life affirming. These few examples affirm life in its totality—emotional and physical–they affirm the integrity and divinity of each human being.  But to limit a woman’s options, including forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes, is hardly life affirming. It symbolically annhilates the woman, reducing her to an incubator on legs, in favor of some potential. 

  • kate-ranieri

    Dear Christian, 

    Save the God talk. Football, especially the Super Bowl, is no place for this jabberwocky. Football is the American religion. The righteous honor the gods of football every Sunday and Monday. No need to muck up the works with Ms. Tebow yammering on about her pregnancy and praying. This is football, dearie, not Sunday School. 

  • shelltj44

    Why do people have to question this woman? Why on earth would one make her out to be dishonest? Get real. She felt as though this was a huge choice she had been “forced” to make “by the doctor”….. that is how she felt…how she viewed the situation and she opted to keep him. Okay, it obviously affected her greatly which is exactly why she is speaking about it and does she not deserve that? There are many people who choose to have an abortion and live forever regretting that and others who have repeated abortions (I knew a girl like that) and that is absolutely not okay and very irresponsible. The fact is the woman out there who are thinking of making this huge choice should hear from both sides so if you are to closed minded to respect that then you need to reevaluate your place in this world and those posting above such direspectful comments “dear Christian” – grow up you idiot! If football is the most important thing in your life then you are a sad sad soul. Let others speak people. And to the one writing the article : just because you had an abortion and you thought it was a good experience I believe that we could maybe teach birth control to young women and that might be a better route – less tramatic. Just because you had an abortion – I am not judging ya and Pam Tebow is not either. She deserves the right to speak without being called a liar. What if I called you a liar about ever having had an abortion? That would not make much sense either would it? Enough said.

  • heather-corinna

    I can think of only a handful of pro-life people I have ever heard from or
    of who DO, in fact, work to provide young women (or any
    women) or men (after all, it’s not only women who need the information) education on contraception. Most of us who dedicate our time and energy to doing just that are pro-choice, and our efforts in comprehensive education are
    often highly blocked and opposed by antichoice lobbies and funding kept expressly
    from education on birth control by antichoice efforts.

     

    When
    someone says something about what "we" should be doing, I’m going take
    the opportunity to invite you to do just that, since a lot of us ARE
    already doing what we’re being told we should be. And we could certainly use the help. Usually the folks
    saying what "we" should be doing are the people missing in
    that collective term.

     

    Suffice it to say, Focus on the Family
    is absolutely not in support of what you’re suggesting. Quite the
    opposite: they are strongly against educating young people about contraception.

     

    Are you a contraceptive
    educator yourself?  Are you at least actively helping support efforts
    to provide education on contraception?  Are you sure not to support
    orgs like FOF which oppose your ideas in this regard?  If so, great. If not, well…who’s "we?"

  • jodi-jacobson

    planned parenthood tends to push abortion the most and I haven’t heard
    of them providing mother’s who have made the choice to have the baby
    with shelter and job council.

    Planned Parenthood does not push abortion.  That is a myth.  it is a reproductive health service organizations that seeks to meet the needs of women.  It is not an adoption agency nor a broader social services agency.  However, if you had done your homework, even on this site, you would know that Planned Parenthoods work closely with adoption agencies and other social service agencies to assist clients who need referrals for the same.  

    To me all planned parenthood seems to offer is one option. 

    Then it is hard to understand why abortion makes up less than 10 percent of the services provided by planned parenthood centers nationwide.

    Crisis pregnancy centers give out incorrect, medically inaccurate information.   Again, please check your facts first.

    To them it’s not okay to be a struggling single mother even though many children have survived single parent homes.

    That would be news to Planned Parenthood of America, which was actively engaged in the fight to secure funding for uninsured and underinsured women for the full range of family health services including well-baby and well-child care; for the fair pay act; and for any number of other issues on which PPFA works.  I urge you to check your assumptions with facts and research.

    I also would love to know why I have not heard from this perspective in regard to the comments made by Lt. Gov of South Carolina Andre Bauer who effectively called single mothers uncontrolled breeders whose children should be denied food?

    Finally, you write:

    Why is it whenever pro-life tries to put something positive out they
    always come back with some sort of excuse as to why the ad shouldn’t
    run? Why is it that if a person is pro-life we are anti – choice?

    Pam Tebow is vocally anti-choice.  Focus on the Family is vocally anti-choice.  I support their right to express their views on television or elsewhere.  I do not support the CBS decision to reject all other advertisements by progressive organizations and then turn around and accept one by an organization that is profoundly discriminatory and vocally against the rights of all women, minorities, GLBT persons and others.  The issue is the lack of consistency and transparency by CBS in its policies and the fact that it now allows an ad by an avowedly racist, sexist, homophobic organization that does seek to change policy on what women can do.

    That is the point.

     

    I think you may be missing it.

     

  • jodi-jacobson

    Perhaps you missed the part where I explained that this is based on Pam Tebow’s own testimony in church.

    This is a human interest story about a woman who faced a difficult
    pregnancy and prayed to GOD – yes that’s right, I mentioned GOD, that
    her child be born healthy.

    Difficult to comprehend, i know, but a) millions of women every day face difficulties in pregnancy, in childbirth, and lo and behold in making sure their living, breathing children have enough food to eat on a daily basis.

    there is nothing special about Pam Tebow, surely that rises to the level of the Super Bowl commercial.  However, I support her right and the right of Focus on the Family to spend $2.5 million to air this ad.  I don’t support the circumstances under which the air is being aired OR the hypocrisy of CBS in its sudden shift in policy after rejecting ads on other issues, including how to protect oneself from unintended pregnancy by using condoms.

  • jodi-jacobson

    please read the article.

    i quoted HER OWN WORDS about her condition.

    it was not life-threatening and is being portrayed as such for political reasons.

    Women are not dumb and they don’t need a 30-second Super Bowl ad from James Dobson and Co. to tell them their choices.

  • luckylu

    Christian, what does a so-called pro-life ad or God have to do with watching the Superbowl on TV?  And in case you haven’t noticed, most of the U.S. is becoming more unchurched every year.  As a pro-choice atheist, I resent you assuming I believe in your God, your Buddha, or your Allah (or Shiva, for that matter). 

         The so-called "pro-lifers" are only interested in the life of the fetuses, not the mothers, and not the real babies once they are born.  Have you been to the movie "Precious"?  Precious was molested as a little girl, and became pregnant by her incestuous stepfather when she was 15.  Shouldn’t this girl have had the option of abortion?  And what about women who are raped and become pregnant? 

         The Superbowl commercials should be what they always are: they assume they are catering to a 99% male audience, and are primarily about beers, cars, the occasional cell phone and computers.  How does an anti-abortion ad fit in with the scenario? 

         And lastly, keep your Bible and your Rosary away from my ovaries.

    Luckylu

  • crowepps

    She felt as though this was a huge choice she had been "forced" to make "by the doctor"….. that is how she felt…how she viewed the situation and she opted to keep him.

    Are you advocating withholding life and death information from patients because patients shouldn’t be put in the position of being "forced" to make decisions?

    Personally, I would just as soon know what’s going on and have some input on it myself.  How are the doctors supposed to know which patients don’t want to hear about problems or be involved in decisions about treatment?  Just keep broad categories in the dark?

    All pregnant women?

    All pregnant ProLife women?

    All pregnant Christian women?

    All Christians, male and female, no matter what’s wrong with them?

    Or perhaps they’ll add a checkoff line to the ‘new patient’ sheet for ‘Since I’m afraid my making decisions might contravene God’s will, I waive my right to be informed of any problems or possible treatments for them and specifically state I don’t want to participate in decisions.’

  • julie-watkins
    If it’s 99% male audience, then it’s trying to influence those men who find out their girlfriend/wife is pregnant that they should expect their girlfriend/wife to do everything for the child. Or (less personally) enforce gender expectations. They wouldn’t buy time on Superbowl if they’re trying encourage women how to choose.
  • colleen

     What better story to air at the Super Bowl – a football game.

     

    Considering the audience and the sorry state of American males how about  a story about some football hero who discovered that God wanted him to stop beating the crap out of his wife or raping his dates?

     How about how God wants men to pay their child support?

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • paul-bradford

    Each woman is unique; each situation is unique; each woman acting as a moral agent on behalf of herself, and her family, with her medical advisors or whomever she chooses to engage has the right and the need to exercise these choices in the moment in her life such choices are relevant and based on her own "celebration of life."

     

    Right On!

     

    Now, Jodi, let me ask you if you think it is acceptable for those of us who wish to promote the safety of the unborn to make an appeal to those women who will be exercising choice?  I’m concerned about the fact that an inordinately high percentage of children who are diagnosed with fetal abnormality or who are suspected of being vulnerable to congenital defects have their lives terminated by abortion.  The people with the power to decide whether or not to abort are their mothers.  You are steadfast in your determination to see that the choice remains with the mothers.  I fully accept the fact that it’s the mother’s choice.

     

    I’m concerned about the welfare of the very young.  Do you feel that I’m doing something wrong when I exert some effort to affect the decisions of those who have the power to determine whether these young people are going to be aborted?  Suppose my efforts include airing the testimony of a woman who chose to bring a pregnancy to term even though there was a possibility that her baby might be born with a defect.  Do you think there’s anything untoward about my encouraging women who are in the position to make a choice for or against abortion to consider that woman’s testimony?

     

    Mothers have the power to decide whether or not to terminate pregnancies.  Who’s arguing about that?  I want to know whether you believe I have the right to try and influence the decisions of those in power. 

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • faultroy

     I’m not sure why you feel the need to make such a bigoted  remark, as opposed to merely looking it up,  but here are the statistics on Superbowl Demographics:

    Attendees:   Median Age: 37

                      Males: 74%–females:—26%

     

    Viewers:      Males: 64%—females: 36%

                     –Source: H. Zimmerman Inc.

        But all you needed to do was type in: " Superbowl Demographics"

    Now how hard was that?????  

     Obviously with the last Superbowl having a viewership of approx 94 million–just in the USA(there are another estimated 124 million around the world watching)– and reaching a target audience of almost 40 per cent female, it really sounds like a good adv bet.  According to my math, this comes down to about (actually .02625 cents) 3 cents per viewer–($2.5 Million divided by 94 million viewers) pretty cheap to me. Of course if you calculated the other 124 million world viewers, exposure is about 1 cent per viewer.  But of course you knew that!!!!!

  • faultroy

       I am so glad you said this since it emphasizes what a stupid idea it is to try to protest and attack the Mother under the circumstances.  It really only makes pro-choice advocates look mean, stingy, nasty and self serving with no real  interest in the best interests, desires or concern for the welfare of the Mother or the child.  All it really does is validate ant-arbortionists’ talking point that pro-choice advocates are really only interested in protecting their own turf and looking at increasing both funding and subsidies for their own self gain.  As everyone knows: no matter where you sit on this issue, there are billions of dollars at stake–it is big money and a lot of jobs are riding on whichever way the wind blows.  By attacking this ad women’s rights groups are merely undermining their own position.  Conservatives like Bill O’Riley and Glenn Beck will have a field day with this. Politically it is a very stupid thing to do, and I am surprised at an organization like NOW with all their political experience, would jump on board and protest.  Most likely they feel so marginalized they are desperate to find anything to keep themselves in the public’s eye.

  • faultroy

    Heather, let me congratulate you on the efforts that you are actively making in trying to further support Women’s Reproductive Rights and Responsible Parenting.  While I am not  affiliated with Focus On the Family, I would like you to go on their website (as I have) and actually read about their positions.  I can honestly say you are dead wrong about Focus on the Family being against educating young people about contraception.  Because they are a religious group, they feel that their form of contraception is abstinence.  Now you may not agree with it, but technically it is the only form of contraception accepted by the American Medical Association as being 100% reliable-without possible medical side effects.  And while I don’t agree with FOTF’s position, I do respect the fact that like you, they spend both time and money trying to get the word out and keeping in line with their values of God, Family and a Christian way of life.  If you look at the political scene today, you can see that liberal values are being snubbed and there is a marked sense of conservatism back in our society that I frankly could never have imagined.  I am truly schocked.  But the country as a whole has spoken, and one of the most important parts of being an adult is recognizing that people are not necessarily interested in either your personal way of life–or mine, or the FOTF’s way of life for that matter.  What is important is that we all choose a life that is honorable, honest and self fulfilling.  Rather than criticise one another for what we are not, perhaps we should start looking at where we are in agreement.  It’s pretty obvious that both anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists are locked in head to head combat.  It certainly appears that as we educate people on reproductive rights, we are still at the same place we were with the introduction of Roe v Wade–we’re always afraid that Reproductive Rights will somehow be taken a way from a woman.  It is very doubtful that this will ever take place, but it is quite possible that states will make it very uncomfortable for a woman to exercise her right to choose. From where I sit, it would make a lot of sense for pro-abortion advocates to mollify their positions and take into consideration the sensitive nature of the average conservative American.  The average American parent does not want the Federal Government telling them how to rear their child.  Americans want to be in control of what their children will or will not be exposed to.  As we can all see, this arrogance of power has not gone over too well with the average American Taxpayer.  I’m suggesting the same level of sensitivity to issues of reproductive rights for women.  It starts by acknowledging that the opposition has valid and legitimate complaints and issues.  if we don’t start taking a more middle road approach, Conservatives–now the majority of people–will steam-roll over women’s reproductive rights.  The issue is really about money–who pays for what.  Conservative Americans have a right to have it their way–they are paying for it in the form of taxes.  Ultimately if push comes to shove, the person with the money will be the one making the decision.  I don’t think pro-abortion advocates want this issue to come to a head–at this time, they will surely loose. If you don’t want to take a chance on loosing a fight, don’t get in one.

     

  • faultroy

      Colleen;

        Just for your information, the CDC (Center For Disease Control) statistics on Intimate Violence does not agree with your position.  The CDC states that Women are just as violent as men in respect to spousal abuse, and that 30 per cent of men are victims of intimate  partner violence.  I suggest you go on their website and read the actual reports, I think that you will be amazed and enlightened as I was.  And, as you should know, the best way for a woman to protect herself from the possibility of Rape is to not drink.  Statistically–by far– Women know their rapist well, and alchohol plays in the rape scenario more than any other factor.  85% of all rapes can easily be avoided by 1) being aware of your surroundings, 2) lay off the booze.

         And as far as child support is concerned, 90 per cent of child support is paid, and those that do not pay do not have the means to do so.  And as far as making payment with respect to child support, it is a curious double standard.  For example, men are always indebted for past child support, but women receiving money from the state or federal government are not only not liable for the money taken, they never have to pay it back either. That, to many of us, is a terrible double standard since it rewards women for having children by giving them money to live on.  The other issue is that a woman receiving child support is not required by law to spend it on her child.  She can spend it on whatever she wants.  If a woman is an alchoholic or a crack addict, the law has no problem with her spending it on her habit.  This is totally in violation of the best interests of the child and of course the taxpayer who has to finance this largesse.  The last point is that the Federal and State Governmenthas actually worsened the plight of women and children by splitting the family apart.  A woman has great difficulty getting aid if she has a partner living with her.   So in essence the government rewards women for not having a husband in the home. And this is bad, since the greatest factor in child abuse is a house without a husband (a single household) and one of the greatest predictors of child molesting is having a boyfriend living with the single mother and not the father of the children.  The greatest predictor of poverty is a single woman with mouths to feed.  It is certainly good that you are interested in these issues, and I welcome seeing you make comments on these issues with factual well reasoned positions as opposed to knee jerk reactions that really do nothing to help educate people or help to resolve these serious problems.

  • mikeb2277

    You need to leave the Tebow family alone. This is a free country and if they want to believe abortion is wrong then that is their freedom. You choose to believe abortion is ok and that is your free right to do that. Quit crying like a bunch of babies. WAH WAH so and so is infringing on my rights.

  • jodi-jacobson

    by how deeply you have either misread or are purposefully misrepresenting this issue.

     

    No one argues that the Tebows can’t believe what they want to believe.

     

    No one argues that Pam Tebow should have made any other decision than the one that was best for her and her family.

     

    The issue at hand, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, is that the Tebows, through their political activism and Focus on the Family through the millions of dollars it spends on advocacy are seeking to deny the rights of millions of women to choose what is best for them in their own circumstances.

     

    So the issue is quite the opposite.

     

    This is indeed "a free country."  I’d like to keep it that way…..for the millions of women and girls who need the information, tools and services to make safe, healthy and informed reproductive and sexual health choices for themselves and their families.  it’s Focus on the Family that wants to take away that freedom.

     

    Don’t twist the argument.

     

    Jodi Jacobson

  • heather-corinna

    I’m very familiar with their positions. I’ve been well aware of where they stand on this issue for many years. And I have no idea why you’re talking abortion in your response to a comment I made on a different issue. I was discussing contraception, not abortion.

     

    Only supporting abstinence is not educating people on contraception. While, to be sure, abstaining from sex is one method of contraception, it is but one, and one that fails more often than most. In addition, even though FOF states they only require abstinence until marriage, I don’t see them providing any information at all on contraception for married people, even NFP, a method most conservative religions accept. To boot, I support any organizations right to their own policies, and to teach what they want to to those who want what they’re selling (though I reserve the right to be critical of certain messages or misinformation). However, I most certainly am not okay with organizations who aim to try and remove the same rights from the rest of us, and who try to influence our government with their religious beliefs.

     

    I strongly question that if I told you that I taught English Literature, and that the only thing I taught in my class, ever, was Hamlet, you’d not say that yes, Hamlet is one piece of English Literature, but only one. Teaching about one method of contraception, one which the fewest number of people use during the whole of a lifetime, which we know fails more often in typical use than any other, no less, is not providing education on contraception, especially if any of us earnestly want to help prevent unwanted pregnancy.  An organization only supporting abstinence is not an organization that supports education on contraception, just like a teacher who only teaches Hamlet has not given an English Literature course: they’ve given a course on Hamlet.

     

    The person I responded to suggested we invest time in providing education on contraception, and also seemed to have a profoundly vested interest in preventing abortion. I assumed that to be in earnest, therefore I assumed she was tallking about all methods of contraception, particularly those which would best acheive that aim.

     

    FYI, if we’re talking about education for young people (which I wasn’t addressing exclusively: young people aren’t the only ones who become unwantedly pregnant, after all)?  The average American parent wants a comprehensive approach that includes education on contraception, and not just abstinence. More US parents than not are even in support of contraception being provided by schools.

     

    We’re at a "middle of the road" approach (and in my book, not even: try a more-the-the-right approach). We’ve been there for a long time. Things like religiously (nor per everyone’s religion, mind, only the religions of some)-motivated abstinence-only education are NOT the middle.  If they are, what’s far further to the right when it comes to contraceptive education? Attaching chastity belts?

     

  • crowepps

    I’m concerned about the fact that an inordinately high percentage of children who are diagnosed with fetal abnormality or who are suspected of being vulnerable to congenital defects have their lives terminated by abortion. …  I want to know whether you believe I have the right to try and influence the decisions of those in power. 

    I don’t have any problem with total strangers who are clueless about the realities of having a child with congenital defects sticking their nose into other people’s business and trying to influence their decisions, but unfortunately they have no actual information to offer but instead just bromides like ‘doctors can be mistaken and if you have enough hope and faith everything will be all right’ or ‘somewhere you will find the strength to cope’ or ‘the child may have some special purpose’.

     

    The only people who have factual information to provide to the couples in question about what continuing the pregnancy would mean in the future are those who have chosen to raise a child with congenital malformations and try to find a place in our society for them as adults.  I know some of those parents – they can give a realistic view of the joys and problems of that decision.  The children who have survived to adulthood might also have some good advice to offer. 

     

    It seems to me that anyone else who horns in is making statements based on ‘Talking you into doing something extremely difficult makes me feel all noble at secondhand because I don’t understand the reality of what it entails and I’ll never know how much it hurts you or the rest of your family’.

  • crowepps

    Just for your information, the CDC (Center For Disease Control) statistics on Intimate Violence does not agree with your position.  The CDC states that Women are just as violent as men in respect to spousal abuse, and that 30 per cent of men are victims of intimate  partner violence.

    I hate to point this out to you, but it does NOT say that the 30% of men who are victims of intimate partner violence are abused by women.  Some of them are abused by other men (because they’re gay).

    And, as you should know, the best way for a woman to protect herself from the possibility of Rape is to not drink.  Statistically–by far– Women know their rapist well, and alchohol plays in the rape scenario more than any other factor.  85% of all rapes can easily be avoided by 1) being aware of your surroundings, 2) lay off the booze.

    Statistically — by far — ALL rapes can easily be avoided by 1) avoiding being around men, 2) having excellent home security. 

    And as far as child support is concerned, 90 per cent of child support is paid, and those that do not pay do not have the means to do so.

    Until quite recently, of course, the statistics were much worse, but once Child Support Enforcement Agencies were created, and courts started ordering child support to be withheld directly from paychecks, and seizing tax refunds, the statistics have improved a lot.  There is no evidence whatsoever that ‘those that do not pay do not have the means to do so’ but instead that ‘there are those from whom the State is unable to squeeze any money’.

    And as far as making payment with respect to child support, it is a curious double standard.  For example, men are always indebted for past child support, but women receiving money from the state or federal government are not only not liable for the money taken, they never have to pay it back either. That, to many of us, is a terrible double standard since it rewards women for having children by giving them money to live on.

    The money given to the woman is to actually feed and shelter the children and is not a loan which she must repay but instead a loan until the father coughs up the support he’s supposed to pay.  The alternative is having the children be homeless and starve which would remove the ‘drain’ on daddy’s wallet.

    The other issue is that a woman receiving child support is not required by law to spend it on her child.  She can spend it on whatever she wants.  If a woman is an alchoholic or a crack addict, the law has no problem with her spending it on her habit.  This is totally in violation of the best interests of the child and of course the taxpayer who has to finance this largesse.

    I thought those alcoholic parents were what Office of Children’s Services was all about?  Using crack of course is entirely illegal and so the law actually gets kind of snotty about it.

    The last point is that the Federal and State Governmenthas actually worsened the plight of women and children by splitting the family apart.  A woman has great difficulty getting aid if she has a partner living with her.   So in essence the government rewards women for not having a husband in the home.

    If she had a husband in the home why would she need aid?  Wouldn’t he be supporting her and the kids from his paycheck?  A woman has great difficulty getting aid if her husband/male partner is laying around the house without a job because the government is under the illusion that looking into the kiddie’s hollow, hungry eyes will get him to put down the beer and get off the couch. 

    And this is bad, since the greatest factor in child abuse is a house without a husband (a single household) and one of the greatest predictors of child molesting is having a boyfriend living with the single mother and not the father of the children.

    Because the marriage ceremony magically transforms that abusive boyfriend into a loving middle-class daddy with a job.

    The greatest predictor of poverty is a single woman with mouths to feed.

    The greatest predictor of poverty is having children. 

    It is certainly good that you are interested in these issues, and I welcome seeing you make comments on these issues with factual well reasoned positions as opposed to knee jerk reactions that really do nothing to help educate people or help to resolve these serious problems.

    This made me just laugh right out loud — your entire position can be summed up as ‘things only work well if the man can use the children as hostages to prevent the woman from escaping’.  That doesn’t qualify as ‘factual’ or ‘well reasoned’ to me but just the same old nonsense.

  • jodi-jacobson

    the best way for a woman to protect herself from the possibility of
    Rape is to not drink.  Statistically–by far– Women know their rapist
    well, and alchohol plays in the rape scenario more than any other
    factor.  85% of all rapes can easily be avoided by 1) being aware of
    your surroundings, 2) lay off the booze. 

    This is the most openly misogynistic comment I have seen in a long time….at least we know where you’re coming from….

     

    Not that any of your statistics are reliable, but do I basically understand that you think women who drink "deserve it?"  They are at fault?

     

    How does that work for those pregnant women who are raped/beaten at higher rates?  How does that work in marital rape generally– an under-reported phenomenon? 

     

    How many glasses of wine can i have before it is ok to rape me?

     

    I guess in India, where the non-payment of dowry is a major factor in the burning of brides, women should what—just avoid getting married (in which case they will be ostracized for that anyway)?  And in that country, where  "minor household offenses" like burning the rice for dinner is a primary reason for domestic violence, what…women should just learn to cook better?

     

    And in Pakistan where a young girl who was raped and made pregnant (no alchohol involved!!!) was stoned to death for the "offense of BEING RAPED"….what should she do?

     

    Your lack of understanding of the dynamics of violence against women, your abuse of statistics and data and your cavalier attitude toward victims are the very things that perpetuate violence in this and other societies.

    But I give you credit for being honest about your hatred of women.

    Jodi Jacobson

  • crowepps

    Beginning with the rape of a 65-year-old woman in Yoakum last January, authorities have linked eight sexual assaults or attempted sexual assaults to the suspect, who has been dubbed the "Twilight Rapist" because most of the attacks occurred around dawn. They also believe he robbed or attempted to rob four other women.

    The victims have all been women, ranging in age from 65 to 91. One rape victim played piano at her church on Sundays. An 81-year-old woman scared off an intruder with a gun, firing several rounds for good measure. A 66-year-old woman was attacked twice, despite having moved across town following the first assault.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583256,00.html

    I guess these women shouldn’t have had that glass of sherry after supper.

  • julie-watkins

    Why Superbowl? Reaffirm male privilege: women are servants If the demographics are more men than women, then it’s more trying to influence men than women. Focus on the Family would like to encourage those men who find out their girlfriend/wife is pregnant that they should expect their girlfriend/wife to do everything for the child. Or (less personally) enforce gender expectations. That’s a larger demographic than buying time on Superbowl to try to encourage women how to choose.

     

    I was feeling snarky because I’ve been reading too many comments & news reports about male entitlement behavior. I avoid almost all popular culture because I’m not interested in the messages being offered.

  • leona91

    It’s a Football game not "The Sermon on the Mount". http://ramblingmanofals.wordpress.com/

  • leona91

    While we are all Ga Ga over Pam Tebow, we should also thank Eunice Durden for giving birth to another Heisman Trophy winner, O.J. Simpson. She made home-made braces for his rickets that he wore till age five. O.J. Simpson is currently serving his nine year sentence at the Lovelock Correctional Center in Lovelock Nevada. Mothers are Wonderful!http://ramblingmanofals.wordpress.com/ 

  • colleen

    I didn’t state a ‘position’. I answered someone else’s question by suggesting topics which, considering CBS’s audience demographics, would be a huge improvement and have, at the very least, some  socially redeeming value (unlike the continual stream of nonsense we see from present day conservatives,  Focus on the Family and Faux news etc.

    However, I would like to thank you for your post  because it illustrates so well what I meant by the sorry state of what the American conservative thinks of as masculinity.Your comments on rape were particularily revealing and, once again, illustrate my point.

    I did not write them (but I wish I had) but here are 50 ways that  you can prevent yourself and other men from raping others:

     

    Fifty Ways Prevent Yourself from Being a Rapist:

    1. Do not think you have the right to rape a woman.

    2. Do not rape a woman. Do not rape a man.

    3. Learn what rape is.

    4. Rape is forcing someone to have sex with you when they do not want to.

    5.
    Most rapes are committed by men who know the women they are raping. If
    the woman you are forcing to have sex with you happens to be your
    girlfriend, your neighbor, your cousin, your sister, or your wife, it
    is still RAPE.

    6. When someone says no to you, that means you have no right to force yourself on them.

    7.
    When someone pushes you away, or otherwise inclinates, verbally or with
    physical movement that they do not want to have sex with you, and you
    force yourself on them, that is rape.

    8. If you see a woman in a parking lot, don’t rape her.

    9. If you see a woman walking alone at night, don’t rape her.

    10. If you see a woman in a short skirt, don’t rape her.

    11, If you see a woman with long hair, don’t rape her.

    12. If you see a woman walking down a dark street at 4 AM, naked, don’t rape her.

    13.
    If you see a woman who is not carrying pepper spray for self
    protection, does not know karate, does not have a gun, and is not even
    holding an umbrella to ward you off, still don’t rape her.

    14. If you see a woman who has a sign on her head that says "I Want Sex", you don’t have the right to force sex upon her.

    15. If you’re at a party, and a girl is drunk, and she wants you to kiss her and touch her but then she wants you stop, STOP.

    16. If you’re on a date with someone and they want to go so far, but then stop, you STOP. If you don’t stop, it is called rape.

    17.
    Rape is a crime, whether you go to prison for it or not, whether it is
    reported or not, whether you’re convicted, or whether anyone believes
    the woman you rape, or whether you get a goddamn medal of honor for all
    the rapes you got away with committing, IT’S A CRIME and it’s a crime
    against humanity, which has more to do with your conscience and morals
    and the rights of women to live as human beings on this planet without
    having to be in fear their bodies will be violated, than it laws and
    prison sentences. If you are a rapist, you have violated a person’s
    right to simply live. News Flash – you do not have the right to do
    that. Neither does any other man or woman you know.

    18.
    Rape is about power. It is not about sex. Do something else with your
    misogyny than rape a woman. Try, say, reading a book. Or committing
    suicide to rid you from the planet so we will have one less rapist
    walking around.

    20.
    Men are the people who can stop rape. Not women. For proof of this
    fact, look at statistics on rape for a second. It happens every minute
    of every day, and it is usually not ever reported so statistics on it
    are always underestimates. Women have been trying to prevent themselves
    from being raped for a few centuries. IT HASN’T WORKED YET.

    21. Rapists destroy lives in a way that murderers do not. If you rape a person, you are as inhumane as a murderer.

    22.
    Before you decide to rape someone, go to visit an emergency room one
    night, and ask the nurse on duty at the triage, how many raped women
    have been there that evening. Then ask about the rape kits they did on
    the women, the DNA evidence they collected. Then spend a few years of
    your life talking with women who were raped and see how it has affected
    them every single day of their lives. You might reconsider rape after
    that, if you’re actually human. If you’re not human, please kill
    yourself before you rape someone.

    23.
    Note that you are living in a patriarchal society which is the only
    reason why committing rape will occur to you as something you have a
    right to do in the first place. Note that, despite this fact, you STILL
    DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RAPE ANYONE EVER.

    24.
    Know that a few million human beings on this planet right now want you
    dead, if you’re a rapist, because we’re sick and tired of you walking
    around, and our self protectoin mechainsms haven’t worked, and you’re
    not about to be a real popular guy if anyone finds out you are a
    rapist, unless, you are hanging around other rapists.

    25.
    Know that whether anyone ever finds out you committed a rape or not,
    you are still a replusive, weak, pathetic, disgusting, grotesque,
    inhumane, repulsive, worthless, twisted individual if you rape someone,
    and this fact will remain true, and you will remain guilty forever,
    whether she tells anybody or not. And you can be the one to live with
    that; if you have a conscience.

    26. If you don’t have a conscience, go murder yourself instead of raping a woman.

    27. Read Ms. Magazine instead of Playboy

    28. Stay away from pornography. Most rapists love it. That should be a danger sign.

    29. Cut your hands off. You won’t be able to use them. That will help matters.

    30. Cut your penis off. Or ask me to do it for you; I’ll be happy to, if you’re considering committing a rape.

    31. Stay away from women.

    32. Stay away from little girls.

    33. Stay away from boys.

    34. Stay away from the human race.

    35.
    You are not the superior sex, never will be, never were, never are.
    Women are equal to you, and sometimes women will be smarter than you.
    This is called life. Deal with it.

    36. Sometimes women will not like you. That is our right. See above.

    37.
    Sometimes women will rebuff your advances. In other words, we don’t
    always want to have sex with you. Note, no one has any duty to have sex
    with anyone, ever. You are no exception.

    38.
    Sometimes women will think you are stupid, will make fun of you, will
    not treat you well, will fire you from a job, will laugh at you, will
    refuse to go out with you. Just like men can do these things, so can
    women. This does not mean you have a right to commit rape.

    39.
    If a woman has sex with you one day and doesn’t want to have sex with
    you the next, that is her right. You do not have the right to rape her.

    40.
    If a woman has sex with you and one hour later does not want to have
    sex with you again, that is her right. You do not have the right to
    rape her.

    41.
    If a woman has sex all the time, with lots of men, and you think she is
    a slut for it, you still don’t have the right to rape her. Women have
    the right to have sex with who they choose, when they choose, wherever
    they choose if it is consentual. Just like men.

    42.
    No woman has ever, will ever or does ever ASK to be raped. No woman
    LIKES being raped. No woman INVITES you to rape her. No woman has EVER
    ASKED FOR IT. Try to remember that.

    43.
    You don’t have a right to rape your wife, your daughter, your
    granddaughter, your best friend, your girlfriend, a girl you met at the
    grocery store, your boss, your coworker, your student, your professor,
    your niece, your next door neighbor, a woman you do not know, or ANYONE
    ELSE. Ever. Period. End of Story.

    44.
    Do not forward around emails to people telling them what women should
    do to prevent themselves from being raped. Women have never, and will
    never be able to stop the phenomena of rape, even as women do a good
    job of trying to, because we are not the ones with penises. Very
    simple. You are the only person who can prevent you from raping me or
    any other woman. You. Not me. You. Not any woman. You. You must stop
    you from being a rapist. It is YOUR job. Take responsibility for it for
    a change. I’m tired of giving out the 1-800-656-HOPE number to women
    who have been raped. I WANT TO GIVE OUT A HOTLINE TO YOU. 1-800-STOP IT
    NOW
    But that hotline does not exist.

    45.
    Go build a crisis center to stop yourself and every other man you know
    from becoming a rapist. Get funding for it, which will require a lot of
    work on a daily basis. Hire counselors. Hold group therapy and
    individual therapy sessions. Try, again, to get funding for it because
    it will be difficult to do so. Women have been doing this for decades.
    They’re called rape crisis centers and we have too many of them. They
    should not have to exist at all.

    46.
    When you converse with your male friends, be sure to warn them to NOT
    RAPE ANYONE if they are going out late at night, or if they are going
    out with a new girl, or if they are doing anything at all where rape
    might be an issue of concern. Women do this all the time, warning their
    friends to be careful, warning their daughters, their sisters, their
    mothers to be careful, to watch out, to lock their doors, to keep their
    doors locked, to carry pepper spray. We have all sorts of advice we
    give each other based on our very rational fear of rape. Why don’t you
    try giving every man you now advice on how to prevent rape?

    47.
    If you know someone who is a rapist, do something about it. Do not
    ignore, tolerate, pretend you don’t know or don’t care, or congratulate
    him. DO SOMETHING about it, such as, telling him he is the scum of the
    earth, reporting him to the police, beating him up, or put up a
    billboard with his picture, his name and the word Rapist in bright red
    letters on his front lawn.

    48.
    If you’re a rapist, go to therapy for a few years, perhaps the rest of
    your life, spend some time in a psychiatric hospital, perhaps dozens of
    times, perhaps years, and try to figure out how to live with yourself
    and what you did, which is exactly what many women who are raped by
    people such as you must do.

    49.
    Donate money to RAINN, since you haven’t succeeded in stopping rape
    from happening yet, so we still need these sexual assault centers, and
    maybe you should try being the person who donates money to them, rather
    than the people who were raped. http://www.rainn.org 1-800-656-HOPE. Or
    donate money to your local sexual assault crisis center. Or donate
    money to one of the women you know who has been raped so she can go to
    therapy, because statistically, there is little chance that you do not
    know several rape "survivors".

    50.
    SEND THIS TO EVERY MAN YOU KNOW. And when you get the next email
    telling every woman on the planet what to do to prevent herself from
    being raped, and it says, "forward it to every woman you know", don’t
    do it. For an example, see the message below and consider how
    ridiculous it is that women should have to live in a world where we
    write, read, and send each other these kind of messages, and know that
    it is not fair, and wonder for a minute, why you never got a message
    like this before addressed to men.

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • paul-bradford

    The only people who have factual information to provide to the couples in question about what continuing the pregnancy would mean in the future are those who have chosen to raise a child with congenital malformations and try to find a place in our society for them as adults. I know some of those parents – they can give a realistic view of the joys and problems of that decision. The children who have survived to adulthood might also have some good advice to offer

     

    crowepps,

     

    This is very good.  I would propose one addition and that would be for those involved in the care of children with disabilities to educate the public about what sort of social services are needed in order to improve outcomes for special needs children.  We, as a society, have to be committed to the ideal of meeting the needs of all our members.

     

    I’m recalling a conversation that took place nineteen years ago when my wife and I were awaiting the birth of our daughter.  My wife’s OB/GYN urged my wife to to get amniocentesis.  I asked the doctor what possible good could be derived from the test since, in the event that an abnormality such as Down’s Syndrome was detected, there was no medical intervention that could improve matters.  The doctor said to me that unless we were "Crazy Pro-Life Zealots" we would request an abortion.

     

    I may be ‘clueless’ as to the reality of raising a child who has a significant handicap (although I’ve garnered a few hints about the process from the many friends and family who have been in that position) but I continue to be offended by the suggestion that we would have taken the life of our daughter if the condition of her health weren’t "up to snuff".

     

    There is a great deal to be known about the proper care of individuals with disabilities, and I certainly don’t profess to be an expert about these matters; but I will assert that you don’t have to be an expert in order to be completely sure that proper care cannot include deliberately ending the life of the one who is disabled. 

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • emma

    This is the most openly misogynistic comment I have seen in a long time

    faultroy’s pathological loathing of women (especially poor mothers, who he thinks are less than human) emanates from every piece of fascistic, misogynistic drivel he writes.

  • emma

    From where I sit, it would make a lot of sense for pro-abortion advocates to mollify their positions and take into consideration the sensitive nature of the average conservative American. The average American parent does not want the Federal Government telling them how to rear their child. Americans want to be in control of what their children will or will not be exposed to. As we can all see, this arrogance of power has not gone over too well with the average American Taxpayer.

    But apparently, the Average Conservative American wants Big Government to accompany women to their gynaecologist appointments, right? The Average Conservative Tax-Paying American wants Big Government to sit in on women’s gynaecology consultations and then advise the woman and her doctor on what the woman may or may not do with the contents of her uterus.

    It starts by acknowledging that the opposition has valid and legitimate complaints and issues.

    So you’ll be happy to acknowledge that we have valid and legitimate complaints about and issues with you, then, and tell us how you plan to address each of our legitimate complaints about and issues with you.

  • ack

    The thing that really strikes me about this ad is what it means if we remove the political agenda behind it. If we ignore the efforts of Focus on the Family to restrict access and criminalize abortion, and instead examine the message and what it means to female viewers, I think it’s even more problematic. Based on the original views that they were presenting a case where Ms. Tebaw’s health was in jeopardy, we run into some serious issues.

    Scores of women have chosen to terminate wanted pregnancies because their own health was at risk. For those women, abortion was probably a difficult decision, and there was probably a lot of “what if” associated with it. This ad plainly judges those women for their choice and says they were wrong to protect themselves; it tells them it would have worked out ok in the end if they had just stuck it out.
    I cannot imagine the potential effect this could have on a woman who chose her own health over her pregnancy. It just seems heartless to run it.

    I thought that risk to the health/life of the woman were conditions under which even anti-choicers thought abortion should be available and accessible.

  • crowepps

    I will assert that you don’t have to be an expert in order to be completely sure that proper care cannot include deliberately ending the life of the one who is disabled. 

    Boy, howdy, you sure can’t seem to grasp that as an admitted ‘not an expert’, then your assertions are based on air.  You and your wife had every right in the world to make the decisions which the two of you wished to make, although I would note that the sum total of your experience is refusing to have a test done.

     

    If I were told halfway through a pregnancy that I was carrying an anencephalic baby or one with any other condition which is fatal at birth, I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to have an abortion.

     

    The question would become trickier in the case of the many, many genetic diseases in which the prognosis is a short, painful or severely handicapped life, but certainly it wouldn’t be a bit of help to me as a pregnant woman trying to decide whether to take the risks of another four or five months of pregnancy to hear from someone who is completely sure based on massive ignorance.

    http://www.dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Genetic_Disorders/desc.html

     

  • lbruf

    Tim’s bio reports that Pam experienced a severe placental abruption in the Phillipines, so I am a little confused by your article.

    1. Did you fail to research the topic enough to ascertain that the reported health issue was a placental abruption?

    2. Are you refuting her claim that she had a placental abruption?

    or:

    3. Are you not aware of the risks of a placental abruption?

    Please respond –

  • colleen

    so I am a little confused by your article

    It appears that the story Mrs Tebow tells in bible classes is not the same as the story her son has on his bio.Likewise it appears that you, she and her son neglect to account for the fact that abortions for any reason were and are illegal in the Phillipines since 1870 and thus, if we are to believe them(which I do not), the doctors or doctor (depending on the account)  was/were breaking the law and risking 6 years in prison when he/she/they recommended an abortion.

     

    Did you actuially READ the article that confuses you or did your reading stop at the headline?  

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • jodi-jacobson

    Pam Tebow’s condition was, in her own words as relayed in one of the apparently increasing venues in which she has told this story was that she contracted amoebic dystentery and took medication to resolve this.

     

    In fact, this version of this story has appeared as apparently related by Focus on the Family and by Pam Tebow in numerous news stories.

     

    I am indeed aware of the seriousness of placental abruption. It is a very serious condition that occurs primarily in the 3rd trimester. The most serious form of placental disruption leads to almost certain fetal death. The indications for placental disruption that can be managed are to put the mother on bedrest, and to get her to the point where the baby can be born either vaginally or by caesarean.

     

    Nowhere in the continuously varying stories apparently told by the Tebows has placental disruption been mentioned except for your reference to Tim Tebow’s bio, to which you also do not link.

     

    However, if it were placental disruption, it seems to make it even less likely that a physician in the Philippines, unless they were not a very good physician, would in that stage suggest an abortion unless in fact it was clear the baby would be stillborn and even then given law and policy there, i am not convinced this would be the case.  
    I would think that a physician would put Mrs. Tebow in the hospital and wait it out, monitoring mother and baby as is suggested by, for example, the Mayo Clinic.  Without such care, placental abruption would likely kill both the mother and the fetus.

     

    In every one of the versions of the Tebow story, there is no sensible basis for any physician to strongly urge an abortion. As i have said before, if she had amoebic dysentery and took medication one of
    the potential complications of which would be fetal anomaly, then that is just one potential and would not have indicated abortion unless something was found to prove that.  

     

    I find most troubling the emphasis on her pregnancy as revealing something special about her and her son, somehow different from the decisions made by millions of women every day.

     

    On one hand, the far right wants to claim that every zygote, no matter what, is "special and  sacred," and yet if we didn’t have a Heisman Trophy winning football player in the mix, we wouldn’t even know their names.  I find their story irrelevant to anything except the fact that Pam Tebow exercised the very choices that were right for her and family, a basic human right she and Focus on the Family, want to take away from other women.

     

     

     

    Jodi Jacobson

  • ms41

    Wow…I have been reading with great interest all the posts about this controversial commercial and Pam Tebow’s stand and Focus on the Family.  I have been discussing these with my 16 year old daughter and we both felt like a few points need to be made regardless of whether you consider yourself "pro-choice" or "pro-life".  So here it goes:

    1.  We live in America.  We have certain rights and one of them is freedom of speech.  If Pam Tebow wants to get her conservative view point and pro-life message out there and has the help of a famous son and a backer with 2.5 million for a 30 sec spot, she has every right to do so.  We as intelligent, thinking Americans can listen and weigh in on her commentary and make our own choices within the laws governing our land.  And by the way, CBS has every right to decide what they want to air and they can change their minds whenever they want — it is a their right to do so.  You may not like it, but that’s the way it is. 

    2.  Last time I checked, Abortion is legal in this country.  Again, whether you are for or against, it is legal.  Therefore, you do have choices as a pregnant woman, and let’s be honest here — if you are faced with an unwanted pregnancy — no choice is great — adoption, abortion, having the baby and raising the child — these are difficult and personal decisions.  But if I were faced with this decision either for myself or my daughter, I would be looking for as much information to make the right decision for my situation.  With that said, would I take into account Pam Tebow’s story?  sure and probably hundreds of others, but in the end, I would have to live with the decision and have to do what is right for me.

    3.  You may not like the fact that "famous" people influence our lives every day.  Well, they do.  Accept it.  Politicians, Hollywood personalities, Athletes…are they any more qualified to speak about abortion, animal rights, gay rights, etc… No they are just like you and me, with two big advantages:  money and notoriety.  If I had those, I sure as hell would speak out about something important to me and try to change the world one person (or 1 million people) at a time.  Use your heads people!  You can choose to agree, disagree, join the cause, or fight for your position even harder.  Do you really think that Pam Tebow will change the mind of any far left pro-choice liberal?  I doubt it.  She may not change anyone’s mind, but she will bring the issue to light and make people THINK for a change.  If every American took responsibility and actually did some thinking — wow — imagine that!

    4.  Everyone tends to compartmentalize people and ideas:

    "If you are Pro-choice, you are a baby killer."

    "If you are Pro-life, you are ignorant and don’t support education and contraceptives."

    Really?  Does it really have to be this way?  Maybe you believe in the sanctity of life AND think it’s a good idea to educate our youth and make contraceptives available to those that are having sex. 

    Honestly, it does come down to education and personal responsibility.  Then again, I know plenty of adolescents and adults that have unprotected sex knowing full well what the consequences are, hey but whatever, if they get pregnant they can get a legal abortion so it’s all good.  Right? 

    In case you’ve ever gon through it, getting pregnant, getting an abortion, having a baby, it’s all difficult — but that’s why there are consequences to every action.  So be a responsible person and deal with the consequences of your decsions and actions and stop blaming other people for the crap that happens in your life.  It’s life, it’s not perfect, and sometimes it’s hard — deal with it. 

     

    5.  Stop whining.  So what if Pam Tebow has her 30 seconds…so what?  Are you gonna run out and get pregnant and not get an abortion because of it?  It’s like saying if we talk to teens about contraceptives, they’ll all run out and buy condoms and have sex when we want them to abstain.   Wow!  Give people some credit to think for themselves when you give them the FACTS! 

     

    I really don’t care whether the commercial runs or not, it’s a commercial and my life is not dictated by what I watch on TV.  Put it in perspective people!  Oh and if you are going to say that it will influence the masses because they don’t think for themselves, then we are in a sad sorry situation, aren’t we?

  • paul-bradford

    I have been discussing these with my 16 year old daughter and we both felt like a few points need to be made regardless of whether you consider yourself "pro-choice" or "pro-life".

     

    ms41,

     

    I haven’t noticed your posts before today but I have to say that I found a great deal to agree with and nothing to disagree with in the ‘few points’ you just shared.

     

    As long as individual mothers are going to be making abortion decisions, the people who care about those decisions are going to have to find a way to influence those mothers.  Let’s see what a thirty second Super Bowl ad does to improve respect for life in this country.  Is it worth $2.5 million?  Time will tell.

     

    Maybe you believe in the sanctity of life AND think it’s a good idea to educate our youth and make contraceptives available to those that are having sex.

     

    Amen!!

     

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • julie-watkins

    deal with the consequences of your decsions

    isn’t contained as part of education or contraception. My abortion was because my IUD failed (so I got my tubes tied). There are a lot other people who haven’t had or assisted with abortions, so we shouldn’t all be labeled "baby killers".

    "If you are Pro-life, you are [pro forced pregnancy]" or "If you are Pro-life, you are [pro coerced pregnancy]" (depending on if the Pro-lifer wants more anti-abortion laws or is trying to coerce women into continuing pregnancies they don’t want) [This is a correction of summary statement]

    I think pro-choicers say "You’re trying to control women!" as often as pro-lifers say "You’re a baby-killer", and more often than we way "ignorant" or "education". Are you uncomfortable even repeating our most frequent complaint?

    I would be looking for as much information to make the right decision for my situation.

    Even if Pam Tebow hadn’t been telling different stories, it isn’t the ad by itself, our complaint is that groups other than Focus on the Family have tried to buy advertising time and have been refused.

  • harry834

    Can we see the ad on CBS website or somewhere?

  • harry834

     

    our complaint is that groups other than Focus on the Family have tried to buy advertising time and have been refused.

     

    Such complaints also count as free speech. Wouldn’t you agree ms41? 

     

  • julie-watkins

    As long as individual mothers are going to be making abortion decisions, the people who care about those decisions are going to have to find a way to influence those mothers.

    No, you don’t have to involve yourself, you don’t have to treat pregnant women like community property. However, you continue to want Society to continue enforcing Nature’s Sexism and you’re in denial about how you are facilitating Society’s classism.

  • harry834

    you said if they have the power/money to make their message, they have a right to do it. Does that not also apply to us?…with power being our ability (whatever it is) to demand CBS not air this ad?

    They’re using their power, we’re using ours. Isn’t that in line with your principle, ms41? If not, explain how.

  • harry834

     

    So what if Pam Tebow has her 30 seconds…so what?  Are you gonna run out and get pregnant and not get an abortion because of it?  It’s like saying if we talk to teens about contraceptives, they’ll all run out and buy condoms and have sex when we want them to abstain.   Wow!  Give people some credit to think for themselves when you give them the FACTS!

    This statement does make a good point, and I’d advise everyone here to consider it. However, for those making the decision of whether to abort or not, especially in a dire health-threatening pregnancy, the ad isn’t so much "facts" as it is an anecdote…and a improbable one at that, possibly ushered into reality by the lucky resources Pam had, that most women do not.

    I say this not being sure about what resources she had. If anyone here knows better, please fill me in. Maybe she wasn’t so lucky.

    While the ad is not giving medical facts specific to any person’s situation, they are giving something meant to foster hope. What we are saying is that this is hope based on an improbable anecdote. I’m not sure this is the best way to "teach respect for life" (Paul, I’m looking at you)

  • lbruf

    Colleen

    Jodi does not directly quote Pam Tebow, she quotes someone else’s account of what Pam said at the meeting:

    “During a bible study class, Pam Tebow related that “during that pregnancy, a Philippine doctor suggested that she abort the fetus because the strong medications she was being treated with for amoebic dysentery, which she had contacted early in the pregnancy, could cause serious disabilities to the fetus.”

    (Follow Jodi’s link and see for yourself.)

    In Tim’s bio, there is more complete info. This additional info is not contradictory to the bible meeting recollection. In fact, it clarifies that the side-effect of the drugs was an abruption. It is common knowledge that a placental abruption threatens both the life of the mother and child.

    From Tim’s Bio:
    “While pregnant Pam suffered a life-threatening infection with a pathogenic amoeba. Because of the drugs used to rouse her from a coma and to treat her dysentery, the fetus experienced a severe placental abruption. Doctors expected a stillbirth and recommended an abortion to protect her life. She carried Timothy to term, and both survived.”

    Yes, I read the rest of Jodi’s article even though her credibility was diminished by her unresearched assertions. (It took me all of 45 seconds to find the details of the story that seemed to be so elusive to her.)

    I see the abortion argument stated in simple terms. Essentially we are disagreeing on what exact stage of a human child’s development, and under what circumstances does it become morally incumbent that the child’s well-being be taken into account over the wishes of the mother. This debate is by no means new.

    I’m sure there probably were pesky pro-lifers in ancient Greece who held strong opinions about whether or not unwanted babies should be left in the wilderness to die. I’m sure there were folks just like Jodi who might have defended the practice as the perogative of the parents. I am sure there were all sorts of opinions somewhere between the two extremes. Maybe some thought it was ok only if the baby was defective, maybe some thought it was only appropriate during famine, maybe some thought it was ok if the baby baby was female. Some may have argued that the age of the baby was relevant.

    Same arguments today, just about a different stage in human development. Jodi doesn’t care for my opinion, but I’ll state it anyway. Jodi is on the wrong side of argument, and deep down she knows it. I believe she often thinks about her first child, and is afraid of facing her own guilt. That is why she is so adamant about silencing Pam Tebow.

  • lbruf

    Jodi – first of all, you claim to be quoting Pam’s own words, but the words you quoted are from someone else’s account of what she said, definitely NOT a direct quote. Following your own link the entire paragraph from the site appears below.

    ‘In one interview, Pam Tebow related that during that pregnancy, a Philippine doctor suggested that she abort the fetus because the strong medications she was being treated with for amoebic dysentery, which she had contacted early in the pregnancy, could cause serious disabilities to the fetus.’

    Also you state:

    “Nowhere in the continuously varying stories apparently told by the Tebows has placental disruption been mentioned except for your reference to Tim Tebow’s bio, to which you also do not link. ”

    If you are not interested in researching the details yourself, let me lead you to them. They are not hard to find – it took me all of 45 seconds to find the information you find so elusive. A short version appears in Tim’s bio, but why, here’s another account from 2007.

    http://www.gainesville.com/article/20071007/NEWS/710060317?p=2&tc=pg

    Just before her pregnancy, Pam fell into a coma after contracting amoebic dysentery, a bacteria transmitted through contaminated drinking water. During her recovery, she received a series of strong medications. And even though she discontinued the regimen when she discovered the pregnancy, doctors told Pam the fetus had been damaged.

    Doctors later told Pam that her placenta had detached from the uterine wall, a condition known as placental abruption, which can deprive the fetus of oxygen and nutrients. Doctors expected a stillbirth, Pam said, and they encouraged her to terminate the pregnancy.

    “They thought I should have an abortion to save my life from the beginning all the way through the seventh month,” she recalled.

    Pam said her decision to sustain the pregnancy was a simple one – because of her faith.

    “We were grieved,” she said. “And so my husband just prayed that if the Lord would give us a son, that he would let us raise him.”

    In her seventh month of pregnancy, Pam traveled to the country’s capital, Manila, where she received around-the-clock care from an American-trained physician.

    For the next two months, Pam – steadfastly praying for a healthy child – remained on bed rest.

  • colleen

    That is why she is so adamant about silencing Pam Tebow.

     

    Well, if you did read what she had to say and this is your conclusion then I can only assume that you didn’t comprehend what you read.

     

     

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • colleen

    Let’s see what a thirty second Super Bowl ad does to improve respect for life in this country.

     Right, because  nothing says "respect life" more to an audience composed mainly of millions of men drinking beer  than a 30 second advertisment which says that Real Women are happy to die in childbirth when God wants them to.

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • colleen

    Doctors expected a stillbirth, Pam said, and they encouraged her to terminate the pregnancy.

    "They thought I should have an abortion to save my life from the beginning all the way through the seventh month," she recalled.

    How odd that Mrs Tebow seems unaware that, even to save the life of a woman, even in cases of rape and incest,  abortion was and remains illegal in the Philippines. Is she saying that multiple Doctors were eager and willing to risk 6 years in prison?

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • lbruf

    Colleen –

    You state:

    ‘Well, if you did read what she had to say and this is your conclusion then I can only assume that you didn’t comprehend what you read.’

    My answer:

    One of the most effective ways of silencing your opposition is to discredit them, which Jodi clearly attempts to do, (and discredits herself in the process. )

    You ask:

    How odd that Mrs Tebow seems unaware that, even to save the life of a woman, even in cases of rape and incest, abortion was and remains illegal in the Philippines. Is she saying that multiple Doctors were eager and willing to risk 6 years in prison?

    The most likely answer is right in front of you. “Doctors expected a stillbirth”

  • paul-bradford

    you sure can’t seem to grasp that as an admitted ‘not an expert’, then your assertions are based on air

     

    crowepps,

     

    Just so you know, your choice of words made me more focused on the idea that I was being insulted and dismissed than it did to help me to understand your point of view.  Perhaps if you take another stab at it I’ll better be able to understand you.

     

    I want to know whether you agree with me that, in addition to the matter of how much one knows about the particular genetic defect of a developing fetus, there is also the matter of whether the mother considering abortion is considering what is in the best interests of the child.

     

    You probably already know that 90% of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted.  How do you respond to my contention that these abortion decisions were unrelated to how much a given mother understood about the disability but were made because the best interests of the child were made subordinate to the concerns and feelings of the mother and the mother’s family?  Do you suppose I would have to know more about the particulars of the disorder for me to be able to make a valid assertion as to whether or not abortion is in the best interests of the child?

     

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • ms41

    Harry834

    I am absolutely in agreement that you have the right to free speech, and you have the right to request or attempt to buy the air space for a commercial on the Super Bowl with CBS.  (There are only so many commercial slots, so I would imagine there is more to the process than just how much you are willing to pay, but I don’t work for CBS so I don’t know the answer to how the process works.)  CBS is also within their rights as a business to accept or deny these requests based on whatever they deem appropriate.  As it is said in the "biz", that’s why the execs at CBS "get paid the big bucks", to make decisions.  Right, wrong or indifferent, they are making decisions to positively protect their bottom line (all 3 networks are hurting big time by the way)  I don’t know what other ads have been denied other than the gay male dating service — saw that one and I had to laugh — it’s really really bad and If I were the CBS execs in charge of making that decision that would be an easy "no-brainer" absolute NO WAY would this be aired.  Not because I’m "anti-gay" or anti anything for that matter.  It’s a piece of crap ad and it shows two guys basically going at it on the couch — I wouldn’t be okay with it if it were a man and a woman doing the same thing — there are kids watching the Super Bowl too.  There used to be some sort of decorum about what was on TV in the prime time viewing hours, but that’s gone downhill too. 

    All I’m saying is that everyone that is protesting Pam Tebow’s ad sound like a bunch of whiners instead of people trying to make a valid point, so I’m just trying to find someone with a valid point to make, that’s all.  Putting it in perspective.  Stop trying to make it sound like censorship or "unfair" — please — who said life was "fair".  The fact is if I choose you for a job and not the other guy, it wasn’t all that fair to him, was it?  Choices are part of life and CBS can choose what they want to put on their station, Time Magazine can put what they want in their publication, I can choose to sell what I want in my store (all within legal means of course) and so on. 

    Here’s the bottom line:  Everyone wants to have point/counterpoint.  If the Democratic president speaks, we have to have the Republican Party have their say.  If Rush Limbaugh has a radio program, we have to have an offsetting Liberal program.  If they get their ad, we should get ours. 

    It’s actually quite funny that we don’t trust that people can think for themselves and yes make decisions and sometimes it won’t be fair to some group.  Oh well, welcome to the real world where you can at least complain about how unfair life is on a blog like this :)

     

  • ms41

    Demand all you want and good luck with that.

  • ahunt

    And Ms41 plays the deadly "whining" card.

     

    Ms41, do you seriously believe that…if CBS had accepted a Planned Parenthood spot (even one that didn’t mention abortion), the entire fundie right wing would not be pitching the "fit" card?

     

    Once again…this is about the double standard…

  • colleen

    One of the most effective ways of silencing your opposition is to discredit them, 

      Hum, that method does not seem to be working out too well for you , now does it.  

    The most likely answer is right in front of you. "Doctors expected a stillbirth"

     

    What are you talking about? Are you claiming that a legal ban on all abortions for any reason makes exceptions for a situation in which a doctor "expects" a stillbirth? Stop wasting our time.

     

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • ms41

    you are absolutely correct.

    Whining is most definitely "bi-partisan" — both sides do it equally well which is why most of us are so sick of hearing everyone’s "sides" and "reasons", which is why it is hard to get people involved where it can really make a difference — right there in your own backyard — educational programs at the schools, assisting unwed mothers, helping single moms find daycare and meaningful employment.  I admire those that get out there and do something about it instead of complain about a 30 second TV ad.  The ad will come and go and so will the Super Bowl, but we will still have people having unprotected sex and spreading disease and having babies long after the Super Bowl airs, let’s do something about that, shall we?

  • colleen

    And Ms41 plays the deadly "whining" card.

     

     

    Classic mansplinators…all of them.

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • ahunt

    Now, now…one does not preclude the other. I can bitch about the Superbowl ad while still providing transportation service to a financially struggling single mom whose beater was totaled in a hit and run…until she can afford to put another beater on the road…

     

    …just for instance.

  • lbruf

    I am simply pointing out that Jodi –

    1.) Falsely claimed to be quoting Pam’s “own words”

    2.) Made no effort to research the facts of the case, despite the fact they have been reported by news organizations several times.

    3.) Made a conclusion that Pam’s life was probably not in danger

    You asked why a doctor in the Phillipines might advocate terminating the pregnancy –

    The fact that the doctor’s expected a stillbirth is entirely relevant. When placental abruption occurs, the longer the interval between the abruption and delivery, the worse the maternal prognosis. In the event that the baby dies in utero, the mother’s life is severely threatened.

    Are people on this website allergic to researching facts????!!!

  • ahunt

    You cannot be serious.

     

    Expectation of fetal death is still not grounds for abortion in the Phillipines. Best guess is that Drs may have advised a return to the US for a termination…giving Mrs Tebow the benefit of the doubt here.

  • harry834

    I’ve read your responses to my questions and concerns. Thank you for responding.

  • janine

    Choices are part of life and CBS can choose what they want to put on their station, Time Magazine can put what they want in their publication, I can choose to sell what I want in my store (all within legal means of course) and so on.

    …just like Jodi has the right to choose what she wants on RH RealityCheck.

    I admire those that get out there and do something about it instead of complain about a 30 second TV ad. The ad will come and go and so will the Super Bowl, but we will still have people having unprotected sex and spreading disease and having babies long after the Super Bowl airs, let’s do something about that, shall we?

    Who is the ‘we’ you speak of in the "shall we"? Many of the people that author articles and post on this blog already do participate in activities to assist moms, prevent STDs, and prevent unwanted pregnancies. Also, much like the super bowl, this blog thread will come and go so why are you spending your time complaining here when those activities you claim to admire need to be done?

  • prochoiceferret

    Jodi is on the wrong side of argument, and deep down she knows it.

    Actually, she isn’t. I hate to tell you this, but not only are you on the wrong side of the argument, you’re so far gone that you’re projecting your own wrong-side-of-the-argument-ness onto others. Deep down, you know this, of course.

    I believe she often thinks about her first child, and is afraid of facing her own guilt.

    Well, you believe incorrectly, then. Jodi has two beautiful children (if I recall correctly) and I’m sure she thinks a lot about them.

    That is why she is so adamant about silencing Pam Tebow.

    Why do "pro-life" advocates always have such terrible reading comprehension? Is there, like, a maximum SAT Verbal score required or something? "Oh, sorry, you scored 720, you’re too sharp to be a pro-lifer…"

  • colleen

    Now, now, try to calm down.  I said nothing about you advocating for anything. I was trying to understand what you appear to be calling a ‘fact’/

     

    The fact that the doctor’s expected a stillbirth is entirely relevant.
    When placental abruption occurs, the longer the interval between the
    abruption and delivery, the worse the maternal prognosis. In the event
    that the baby dies in utero, the mother’s life is severely threatened

     

     

    I’ll repeat this one more time. Abortion for any reason is illegal in the Phillippines. there are no exceptions. Women aren’t allowed abortions if they’re impregnated in a gang rape, they aren’t allowed abortions if grandpa decided to break the little one in and they aren’t allowed abortions even if an abortion will save their lives.   "the maternal prognosis" is not a matter of concern to the Phillippine legal system or to the Catholic church.

    The doctors could not legally perform an abortion if the fetus was still alive. The fact that Mrs Tebow was an American citizen did not matter. She could NOT have had an abortion legally in the Phillippines and her Doctors could not have performed or recommended one. In other words, Mrs Tebow had a difficult pregnancy and is milking it for all it’s worth by making crap up. Mrs Tebow and her ‘faith’ would deny all the women here the choice she (falsely) claims she made. 

    I would like to suggest that continually repeating what is obviously your new phrase,  ‘placental abruption’, does not lend either credibility or authority to your poorly formed arguments and claims..

     

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • daredevil

    “I’ll repeat this one more time. Abortion for any reason is illegal in the Phillippines. there are no exceptions. Women aren’t allowed abortions if they’re impregnated in a gang rape, they aren’t allowed abortions if grandpa decided to break the little one in and they aren’t allowed abortions even if an abortion will save their lives.”

    Oh really?

    Apparently, it’s the pro-choicer side passing around false info, not Mrs. Tebow.

    When you have folks on your side of the issue saying it is allowed based on research into the law there, it says alot:

    http://www.asap-asia.org/country-profile-philippines.html

    although the Penal Code does not list specific exceptions to the general prohibition on abortion, under the general criminal law principles of necessity as set forth in article 11(4) of the Code, an abortion MAY BE LEGALLY PERFOMED to save the pregnant woman’s life.2 A decision of the Supreme Court also impliedly RECOGNIZED abortion to save the mother’s life.3 The United Nations recognizes that abortion in the Philippines is PERMITTED only in instances in which the pregnant woman’s life is endangered.4

  • daredevil

    in the case of mother’s life in danger. So Glorida Allred and others who claim otherwise are not telling the truth on that one point.

    And the fact that 500,000 abortions have been performed in a decade in the Philippines refute the silly argument that just because abortion is illegal it could not possibly have been performed or occurred or done.

    It is like pro-choicers are refuting their own arguments about abortion will always take place whether legal or not.

    Now all of a sudden, just because it is illegal in nearly all cases (and not all cases contrary to what pro-choicers) say over there, then somehow it must mean it could not possibly be true that some doctor advised Mrs. Tebow to get an abortion.

  • crowepps

    Do you suppose I would have to know more about the particulars of the disorder for me to be able to make a valid assertion as to whether or not abortion is in the best interests of the child?

    Yes, Paul, that’s exactly what I’m trying to tell you.  Your choice of Down’s Syndrome as the test case is particularly interesting since what most people think of is heart-warming pictures from Special Olympics and anecdotal stories.  For a women needing to make a decision about her pregnancy, however, the following information is likely to be what she hears.

    Symptoms

    In Down syndrome, physical and mental development is delayed. Infants tend to be placid and passive. They rarely cry, and they have somewhat limp muscles. They tend to have a small head and a face that is broad and flat with slanting eyes and a short nose. However, some newborns appear and then develop characteristic facial features during infancy. The tongue is large. There is extra skin around the back of the neck. The ears are small, rounded, and set low in the head. The hands are short and broad, with a single crease across the palm. The fingers are short, and the fifth finger, which often has two instead of three sections, curves inward. A space is visible between the first and second toes. Children with Down syndrome have a short stature.

    The intelligence quotient (IQ) among children with Down syndrome varies but averages about 50, compared with normal children, whose average IQ is 100. Children with Down syndrome have better visual motor skills (such as drawing) than skills that require listening. Thus, their language skills typically develop slowly. Behavior suggestive of attention-deficit disorder (sometimes with hyperactivity) is often seen in childhood. Children with Down syndrome are at greater risk of autistic behavior, especially those with severe intellectual disability. Depression is also common among children and adults. Early intervention with educational and other services improves the functioning of young children with Down syndrome.

    Children with Down syndrome often have heart defects. They are prone to hearing problems because of recurring ear infections and the associated accumulation of inner ear fluid (serous otitis). They are also prone to vision problems because of problems in their corneas and lenses. The joints in the neck may be unstable, which can lead to weakness or paralysis. Many people with Down syndrome develop thyroid disease. They are also at a higher risk of developing leukemia.

    Prognosis

    The aging process seems to be accelerated, but most children with Down syndrome survive to adulthood. The average age at death is 49; however, many people reach their 50s or 60s. Symptoms of Alzheimer-like dementia, such as memory loss, further lowering of intellect, and personality changes, may develop at an early age. Heart abnormalities are often treatable with drugs or surgery. Heart disease and leukemia account for most deaths among children with Down syndrome.

    Recent findings indicate that blacks with Down syndrome have a substantially shorter life span than whites. This finding may be the result of poor access to medical, educational, and other support services.

    http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec23/ch266/ch266b.html

    I can understand why someone, looking at a future of repeated surgeries for heart, ear and gastrointestinal malformations, likely cancer, social marginalization and depression might decide to just not put their child through all that and decide on abortion.  Your presumption that "these abortion decisions were unrelated to how much a given mother understood about the disability but were made because the best interests of the child were made subordinate to the concerns and feelings of the mother and the mother’s family" is an outstanding example of your belief in your incredible psychic powers to know what someone else must be thinking based on your massive ignorance of their true situation.

  • crowepps

    She may not change anyone’s mind, but she will bring the issue to light and make people THINK for a change.  If every American took responsibility and actually did some thinking — wow — imagine that!

    I found this part of your post particularly interesting, since what the ad is all about is how people should NOT think — how in the case of serious pregnancy complications telling the patient exactly what is going on is attempting to "force" them to have an abortion, and thinking over that full-disclosure is wrong, and the patient should forego thinking and instead ‘hope and pray’.

     

    I agree with you that is Americans actually spent a little time thinking there would be enormous changes, although I don’t think anyone really understands what those changes would be since our whole society is predicated on ‘the masses’ being ‘managed’ by business, religious and social elites.  I disagree with you that this ad is attempt to promote thinking, since instead it is an attempt to promote the idea that there is always one predetermined simple answer no matter how complicated the actual situation.

     

  • jodi-jacobson

    Various posters have commented on questions raised about Pam Tebow’s story.  I am reiterating previous responses made to the same or similar comments here and replying to new ones.

    1.  Pam Tebow’s condition in pregnancy:

    Pam Tebow’s story and/or reporting on her story has changed in various contexts and with various reports.  In some situations she says or is referred to as saying concerns about her pregnancy arose in relation to medications she took for amoebic dysentery (which would not endanger her life but might possibly endanger the development of the fetus.  This would be most critical early in pregnancy.

    Now on top of this there is a claim from two sources that she suffered placenal abruption. 

    My points were and remain these: Millions of women, including myself, have had to consider the risk/benefit analysis of taking medication to deal with a medical condition during pregnancy.  Health risks are clearly grossly misunderstood, especially it seems by the anti-choice crowd. Virtually everything you do entails a risk.  You only have to watch a generic commercial on a specific medicaiton now being touted by the pharmaceutical industry to hear a long list of possible side effects and indications that may occur.

    At no point did I understand Pam Tebow to say: "My doctor told me that the medication I had taken had resulted in a clear effect on a developing fetus and that she should abort this fetus."  Without a known and proven effect, it would be highly unlikely for a doctor to say something like that, especially in the Philippines. At such an early stage of pregnancy, it would be hard to determine such an effect.  I raised the question as to whether the doctor advised that there might be side effects of a specific drug that could potentially lead to fetal anomalies.

    I also responded to the new issue of placental abruption to point out the following: It is relatively rare but generally happens  late in pregnancy.  If this happened to Pam Tebow are we then migrating away from the amoebic dysentery story to something else?

    And if she had placental abruption, this would not necessarily lead to malformation of a developing fetus, though it could lead to effects on the brain and on other issues.  If it happened to Pam Tebow and her pregnancy was endangerd in the third trimester, it seems to be that she would first be counseled to get into the hospital and on bed rest, which at least one other story now suggests she did.  Why would they counsel abortion?  They would treat her in the hospital for as long as the pregnancy could progress and then deliver the baby either by c-section or vaginally.

    None of these stories make sense.  This is why I raised these questions.

    In one case, her life is not in danger (amoebic dysentery); in the other case, her life could be in danger but those risks addressed as best as could be in the hospital.  Her baby’s life could be in danger, but there would be no reason to abort unless there would be certainty she would die, and neither of them did, which makes the story somewhat less than plausible. She had the option unless in fact the baby had died in utero–which is something that, guess what, you can find out in the doctor’s office or hospital and would therefore know–to be hospitalized for as long as possible until the baby could be delivered.

     

    2.  So what if Pam Tebow had a physician who suggested for a reason that she obtain an abortion or take some action and she decided not to do so.  These kinds of decisions happy every single day of the week as people calculate risks.  Again,having been there myself and knowing now many other women….what makes the Tebow’s story on this so special that we need a Super Bowl commercial?

    Because her son is a Heisman Trophy winner?  What is the implication then?  That my children or any other child born after a difficult pregnancy is somehow less or that the women who went through those pregnancies, their husbands and families are somehow less?

    Or is it because this muddled story is being used as a twisted means of suggesting that abortion is bad per se (which of course is the political position of both the Tebows and Focus on the Family).

    In short: all pregnancies entail some risks, ergo all wanted pregnancies entail some risks, some more than others.  No decision a woman makes about a wanted pregnancy–whether to continue or not to continue it given medical advice received is anyone else’s business but her own and her partner’s and her family’s business.

    I use my own example because I know it.  When pregnant with my son (my second child) I became very ill early in my pregnancy with the same condition I had had with my daughter.  My ob suggested that one course of action was to carry the pregnancy through in the hospital or, knowing how rough the first pregnancy was and knowing that I had a small child at home and no family backup, that I could terminate the pregnancy early.  I didn’t.  This was a wanted pregnancy.  It was not fun, I assure you.  However, this makes me no more or less different or special than any other pregnant woman or mother weighing her options.

    What then is the point of the Tebow ad?  To somehow glorify taking risks that may or may not have been taken by Pam Tebow in circumstances that are completely unclear? what does that mean for the next woman after that whose circumstances are different?  That she should die trying cause she might have a Heisman Trophy winner?

    Honestly…. it is so self-indulgent it is distasteful.

     

    3. "CBS has the right to air whatever it wants." Actually no.  CBS uses the public airwaves.  It is governed by the FCC.  it has a public and a corporate responsibility to be transparent and clear about its standards and its advertising requirements.  My argument from the beginning has been that CBS has been nothing if not hypocritical in the way it has treated this advertisement, the lack of transparency, the "sudden and unannounced" shift in its policies after years of turning down advocacy ads from legitimate organizations, both secular and non-secular.

     

    4. Abortion is illegal in the Philippines.  Yep.  it is.  That neither changes the fact, as many here have pointed out, that abortions take place every day in the Philippines because, as we have pointed out relentlessly here, laws outlawing abortion do not make them less likely to happen.  they just make them less safe.  All the public health data show this.  And yes. Any wealthy woman could probably get an aboriton in the Philippines or get out of the country to get one because, again, abortion laws restricting access take their greatest toll on poor women.  Black markets develop; people who can pay get them and those who can not risk their lives to do so.

     

    Again, what is the point?  The point is that it strikes me that this is a story at all.  In a country that is majority Catholic, in which the Tebows have worked as missionaries, are they suggesting that she was seeing a doctor who did not share her political views and who was suggesting against the law that a pregnancy in which there was no known danger be ended in abortion (in the case of amoebic dysentery) or  that a fetus that would at the time have been deemed healthy in utero (as there is no indication Tim Tebow was anything but) be aborted (in the case of placental abruption?) when Pam Tebow could be cared for in the hospital until he was born?  One of my best friends had bleeding from the seventh month of pregnancy and stayed in the hospital on bed rest for the remainder of her pregnancy only to give birth to a baby who died two days after birth.  What makes Pam Tebow different from her or again any of millions of women like her that go to great lengths to give birth to a healthy wanted child?

    Nothing.

     

    This is a political ploy through and through.  Nothing more or less.

     

     

  • crowepps

    The law may make an exception when abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life however that doesn’t mean that in a country where the fetus constitutionally has the same right to life as the woman it is killing, that a doctor will draw public condemnation down on his head or risk excommunication by agreeing to perform the procedure or that hospitals will allow that doctor to use their facilities to do so.

    The Philippines’ maternal mortality rate continues at an unacceptably high level. While maternal mortality figures vary widely by source and are highly controversial, the best estimates for the Philippines suggest that approximately 4,100 to 4,900 women and girls die each year due to pregnancy-related complications. Additionally, another 82,000 to 147,000 Filipino women and girls will suffer from disabilities caused by complications during pregnancy and childbirth each year.

    http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/mch/mh/countries/philippines.html

    The population of the United States is 304 million and we lose about 500 women to pregnancy complications annually.  The population of the Philippines is 90 million and they lose 10 times as many women out of a population 29% of ours so that actually the risk of dying is 30 times higher.  If legal abortion to save the life of the mother is accessible, what’s your explanation of that huge difference in mortality rates from complications?

  • colleen
    I meant to say abortion is allowed in that country

    in
    the case of mother’s life in danger. So Glorida Allred and others who
    claim otherwise are not telling the truth on that one point.

     

    Here is a link to the penal code:

    Here is a link to an article refuting your unsubstantiated claim that exceptions are made to save the life of the woman

     Find one case where the Phillippine legal system allowed a woman to have a legal abortion to save her life.

    And the fact that 500,000 abortions have been performed in a decade in
    the Philippines refute the silly argument that just because abortion is
    illegal it could not possibly have been performed or occurred or done.

     

    That’s not my argument. My argument is that Mrs Tebow is making crap up when she says that doctors tried to convince her to have an abortion.Are you arguing that at least two doctors (because Mrs Tebow uses the plural) urged her to have an illegal procedure that would put them in jail for 6 years?  Why would they do that?

     

    Why do you keep changing your handle? It’s pretty obvious that you’re the same  troll.

     

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • crowepps

    Again,having been there myself and knowing now many other women….what makes the Tebow’s story on this so special that we need a Super Bowl commercial?  Because her son is a Heisman Trophy winner? 

    I’ve certainly never heard a ProLife anecdote where Mom says the pregnancy was unwelcome or placed her at physical risk but she’s so happy she didn’t get an abortion when Baby has just been arrested as a suspected serial killer.

     

  • princess-rot

    As long as individual mothers are going to be making abortion decisions, the people who care about those decisions are going to have to find a way to influence those mothers.

    I am… glad (for want of a better word) you have finally acknowledged that women as a class are not intelligent enough to make rational decisions about their individual pregnancies and how that will impact their lives. Now, if you’d said: “the people who care about women will offer support whatever the outcome”, I would not have a problem. I cannot, however, agree with someone who spouts hot air with the conclusion that all pregnant women should be forced to give birth, even playing tic-tac-toe with the Grim Reaper, for the sake of babies. That person, particularly since he will never be in such a position where he would be required to lay down his life for a potentiality, has no right dictating to anyone when and where they should have children.

  • jodi-jacobson

    Pam Tebow.

     

    I call into question her political motives–as she is a self-avowed minister working in a family ministry that is anti-choice, and is appearing in an ad funded by one of the most virulently anti-choice, anti-human rights organizations in the country which is paying $2.5 million to air an ad about a story of dubious veracity that would not be given a second thought unless it was tied to a Heisman trophy winner and his Christian evangelist family.

     

    I celebrate Pam Tebow’s individual choices.  I abhor and critique and oppose her and others efforts to take those choices away from others, especially based on a "story" that constantly changes in every venue in which it appears.

     

    This is a political ad by an organization and
    a family ministry seeking to take the very same choices it purports to celebrate away from
    others, and therefore open to political critique. 

     

    I am sorry if that distinction is elusive for you. 

  • daredevil

    “Abortion is illegal in the Philippines. Yep. it is. That neither changes the fact, as many here have pointed out, that abortions take place every day in the Philippines because, as we have pointed out relentlessly here, laws outlawing abortion do not make them less likely to happen. they just make them less safe.”

    Then you ought to tell your fellow pro-choicers that they then have no argument to claim that if it is illegal in the Philippines there is no possibility a doctor could advised abortion so they accuse Pam Tebow of lying, when they have no idea or not whether that is the case.

  • daredevil

    My so-called unsubstantiated claims came from a pro-abortion site, that did detailed study on the law in the Philippines. So you want to accuse abortionists of lying?

    By the way, wrong link. You went to book 2 of the law.

    Try book 1, where article 11,4 is found, that shows exemptiojns from criminal liability, that the article I cited spoke of.

    It is here:

    http://www.chanrobles.com/revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook1.htm

    Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:

    4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present;

    First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
    Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;

    Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

    5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office

  • daredevil

    “That’s not my argument.”

    It is not because it inconvenients your claim that Mrs. Tebow made stuff up.

    “My argument is that Mrs Tebow is making crap up when she says that doctors tried to convince her to have an abortion.Are you arguing that at least two doctors (because Mrs Tebow uses the plural) urged her to have an illegal procedure that would put them in jail for 6 years? Why would they do that?”

    Let’s not be dense. Even if her case is illegal if she had abortion, we both know that crimes get committed every day, by people regardless of what country, what profession, what law.

    500,000 abortions occurred in the Philippines in a decade’s time, I read somwhere.

    If it is illegal, and abortion cannot possibly ever be performed, either by doctors or done by the women themselves, explain that number in a country that is a size of a small American state.

    If anything, it is you, not Mrs Tebow, who is milking a claim for all it’s worth, to support your agenda, since neither of us know if she is telling the truth or not. Only all those involved 23 years ago, would know. None of us do.

    And this is nothing new. She did not make up for this abortion ad, and to suggest that is downright dishonest.

    It is common news to Gator fans long before Tebow became famous, but hardly known outside of Gator country.

    And a suggestion- if you have to use wikipedia as your infallible source, for truth on issues, when anyone could have written in that site, then it says alot about your claims more than mine.

  • daredevil

    This report from the UN on the Philippines which throws a dent into the claim of something is illegal no doctor or whoever will do it as use to impugn the characters of the Tebows over this:

    http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/philippines.doc

    “Despite the severity of the law, abortion appears to be widely practised in the Philippines as a means of birth control and is rarely prosecuted.”

    If something is rarely prosecuted, how can you claim that doctors would be afraid to break the law? And if it is widely practiced, how can you claim without knowing what actually went on, that Mrs. Tebow made it all up, and that no doctor would suggest an abortion?

    Your need to slander folks who disagree with you lead you to dig up dirt and do your own case of milking your pet theories for all it is worth to defame those folks, without knowing if your attacks are true or not.

  • daredevil

    So no doctor would ever in the Philippines perform abortion or suggest it when done illegally? Think again:

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1961/jul1961/gr_l-16439_1961.html

    “The litigation was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Manila by respondent Oscar Lazo, the of Nita Villanueva, against petitioner Antonio Geluz, a PHYSICIAN.”

    “The facts are set forth in the majority opinion as follows:

    “Nita Villanueva came to know the defendant (Antonio Geluz) for the first time in 1948 — through her aunt Paula Yambot. In 1950 she became pregnant by her present husband before they were legally married. Desiring to conceal her pregnancy from her parent, and acting on the advice of her aunt, she had herself aborted by the defendant. After her marriage with the plaintiff, she again became pregnant. As she was then employed in the Commission on Elections and her pregnancy proved to be inconvenient, she had herself aborted again by the defendant in October 1953. Less than two years later, she again became pregnant. On February 21, 1955, accompanied by her sister Purificacion and the latter’s daughter Lucida, she again repaired to the defendant’s clinic on Carriedo and P. Gomez streets in Manila, where the three met the defendant and his wife. Nita was again aborted, of a two-month old foetus, in consideration of the sum of fifty pesos, Philippine currency. The plaintiff was at this time in the province of Cagayan, campaigning for his election to the provincial board; he did not know of, nor gave his consent, to the abortion.”

    A case of abortions taking place three times by the woman using the same doctor.

    So if in that country abortion is illegal for doctors to perform mean no doctor would do it, how do you explain this?

  • daredevil

    Come to think of it, I can also use wiki, too, as if it is some infallible source, against your posixtion, since this wiki source says abortion is indeed LEGAL in case of danger to the mother:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#Eastern_Asia

    National laws
    The following series of tables present the current abortion legislation of the world’s nations as divided by continent. Actual access to abortion may vary significantly on the basis of geography, income, cost, health care, social factors, and other issues. Many jurisdictions also place other restrictions on abortion access, including waiting periods, the provision of information, the assent of multiple doctors, and spousal or parental notification.

    Legend

    Yes – Legal
    No – Illegal
    1st – Legal during 1st trimester only (exact date – e.g. number of weeks – may vary)
    2nd – Legal during 1st and 2nd trimester only (exact date may vary)
    Restricted – Legal but subject to significant restrictions
    Varies – Varies by region
    ? – Information is unavailable or the law is too ambiguous

    Philippines (details)

    To protect woman’s life
    Yes

  • daredevil

    “I’ve certainly never heard a ProLife anecdote where Mom says the pregnancy was unwelcome or placed her at physical risk but she’s so happy she didn’t get an abortion when Baby has just been arrested as a suspected serial killer.”

    I don’t know of too many parents who suddenly want to abort their kids if their kids go wrong later in life. Usually they still love their kids even if they find what their kids reprehensible.

  • colleen

    Nowhere did I dispute the fact that abortions are performed in the Phillippines. Indeed there are more abortions per capita performed in the Phillippines than in the US. What I’m disputing is your claim that they’re legal for any reason. All criminalizing abortion does it make abortion dangerous to women, it never stops women from having abortions and it never decreases the number of abortions. It just assures that more women die having more abortions. This has been established so many times that I can only assume that dead women and clinic staff  and more abortions is the primary goal of the ‘pro-life’ movement because that is all it’s produced thus far

     

    You’re welcome to believe that illegal abortions in the Phillippines are performed by licensed physicians willing to risk 6 years in jail and a suspension of their license. You’re welcome to believe that multiple doctors would have been recommending an abortion to a  fundamentalist missionary in a nation where  the abortion laws are as draconian as they are in the Phillippines. I do not.

    That said no matter which handle you use I find conversing with you boring, stupid and unpleasant.. I see no point in continuing a conversation. 

     

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • daredevil

    The UN supports my contentions it is the pro-choicers like Allred who are being very misleading at best, when they say 1) abortion is never permitted under any circumstances over there and 2) where illegal, it must mean it is never done by doctors and non-doctors alike because of strict enforcement.

    Both claims are false. The law may be strict, but enforcement is lax. Probably less of punishment than college football coaches making deviant players run laps for violent crimes, rather than suspending them or kicking them off the team.

    And the UN also states that abortion is permitted to save mother’s life.

    So, do tell is the UN a pro-lifer source? I think not.

    http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/philippines.doc

    Grounds on which abortion is permitted:

    To save the life of the woman Yes

    To preserve physical health No

    To preserve mental health No

    Rape or incest No

    Foetal impairment No

    Economic or social reasons No

    Available on request No

    Although the Penal Code does not list specific exceptions to the general prohibition on abortion, under the general criminal law principles of necessity as set forth in article 11(4) of the Code, an abortion may be legally performed to save the pregnant woman’s life.

    In addition to these provisions, the Constitution of 1987 provides that the State “shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception”. This provision reinforces the provision contained in a Presidential Decree of 1975 establishing the Child and Youth Welfare Code, which stipulates that a child has the dignity and worth of a human being from the moment of conception and has the right to be born well.

    Despite the severity of the law, abortion appears to be widely practised in the Philippines as a means of birth control and is rarely prosecuted. The International Planned Parenthood Federation reports estimates ranging from 155,000 to 750,000 induced abortions per year. However, illegal abortion is performed in a climate of fear and shame resulting from strong cultural, religious and legal prohibitions. Surveys indicate that women resorting to abortion are often from economically disadvantaged groups and take this step because they are unable to provide for another child. Surveys also indicate a high incidence of repeat abortion. In a context of poor health conditions and widespread malnutrition, and where some 76 per cent of deliveries occur at home and only 21 per cent are attended by a physician, induced abortions are poorly performed and result in high maternal mortality and morbidity. The maternal mortality ratio was estimated at 280 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1990. Hospital surveys have found that about one third of maternal deaths occurring in hospitals can be attributed to induced abortion.

  • daredevil

    So you have the UN as source saying 1) enforcement of anti-abortion laws are lax in the Philippines, or rarely enforced or prosecuted, 2) 21 percent of physicians are reason for 21 percent of the abortions (which kills the nonsense theories thrown out by Allred and many others here that Pam Tebow could not possibly be telling the truth that a doctor or some doctors in the Philippines could ever offer to perform abortions), 3) abortion is permitted to save the mother’s life.

    It’s not evidently Pam Tebow trying to milk falsehoods for what they are worth. It’s those trashing her out of ideological reasons, not simple search for the truth.

  • daredevil

    You wrote: “You’re welcome to believe that illegal abortions in the Phillippines are performed by licensed physicians willing to risk 6 years in jail and a suspension of their license.”

    According to UN and other sources, that are hardly pro-life, enforcement is LAX. So why would any doctor be scared of jail time when they don’t enforce their own laws over there on this issue, and prosecution is rare?

    And the UN stats put 21 percent of abortions as done by physicians.

    Yes, I am welcome to believe the facts, which so utterly rebut your claims that physicians could not possibly perform abortions or suggest abortions in the Philippines.

  • ahunt

    the people who care about those decisions are going to have to find a way to influence those mothers.

     

    Paul, I do not think anyone here has any objection to public policies that facillitate choice for women who do not want an abortion…if this is what you are talking about.

     

    If, however, you are talking about bringing external pressure to bear on women who do not want to be pregnant and give birth, then we have issues.

  • crowepps

    I think what Paul is talking about is that he and the people who agree with him (because they ‘care about those decisions’) have an emotional investment in ‘the unborn’ carried by strangers and that apparently entitles them to free access "to find a way to influence those mothers" decision because the women — and at this point I lose my connection to the thought — is it:

     

    the purpose of women is to make themselves available to any zygote who wants to use them?

    As subordinate citizens women should accept their ‘place’ in the patriarchy as breeders?

    Women aren’t ‘morally competent’ to make their own decisions?

    Women should accept pregnancy as the ‘just consequence’ of having had sex?

    Women are secondary to a potential fetus?

     

    Certainly the woman’s LACK of emotional investment in the fetus is alarming to them, because it triggers maternal rejection issues and outrage at having women dare to thwart sperm when it’s a male right to use them, impregnate them and produce sons.

     

    I would note that I can’t think of many other areas of life in which total strangers are entitled to a ‘right’ to access so they can influence your thoughts and decisions except for psychiatric commitment in the case of imminent threat to self or others.  It seems to me that their view is very close to that – any woman who wants to have an abortion must be insane, is a ‘threat’ to the zygote/embryo/fetus and needs ‘treatment’ to clear up her ‘delusion’ that she doesn’t want to be pregnant, since of course all sane women are 100% happy to be pregnant no matter the circumstances.

  • alphy

    Having read Republican Gomorrah by Max Blumenthal, I must remind everyone that Focus on the Family’s extremist right agenda and Family Research Council’s history is filled with anti-gay, anti-choice, spare the rod/spoil the child, anti-everything except what James Dobson and his cult followers narrowly define a woman’s role to be. Large amounts of money to support Focus comes from the Edgar Prince family whose son, Erik, is the founder and CEO of Blackwater.
    The book is a good read but more importantly helps us understand the devious agenda and makes one wonder why someone like Pam Tebow is willing to be duped into becoming their poster child.

  • iwantmylife

    Okay so planned parenthood offers some of those programs that I mentioned however planned parenthood is not a saint and has done nothing to show people that they are not all about abortion. Are you aware that a young journalist was almost sued for doing a private investigation of planned parenthood because she posted a video on you tube of several planned parenthoods telling a girl who would have been underaged and needed their parents signature to lie about her age. they also told her to lie about her boyfriends age because in the senario the young girls boyfriend was old enough to be charged with statory rape? If i remember correctly it wasn’t just one planned parenthood that this happened at it was several others. Yes, that’s right they don’t even pay attention to weather or not their employee’s are abiding by the law. Are you also aware that, that same student ,with life international, did a study where they called up planned parenthoods all over the country offering racially motivated donations and they accepted these donations. To me this say’s something about planned parenthood’s image and that it is not the same image that it puts out in it’s advertising.

  • iwantmylife

    you can’t say that abortion wasn’t a choice for tebow because being there on a mission trip she could have flown back early to the states and had an abortion done in the states, or flown to another country where it is permissable and had it done.

    Also I will not put up with statements like these: The issue is the lack of consistency and transparency by CBS in its policies and the fact that it now allows an ad by an avowedly racist, sexist, homophobic organization that does seek to change policy on what women can do.

    1. I listen to WIBI and I have never ever found focus on the family to be racist.

    2. sexist? weather woman want to admit it or not there are some things that we should bring to a relationship and or motherhood. An organization is not sexist just because it believes that women should have children and not destroy them in the womb.

    3. homosexuality has nothing to do with abortion however I do consider homophobia or any other variation of the word to simply be a propagandist word used to create guilt in other’s that want to do the religion thing right and make sure that they are actually following God’s word.Freedom to believe that’s the first amendment check it out!

  • crowepps

    however planned parenthood is not a saint

    Whoever tried to say they were?  They are a medical care provider and promote family planning.

     

    The entire world can’t be easily divided into saints and sinners, you know.  Although young women who drop in with hidden video cameras and tell whopping lies in hopes they can edit the resulting record into something incriminating certainly don’t exactly qualify as ‘saints’.  Why would anyone believe ‘evidence’ gathered by an admitted liar?

  • crowepps

    Also I will not put up with statements like these

    Really?  How are you going to enforce that?

    An organization is not sexist just because it believes that women should have children and not destroy them in the womb.

    Well, yeah, it is sexist if it believes that ALL women should have children when some of those women do not want to have children.

     

    It is also sexist when it insists that after women have been REQUIRED to have those children, then they shouldn’t be allowed to work, but instead should stay home and scrub floors.

     

    It is also sexist when it assumes that any man, no matter how ill educated, inexperienced or unintelligent, should ‘lead’ his wife, making all the decisions and that she should disregard her greater knowledge, experience and intelligence and acquiesce in those decisions because it’s her ‘duty’ to support his falsely inflated ego, even when his decisions have a negative effect on the children that are supposed to be so important.

     

    Sexism is the assumption that any man at all will always be superior to every woman with whom he might come into contact, a presumption that is ridiculous on its face.

    Freedom to believe that’s the first amendment check it out!

    Yep, and simultaneously giving everyone else the freedom to disagree with you and make statements which you "won’t put up with" even though the Constitution says you must. 

  • ahunt

    Also I will not put up with statements like these: The issue is the
    lack of consistency and transparency by CBS in its policies and the
    fact that it now allows an ad by an avowedly racist, sexist, homophobic
    organization that does seek to change policy on what women can do.

     

    I just had to see this again…sexism and homophobia…OK.

     

    But NOT racism! Who knew?  http://www.chocolatecity.cc/2008/09/13/focus-on-the-family-and-racist-obama-waffles/

     

    And this: An organization is not sexist just because it believes that women should have children and not destroy them in the womb.

     

    Trust me…an organization which thinks that women who do not want to have children should have them anyway is sexist.

     

    And by all means…believe that homosexuals are the work of the devil…your beliefs become a problem when they are made the law of the land.

  • iwantmylife

     As for the saint thing it’s a figure of speech perhasp I used it in the wrong way, my appologies. Since when is investigative journalism lying? That is what she did investigative journalism. she and her friends set up a sting operation and went in with hidden camera’s. Hasn’t datelines cosumer report done investigative journalism like this before? If the situations she had her friends create were real planned parenthood would have been breaking the law. What she uncovered was planned parenthood was breaking the law and instead you focus on the fact that she and her friends lied? Seriously does anyone care ? An underaged teen that lies like that and secretly goes through an abortion could face emotional as well as psycological damage. That is why they have the laws, so that the parents can help them make the decision and offer their support and I know alot of parents who would allow their children to have an abortion if that is what their children wanted.

     

  • iwantmylife

    quote: Really? How are you going to enforce that?

     

     I already did by standing up to your propagandist lingo!

    quote: It is also sexist when it insists that after women have been REQUIRED to have those children, then they shouldn’t be allowed to work, but instead should stay home and scrub floors.

     

    If that is truely what focus on the family thought then why have they had career women on their radio show. I have heard numerous female authors and career women, who have children, on their show.

     

    quote: It is also sexist when it assumes that any man, no matter how ill educated, inexperienced or unintelligent, should ‘lead’ his wife, making all the decisions and that she should disregard her greater knowledge, experience and intelligence and acquiesce in those decisions because it’s her ‘duty’ to support his falsely inflated ego, even when his decisions have a negative effect on the children that are supposed to be so important.

     

     this is an extreme exageration. Of course it is a mothers obligation to protect her children if her spouse is making decisions that are not in the best intrest of the children or their family. you just don’t like the organization because it is pro having a family and not pro being a single rich lady that dies alone and bitter in her cold bed. 

     

    Furthermore the part about freedom to believe was that I have the freedom to be against whatever I want to be without having propagandist words thrown at me such as anti-choice or homophobe.

  • ahunt

     I already did by standing up to your propagandist lingo!

     

    Well, I’m certainly enforced!

     

    If that is truely what focus on the family
    thought then why have they had career women on their radio show. I have
    heard numerous female authors and career women, who have children, on
    their show. 

     

    And this is all the evidence I need? Praise Jesus.

     

    this is an extreme exageration. Of course it is a mothers obligation to
    protect her children if her spouse is making decisions that are not in
    the best intrest of the children or their family. you just don’t like
    the organization because it is pro having a family and not pro being a
    single rich lady that dies alone and bitter in her cold bed.  

     

    Snerk…hey, if crowepps is rich, me and my husband volunteer to be excessively affectionate towards her. 

  • ahunt

    Since when is investigative journalism llying?

     

    Other than paging the diapered devil of editing, I just can’t take this shot.

  • crowepps

    If that is truely what focus on the family thought then why have they had career women on their radio show. I have heard numerous female authors and career women, who have children, on their show.

    I too have always found it interesting how select women are ‘allowed’ by patriarchal organizations to leave their husbands and kids at home and travel around the country enjoying careers as public speakers so long as their message is that ‘ordinary’ women should stay home and shut up.

    this is an extreme exageration. Of course it is a mothers obligation to protect her children if her spouse is making decisions that are not in the best intrest of the children or their family.

    Really?  How is the wife supposed to do that AND be ‘submissive to her husband’s authority’?

     you just don’t like the organization because it is pro having a family and not pro being a single rich lady that dies alone and bitter in her cold bed. 

    It’s my understanding that the stereotypical "single rich lady" never dies alone or in a cold bed, because there are TONS of boytoys who are eager to keep them company.

    Furthermore the part about freedom to believe was that I have the freedom to be against whatever I want to be without having propagandist words thrown at me such as anti-choice or homophobe.

    Sorry, but I’m afraid you misunderstand the Constitution.  Freedom of speech is for everyone, including those who think you’re anti-choice and homophobic, no matter how unfair applying those words is when referring to a civil, tolerant citizen like yourself.  You absolutely can be for whatever you want and against whatever you want, but there is no Constitutional freedom from others replying that they think your choices are wrong and criticizing them.

     

    Well, golly, if there were, the Constitution would protect us as well and you wouldn’t be able to come on here and criticize OUR opinions, would you?

  • crowepps

    Rich only in friends.  I’m sure my bed will be warm enough with my children and grandkids crowded around —

  • ahunt

    Damn…an’ here we thought you were rich! And lonely. And really desperate.

     

    Shit…you jus’ have family and friends who care for you. Pauper!

  • crowepps

    What she uncovered was planned parenthood was breaking the law and instead you focus on the fact that she and her friends lied? Seriously does anyone care ?

    Well, yeah, actually.  She said she had an agenda going in to ‘prove’ they were breaking the law, she told them lies to try to entrap them into breaking the law, and then she said she had ‘proved’ they broke the law.  Why should I believe her about that when she already admitted she was prejudiced against them before she started and she is a liar?  Has she released ALL the tape she made?  Or just that massaged by her digital magic?  Do also you believe it’s true that Forrest Gump met Elvis, John Lennon, JFK and Nixon?

     

    Remember the other ‘investigative journalist’ who released the ‘shocking’ tape of him in a pimp suit at ACORN trying to get a loan?  And then how later we found out he was actually dressed very ivy league and photo shopped in the pimp suit?

     

    Investigative journalism is lying when the journalist TELLS LIES.

     

  • crowepps

    Feel free to be excessively affectionate anyway — the more friends the merrier

  • colleen

    Other than paging the diapered devil of editing, I just can’t take this shot.

     

    Oh, damn. I was so hoping that someone would. Crowepps?

    Lila Rose (who is getting a bit long in the tooth to lie about being a pregnant 13 year old) was a protege of ‘investigative journalist’ and soon to be felon (fingers crossed) James O’Keefe.

     

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • ahunt

    Tramp! In your bed, no less! Have you no shame? Confusing IWML in this wanton manner?

  • crowepps

    He was confused when he got here

  • ahunt

    This is interesting…

     

    I was unaware, Colleen…will check it out.

  • daredevil

    “I too have always found it interesting how select women are ‘allowed’ by patriarchal organizations to leave their husbands and kids at home and travel around the country enjoying careers as public speakers so long as their message is that ‘ordinary’ women should stay home and shut up.”

    Please produce on their website where they state women should stay at home and shut up, as in not work, not vote, etc., etc.

  • daredevil

    “Really? How is the wife supposed to do that AND be ‘submissive to her husband’s authority’?”

    Perhaps you miss the part in the Bible where it says 1 Cor that husbands also should in their own way submit to their wives or that husbands are to love their wives as themselves. Authority does not mean boss around or tyranny, be in Christ-like sense of serving and meeting the other person’s needs. See Ephesians 5:25-27.

  • daredevil

    This article described what FOTF holds to on marriage and conflict resolution and definitely does not endorse husbands being tyrants over wives and making wives submit to whatever they want whenever:

    http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/money_and_finances/communicating_about_money/conflict_resolution.aspx

    Biblical Principles
    First, let’s reflect on the Biblical principles. When husbands and wives commit to one another, we see the outworkings of Christ’s relationship with the church, as described in Ephesians 5:28-29: “He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church.”

    Scripture commands husbands to selflessly love their wives and wives to respect their husbands. It’s not difficult to see how, in a perfect world in which these commandments were never broken, marriages would be peaceful, satisfying, and uplifting. But we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a fallen world, and our natural tendencies are to focus on ourselves and attempt to impose our will on others. Any of my selfish attempts to get Judy to do something “my” way causes communication breakdowns. Those breakdowns often leave ugly scars. Wounded relationships, broken families, and a discouraging lack of peace and satisfaction are just a few of the consequences that can mar a marriage.

    Eight Strategies
    In order to maintain our commitment to love, cherish, and honor our spouses, we need to yield ourselves and our rights, first to God and then to one another. Over the years, Judy and I have used several strategies to help prevent communication stalemates, blowouts, and breakdowns. If you and your spouse have a difference of opinion, try approaching conflict with one or more of these guidelines in mind:1

    •Stick to the problem at hand. Focus on the current conflict, and don’t accuse your spouse of “always” or “never” behaving a certain way. Putting your spouse on the defensive is never wise.
    •Get on the same side of the fence. Rather than attempting to resolve an issue “my way” or “your way,” work toward a solution that represents “our way.”
    •Try to identify the core issue. Arguments often arise because of events or issues that disguise the real problem. Consider what attitudes or beliefs are motivating your behavior for clues as to what the core issue in any conflict is.
    •Don’t be a mind reader. Discuss your beliefs and expectations openly. Don’t try to interpret your spouse’s thoughts or motives from his or her behavior; instead, ask direct questions. Likewise, don’t expect your spouse to know what you are thinking.
    •Don’t let the sun go down on your anger. Settling disputes takes hard work and can also take time. If you haven’t reached an agreement by bedtime, put the matter aside with the understanding that you will resume discussion the next day. Nursing anger overnight gives the devil a foothold (see Ephesians 4:26-27). Don’t leave yourself (or your marriage) vulnerable.
    •Avoid character assassination. As you work to resolve conflict, it’s okay to talk about circumstances and behavior. However, attacking your spouse’s personality or character is never acceptable.
    •Never forget that your relationship with your spouse is far more important than “winning” an argument or “being right.”
    •Remember that love keeps no record of wrongs. Be quick to forgive, quick to admit your own mistakes, and quick to move on from the conflict.

  • crowepps

    Why don’t you explain exactly what YOU think it means for wives to ‘submit’ to their husbands?

     

    How is the way the wives ‘submit’ different from the way that the husbands submits since you qualified with that with the phrase ‘in their own way’ which must mean the two are different somehow.

     

    If there is a strong disagreement between the two of them over an issue such as, for instance, where to invest an inheritance received, who makes the final decision?  Does it matter from which side of the family the inheritance was received?

     

    If the children are in school all day so the wife wants to use the opportunity to meet her need for people around her by working part-time, and the huband is opposed because he believes she ‘should be happy at home’, who ‘submits’?

     

    If the family has four daughters already and the woman has been warned that another attempt will be bad for her health, but the man is insistent that he has ‘a right to a son’, who ‘submits’?

     

    Please, we’d all be very grateful for an opinion from an expert.

  • crowepps

    as should be obvious from the LACK OF quote marks.  Actually, I was thinking of Mirabelle Morgan, who’s likely way before your time.

     

    Are you assuming I was talking about Focus on the Family because of my use of the description "patriarchal organization"?

  • daredevil

    I am sure Tony Dungy thought FOTF is racist. NOT!

  • colleen

    Perhaps you miss the part in the Bible where it says 1 Cor that husbands also should in their own way submit to their wives

     

    That simply isn’t true. Paul  said nothing whatsoever about men submitting to their wives (or any other woman, for that matter)

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • paul-bradford

    colleen,

     

    It’s hard not to notice that Paul’s writing is rife with suggestions of sexual violence against women, (just as it’s hard not to notice that John’s gospel is virulently anti-Semitic) but keep in mind that Paul was also capable of urging sexual violence against men.  Read Gal 5, 12.  Paul’s in a snit over the question of whether Christian communities should adopt the practice of circumcision.  His opinion (which I happen to agree with) is that you can lead a happy and holy life without being circumcised (and without being male — but that’s my comment, not Paul’s).

     

    At any rate, Paul goes further than to simply argue against circumcision.  He predicts all sorts of dire consequences for men who follow the custom and spouts all kinds of venom against the people (men) who argue in favor of it.  In fact, he shares his own lurid fantasy about his adversaries "going all the way" — lopping off their foreskin and then cutting off the rest of the organ.

     

    I don’t share that particular Bible ‘fun fact’ in order to make excuses for Paul’s misogyny but simply to point out that he was capable of making males uncomfortable as well as females. 

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • ahunt

    Well…Dobson certainly does not believe that mothers of children under 18 should work outside the home

     

     

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200010/ai_n8907413/

    James Dobson is a strong proponent of what he calls "traditional marriage".[25] According to his view, women are not deemed inferior to men because both are created in God’s image,
    but each gender has biblically-mandated roles.[26] He recommends that married women with children under the age of 18 focus on mothering, rather than work outside the home.[27]

    http://family.custhelp.com./cgi-bin/family.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=974

     

    Other stuff:

     

    My observation is that women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership.
    James Dobson

  • horsegirl

    Or at least that first doc thought it was. We may never know what was really going on 23 years ago in Pam Tebow’s uterus. The story seems to be watered-down or spiked as it goes down the line. (I don’t think it helps a Pro-Choice cause to call her a fibber) From what she says in her interview on FotF is seems to me that first doctor believed that she had a molar pregnancy and the standard treatment for that is a D&C (therapuetic abortion). This would certainly have been legal anywhere. However, for whatever reason, that doctor seems to have missed the diagnosis (maybe his ultrasound wasn’t very good). Who knows what was going on?
    The fact that Pam chose to do something other than what her doctor believed would save her life speaks volumes about her faith. She said that she accepted the risks she was told of and was willing to die for her pregnancy. I just don’t know how many women, husbands, families who are willing to take that risk.
    Even in today’s state-of-the-art hospitals women can and do still die from pregnancy complications.
    I do applaud Pam Tebow for her courage and I’m quite fond of her Timmy. But I have real misgivings about her and Bob telling women in general they should ignore their doctors’ advice about a life or death situation.

  • daredevil

    “That simply isn’t true. Paul said nothing whatsoever about men submitting to their wives (or any other woman, for that matter)”

    1 Corinthians 7
    3The husband should FULFILL HIS MARITAL DUTY to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body DOES NOT BELONG to him alone but ALSO TO his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by MUTUAL CONSENT and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.

  • daredevil

    “Well…Dobson certainly does not believe that mothers of children under 18 should work outside the home”

    And your basic proof is to quote what some other source, a seperation of church and state site (that is not above fibbing) not what Dobson himself says. The source that you quote is like pro-lifers quoting each other to claim that’s what your side of the issue says.

    And even then you cannot produce a quote there from Dobson that denies right of mothers of those undr 18 to work outside home.

  • daredevil

    “Why don’t you explain exactly what YOU think it means for wives to ‘submit’ to their husbands?”

    Wife being accountable to husband. Husband being accountable to wife. Even as headship of family, husbands are required role of SERVANTHOOD to the wife, just as Christ had role as head of the church, but to come to serve and to save. See His washing of His disciples’ feet.

    “How is the way the wives ‘submit’ different from the way that the husbands submits since you qualified with that with the phrase ‘in their own way’ which must mean the two are different somehow.”

    Husbands are to fulfill their martial duties to the wives. He cannot claim power and derive himself of his wife, as Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 7.

    “If there is a strong disagreement between the two of them over an issue such as, for instance, where to invest an inheritance received, who makes the final decision? Does it matter from which side of the family the inheritance was received?”

    See the article I posted from FOTF. It hardly advocates the husband being tyrant where it’s his way or the high way.

    Nor do I support that at all.

    How to resolve that? Work it out with mutual consent. Compromise. Being leader in Christian sense means listening and willing to meet others in their needs, too.

    “If the children are in school all day so the wife wants to use the opportunity to meet her need for people around her by working part-time, and the huband is opposed because he believes she ‘should be happy at home’, who ‘submits’?”

    Depends. If the husband did it out of being ungodly desire to be control freak, then it is not being a Christian head of houusehold. The way you describe it seems to fit that.

    Love is not a force.

    “If the family has four daughters already and the woman has been warned that another attempt will be bad for her health, but the man is insistent that he has ‘a right to a son’, who ‘submits’?”

    See what Paul said about mutual consent. And see what Paul said about man are to treat their wives as if they are their own bodies.

    In this case, the man puts himself not only above his wife, but frankly above God in his selfishness.

    In saying that his needs come first before his wife’s health, he is putting himself above the command by Paul to treat his wife as if it is his body. No one of sane mind wants harm to one’s own body.

    In that case, obey God before man. The woman wins.

    “Please, we’d all be very grateful for an opinion from an expert.”

    Thanks for the (hypocritical) sarcasm.

    Never claim to be expert.

    But you all claim to be experts at my faith to the point where your display of so-called expertise is to say Christians and pro-lifers hate women over and over, and convince yourselves over and over that is truth as evidence of expertise of yours by merely repeating those falsehoods.

  • daredevil

    “If the family has four daughters already and the woman has been warned that another attempt will be bad for her health, but the man is insistent that he has ‘a right to a son’, who ‘submits’?”

    Ephesians 5
    28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—

    Is what the husband doing there anywhere close to obeying what Paul commanded in this passage? No. He is disobeying God by putting his own lust before his wife’s safety and health. That’s not honoring to God. It is not serving or leading his family. It is just being selfish, period.

    If he is doing this out of disobedience to God, and he is asking his wife to submit to his wickedness, guess what? She has right under biblical teachings to refuse- serve God rather than men in this case.

  • crowepps

    But you all claim to be experts at my faith to the point where your display of so-called expertise is to say Christians and pro-lifers hate women over and over,

    Oh, honey child, I certainly never said that CHRISTIANS hate women.

     

    I happen to be a Christian myself.

     

    I think various sects of Biblical inerrancy, Rapture ready, what I would consider heretical Christian subsects, pick and choose among scripture so they can use Christianity as their justification for their authoritarian misogyny.

     

    Frankly, just as a general rule, there isn’t a whole lot of fondness for women inherent in policies like ‘even though your fatally malformed fetus can’t survive birth, there is a principle involved, and so we’ll encourage you to risk your life by continuing the pregnancyt and promise to honor you for your pointless death’.

     

    "The first thing a principle does is kill somebody."  Dorothy Sayer

  • colleen

     ‘fulfill one’s marital duty’  means the same as"submit in his own way"

    Thanks for clearinmg that up

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • daredevil

    I found where James Dobson stated about mothers and working when teens are under age 18:

    http://family.custhelp.com./cgi-bin/family.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=974

    Dobson said a lot there with human rationalizations. But that begs the question: what part of the Bible say mothers of teenagers should stay at home?

    Is is the gospel of Enoch? Or the gospel of Silas? Because I can’t find that anywhere in the Bible, given Dobson’s authority is the Bible.

    And nowhere in the Bible does it says only mothers must be the ones at home to raise their kids to adulthood. The Bible ssys both fathers and mothers are needed, not one or the other.

  • ahunt

    Waffle, backpeddle, obfuscate…how’s that working for you, Daredevil?

  • crowepps

    Particularly enjoyed the part about "the chauffeuring, supervising, cooking, and cleaning required to support a teenager can be exhausting."  I may be reading this into it, of course, but my guess all this exhausting support is necessary for male teenagers.

    When we were teenagers back in the 60’s, my mother worked, and my sister and I did the cooking and cleaning, kept on eye on our younger sisters, walked if we wanted to go somewhere, and had better not let lack of supervision make any difference in our behavior.

     

    Boys aren’t all that much disadvantaged compared to girls — they too can learn to walk, cook, clean and exercise self-control.

     

    In Biblical times, of course, there weren’t any teenagers, because the idea hadn’t been invented yet.  There were ‘children’ and then at 13 you became not a ‘teenager’ but instead an adult expected to start putting in some serious time to earn a living.

    ‘Here’s a crook and a sling, David.  Go protect the sheep from lions’.

  • ahunt

    Daredevil…we don’t claim to be experts at your faith.

     

    Your faith essentially represents itself…to the great sorrow of women everywhere.

  • daredevil

    “Waffle, backpeddle, obfuscate…how’s that working for you, Daredevil?”

    No backpedaling. It is called integrity and honesty. You could not find the source. So I did the homework for you. Now, let’s see some integrity from your side of the debate and you folks apologize to the Tebows for accusing them of lying using your own falsehoods that 1) no exception is ever allowed in the Philippines (the UN refutes that), 2) no doctor ever suggest or perform illegal abortions or not there, 3) the law is real deterrent (omitting that prosecution is rare there despite hundreds of thousands of abortions done there everyday).

    And nowhere still can I find women can never work. Dobson was being pragmatic about need for mothers to see through the teenagers through their years til they graduate.

    I still believe Dobson is wrong to set a man-made standard nowhere stated in the Bible. But that’s different from going along with your slanders that he believe women can never have a say in a marriage or they can never work at all.

    I didn’t packpedal at all. More like you try to exploit my honesty and integrity, while showing none of it yourself.

  • daredevil

    “Boys aren’t all that much disadvantaged compared to girls — they too can learn to walk, cook, clean and exercise self-control.”

    Agreed.

    That’s why I find Dobson’s statement mothers are needed til children hit age 18 is untenable.

    Not every husband/wife relationship is going to have the wife being the cooker and the husband providing the cash. Not every husband has the talent to do so, and not every wife can cook. There could a husband and wife team of Jack Tripper (great cook in Three’s Company) and Angelina Jolie’s character Mrs. Smith (who can’t cook at all).

    People have different talents. There are fathers who may have talents and skills to teach their children at the subjects better, and there may be mothers who have the skills to run businesses their husbands may lack.

    Who gets to be at home and who does not depend on these talents, circumstances, and what the two work out between them. Or maybe both can work, but do their best to make sure their children stay disciplined. Dedication, commitment, honor, love, etc., are the keys, not some formula that Dobson wants to think.

    There is no set rule of thumb about how to go about it in the Bible- just as long as one goes about it.

    “In Biblical times, of course, there weren’t any teenagers, because the idea hadn’t been invented yet. There were ‘children’ and then at 13 you became not a ‘teenager’ but instead an adult expected to start putting in some serious time to earn a living.”

    Agreed. And many, of both genders, were married at the times, too.

  • daredevil

    “Particularly enjoyed the part about “the chauffeuring, supervising, cooking, and cleaning required to support a teenager can be exhausting.” I may be reading this into it, of course, but my guess all this exhausting support is necessary for male teenagers.”

    I agree, realizing how “exhausting I was as a male teenager” to my parents.

    My take is that the burden should NOT be one person (usually the woman) but shared as much as possibly by both husbands and wives.

  • daredevil

    “I think various sects of Biblical inerrancy, Rapture ready, what I would consider heretical Christian subsects, pick and choose among scripture so they can use Christianity as their justification for their authoritarian misogyny.”

    First off, most pro-lifers hold to mother’s life in danger should be allowed as exception case.

    Secondly, the argument of misogny is tired. It is like saying your side hates men because it mandates men to be fathers even if they don’t want to should the women keep the babies. It is fallacious either way.

    Thirdly, I loathe Rapture Ready forum and its snotty leaders who ran that forsaken site. I see more self-restraint and godliness here than them. I mean it, too.

    Fourthly, my own conservative denom has the view if the life of the mother is in danger, most likely the unborn baby dies, too, so rather than have two die, it is better one lives, which means the mother.

  • daredevil

    “‘fulfill one’s marital duty’ means the same as”submit in his own way”

    Thanks for clearinmg that up ”

    Thanks for showing your ability to read one thing then avoid the next sentence undermines your claim. What part of the line the man’s body is NOT HIS OWN, but also OF HIS WIFE, do you not get?

  • daredevil

    “Your faith essentially represents itself…to the great sorrow of women everywhere.”

    Like this statement from Dobson: “According to his view, women are not deemed inferior to men because both are created in God’s image”?

    Mistreatment women would show actual disobedience is it not to the faith which says male and female are both equally created in the image of God, regardless of roles they have?

    Of course, your own politics support abortion to the point your side did turn a blind eye to misogyny acts of a certain pro-choice President because he was pro-choice?

    And abortion killed how many females worldwide? Let’s put it this way, China killed so many, that there is not enough women for males to marry now in that country!

    Problem for your side is that since you dehumanize the unborn to such extent they are not human, it would be hypocritical for you to protest against killing the unborn over their gender, since after all they are not humans to you and if families choose to do it, you cannot object without sounding hypocritical.

    My side of the debate can and have object to killings of FEMALE UNBORN for them being FEMALES, whether it is mandated by the government or done voluntarily as birth control by families here or WORLDWIDE, precisely because we see females as made in image of God and that starts in the womb.

    Sorry, but your own ideology killed many females in this country and in other countries- where they are MOST DEFENSELESS- in the woman’s body.

  • daredevil

    To be fair to Dobson, he did write at the end, “Admittedly, many women are able to maintain a busy career and keep the home fires burning, some with the assistance of involved husbands or domestic help. Other low-energy mothers with unhelpful husbands don’t cope so well. Each family must decide for itself how best to deal with life’s pressure points and opportunities.”

    But that would contradict his first sentence. He probably should have said experience tells him many cases it’s best for mothers to stay home til the kids are out of the house, but not all circumstances call for that, even with the kids still in high school. Something like that. I still would not have fully agree, but he would have the more merit of being more consistent.

  • daredevil

    Since you mention back in the old days, those who are now called teenagers used to be seen as adults, it reminds me of this Star Wars humour. Enjoy!

    http://www.firsttvdrama.com/funstuff/vader1.php3

    A furious lightsaber duel is underway. DARTH VADER is backing LUKE SKYWALKER towards the end of the gantry. A quick move by Vader, chops off Luke’s hand! It goes spinning off into the ventilation shaft. Luke backs away. He looks around, but realizes there’s nowhere to go but straight down.

    Darth Vader: Obi Wan never told you what happened to your father.

    Luke: He told me enough! He told me you killed him!

    Darth Vader: No, Luke… I am your father!

    Luke: No. It can’t be. That’s not true. That’s impossible!

    Darth Vader: Search your feelings Luke… you know them to be true.

    Luke: NOOoooo!

    Darth Vader: Yes, it is true… and you know what else? You know that brass droid of yours?

    Luke: Threepio?

    Darth Vader: Yes… Threepio… I built him… when I was 7 years old.

    Luke: No! … Wait, huh?

    Darth Vader: Seven years old. And what have you done? Look at yourself. No hand. No job. And you couldn’t even levitate your own ship out of the swamp…

    Luke: But… I destroyed your precious Death Star!

    Darth Vader: But that was when you were 20! When I was 10, I single-handedly destroyed an entire Trade Federation Droid Control ship!

    Luke: Well, it’s not my fault…

    Darth Vader: Oh, here we go… “Poor me… my father never gave me what I wanted for my birthday… boo hoo, my daddy’s the Dark Lord of the Sith… Nobody loved me… waahhh wahhh!”

    Luke: Shut up!

    Darth Vader: You’re a slacker! By the time I was your age, I had already exterminated the Jedi knights!

    Luke: I used to race my T-16 through Beggar’s Canyon.

    Darth Vader: Oh, for the love of the Emperor… 10 years old, winner of the Boonta Eve Open… the Only human to ever fly a Pod Racer… right here baby!

    Luke looks down the shaft. Takes a step towards it.

    Darth Vader: I was wrong… You’re not my kid… I don’t know whose you are, but you sure ain’t mine.

    Luke takes a step off the platform, hesitates, then plunges down the shaft.

    Darth Vader looks down after him.

    Darth Vader: And get a haircut!

  • daredevil

    And stop the press- a pro-choicer agreeing with a James Dobson article? One for the ages! :D

  • daredevil

    abortion.

    So the claim FOTF’s intent was to get mothers to disregard own life at all costs is way off the mark.

    Here’s the proof:

    http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/sanctity-of-life/abortion/our-position.aspx

    Our Position (Abortion)
    Focus on the Family opposes abortion under all circumstances, except in the rare instance when the mother’s life is threatened by continuing the pregnancy.