Feeling that the other side needs to be represented in the controversy over the Tim Tebow/Focus On The Family ad airing this weekend during the Read the full post.
Feb 5
2010
08:22 AM ET
Jimmy Kimmel makes his own pro-choice ad: Sorry, Tim Tebow
- Comments 144
- Add comment
Latest News
- Matthew Fox accuser drops assault claim
- Emma Stone set for an 'iCarly' cameo
- 'Hatfield and McCoys' sets ratings record
- 'Iron Man 3': Hints on the new villain?
- Kathie Lee Gifford: Awkward TV moments
- 'Friends' vet is new 'Whitney' showrunner
- 'Toddlers & Tiaras' star gets TLC spinoff
- 'Devil Wears Prada' sequel in the works
are you also against war for any reason?
I like what Joe Biden said (thats a rarity) – to paraphrase, he said “I personally am against abortion, but I also realize that it’s not for gov’t to force that view on someone else”
a college friend of mine use to say,”everyone is pro-life until little suzy comes home pregnant.”
I feel really bad for those two poor children.
Hey whosaidwhatnow … you need to educate yourself to where the term “redneck” comes from. That said, Eros, and everyone else, I think you all need to wait to see the actual ad before you decide what it’s supposed to mean. My take, sight unseen, is it’s nothing more than a pro-choice ad. It’s just that in this particular case, Tebow’s mother CHOSE not to get an abortion. When did it become “pro-choice” when you support Roe v Wade and “anti-abortion” when you don’t?
a) none of you, including jimmy kimmel, have even seen the ad in the first place.
b)I am pro life because i beleive in the personhood of the unborn baby. it’s not a blob of cells. especially these days of improved science and technology it is increasingly unacceptable to act like there aren’t two lives- the mom and the baby. so while people say that women deserve to choose whether or not they will deliver their baby or kill it, I think that first and foremost that baby deserves to live. that’s why you can call me anti abortion if you like, because I am, but more than that i am pro life because I want life to be respected in all stages, from conception until natural death. killing is a choice. murdering someone is a choice, whether they’ve already been born or not. most people will say they are against that choice. but for some reason when the life belongs to the unborn baby it’s not worth as much, and people don’t defend that life. so i think that being “pro choice” or “anti choice” isn’t whats really the issue. it’s whether you’re going to stand up for life or not.
Couldn’t have said it better. Thanks for standing up for life. Plus, science is on our side. When you do the research, and know the facts, life does begin at conception. That life has its own DNA. That life may even grow up to be male. And I don’t see how a growing male baby inside a pregnant woman can still be a part of her body. If it’s okay to terminate a baby 9 weeks after conception, then it should be okay to terminate a baby 1 week after birth. Others like myself believe life begins at conception. Others do not. That’s where the argument lies.
It’s weird to me that to most people, pro choice means THEIR choice. What they themselves would choose, be it abortion or birth. Shouldn’t pro choice mean whatever anyone chooses be it the choice to abort or to carry the child to term? If you think pro choice means abortions for all, then you are not pro choice but pro abortion. And sorry guys, but men don’t have any say in the matter. It’s not your body.
Didn’t his mother make a choice….pro choicers are upset when the CHOICE is not abortion…so top calling yourselves PRO-CHOICE! You are not pro choice you are pro abortion! PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!
I am Pro-Choice in certain situations, but we also live in a country where if you kill a pregnant women, you are charged with murder for her death and also the death of the baby….Doesnt really make sense at all…If you only kill the baby in a clinic, its legal, but out on the streets its murder?
pro-choice is nothing more than that – a woman’s right to choose. a woman should be the only person to have control over her reproduction. it’s not something that can be legislated, and it’s offensive to not trust women to make the right decision on their own. even if you had to bring the religious arguments into it, most religions support a woman’s life over a fetus’ so it shouldn’t even be an issue.
Seymour: By saying, “…something is not a live being until it is capable of surviving on its own. Therefore, if you hold this definition, abortion does not kill a life because a fetus is not a life.” – should we presume you would approve killing any child who is incapable of surviving without adult care or supervision? Up to what age? Two? Four? Your definition of life doesn’t hold water, logically or scientifically. Something is not alive because it is capable of survival, or self-consciousness, or even just consciousness. At what point in your life were you “capable of surviving on [your] own”?
Of all the flawed pro choice arguments, the most on the current thread above has to be the viability argument. Even after birth, a child cannot survive on its own until the age of 2 or 3 years of age, maybe even later. This argument would justify infanticide, which not surprisingly has its supporters in academic circles.
But there are other winners.
To say that it is purely a religious belief to claim that life begins at conception is absurd. A 6th grade biology book can tell you otherwise.
Choice, what a lovely word. Apply it to any human action. I am personally opposed to cheating on my wife, but who am I to impose my morality on someone who chooses to do that?
I am also personally opposed to gassing jews, but who am I to say that nazi germany did not have an autonomous right to decide for itself that these unwanteds were less than human. How wrong it was for the allies to impose their arrogant morality on them. To the point of going to war.
And what was abe lincoln thinkin, when he want to war to impose his northern morality on the south. Especially after he resorted to the reasoning of a bible thumping religious nut.
Speaking of nuts. How dare mlk jr. Think he can preach to the country from a public government square about racial equality. Again imposing his christian view of the world on the country. Hadn’t he heard of the separation of church and state?
As a woman named mother theresa once said, ” when the rights of the most innocent persons in the womb are threatened, soon all of our righs will be lost also.”
More from Mother Teresa: “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” In a culture where the absolute right of the individual trumps his/her responsibility to the community and the values that sustain community (in this case, the sanctity of life), self-centered anarchy and cultural dissolution seem certain to follow.
Jimmy Kimmel is brilliant by showing the absurdity in arguments on either side of this issue.
But more seriously… I’m really old and I’ve been listening to some arguments for way too long. Abortion, gay rights, Israel and Palestine. Let’s stop the craziness here. No one likes abortion but it is sometimes necessary and it causes incredible human suffering if you make it impossible for a few people to have it as an option. Reduce the need through the availability of birth control and good sex education. It has been working. And somehow fix Israel and I can’t believe the military is going to fix the gay issue!!!
Rayme: You’re certainly in the majority when it comes to weariness of these arguments. Problem is, they’re old because they’re important AND because they affect all of us. It’s easy to ignore or compromise on issues that don’t affect you or have long-term ramifications, right? If abortion is “sometimes” necessary and only available for “a few people”, that would be a great step forward – one both sides would probably embrace – and no doubt accompanied by eternal arguments about WHEN it’s necessary, WHO decides that, and to WHOM it’s available. In other words, not much different than the arguments of today. “Reduce the need” is a great conceptual point on which to agree, but the majority of women who have ever had an abortion believed that they needed it – by whatever definition of need (health, convenience, pride/embarrassment, finances…) they felt the most strongly. Bottom line, human nature is naturally self-centered (e.g. selfish) and in the absence of some larger guiding force (morality, faith, legislation…) we ALL tend to opt for personal convenience and autonomy. When “I” and “my” rights become the center of my thinking, I’m no longer contributing to a cohesive society but rather knocking one more chink of mortar out of the foundation.
I simply couldn’t leave your site before suggesting that I really enjoyed the usual info a person supply to your visitors? Is gonna be back often to inspect new posts
Thanks , I have recently been searching for information approximately this topic for a while and yours is the best I’ve discovered so far. However, what in regards to the bottom line? Are you positive in regards to the source?|What i do not realize is in reality how you are no longer actually much more well-appreciated than you might be now. You are so intelligent.