That Tim Tebow Ad (Split thread)

[FlimFlamboyant]

By US law, in most circumstances, a fetus is not considered a person.

You'd think, after the whole Nazi thing, we'd be a little wary of making judgments about what qualifies as a human being.

Rayado, my friend, you cannot appeal to the law, including appealing to the concept of "rights"--it's not on our side on this issue.

I think you're right about that. The concept of "Rights" was instilled in our Constitution by men who believed that we have them for no other reason than the fact that our Creator gave them to us. Today, we live amongst a growing population of people who believe that we have no Creator, so therefore we are at liberty to define virtually anything in any way that suits our desire for personal convenience.

The root of the problem is man usurping God's authority. Once we presume to judge the validity of human life, all hell breaks loose. It's a common theme amongst genocidal maniacs, and it's no different here.

[Darth Executor]

Perhaps technomage can point me to a dictionary where the word "right" refers exclusively to secular legal (as opposed to divine legal or moral/ethical) rights.

I doubt he'll be any more successful at finding one than I was. I suspect he's just blowing smoke. His claim that rights is "a secular legal concept" is so absurd I can't help to think that he's either lost his mind or is simply dishonest (an attribute he endlessly whines about, so if this is the case, throw hypocrisy on that pile too).

[joel]

Yes let us be candid. Choice means a woman should be free to make her own decision to abort or not abort. No government nor law of man should interfere with the free will God gave each person. I like Tim and I respect his outlook.

So then what do you have against the ad being aired?

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

So then what do you have against the ad being aired?

Absolutely nothing. I like it being aired. Never said I didn't.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

Rush Limbaugh made a great point: he said that if people who advocate "choice" really believed what they preached then they would be celebrating this ad since it's about a woman who exercised her right to choose. The fact that they're furious that she chose "life" exposes the "pro-choice" side for what it really is: pro-abortion.

I do agree with Rush on this point. I am celebrating this ad. As I have said previously I am pro-choice and anti abortion. I try my best in daily life to counsel pregnant women who are even thinking about an abortion to discard the thought and seek guidance from God. If they are non-believers I still urge them to carry to full term but using more secular arguments yet also witnessing to them within their tolerance capabilities. In my opinion the abortion issue is best addressed one on one and not through obtrusive government laws. The founding fathers recognized that people should retain the rights to live their own lives as free as possible from intrusive central authorities. Once again I emphasize I am against abortions. I am also against poverty and many other things but I am against letting the camel get it's nose under the tent. If we outlaw abortion why not then outlaw driving which kills thousands each month. Then we can outlaw cancer and really try to fool ourselves that the government can do all things and solve all problems. I'm sure Rush, as a conservative, would have a few choice words about the idiocy of that approach.

[Darth Executor]

Eeset is awfully upset by the thought of giving the unborn the same legal protection she enjoys. Jesus would be proud.

[Mountain Man]

If we outlaw abortion why not then outlaw driving which kills thousands each month.

Because the purpose of driving is not to terminate human lives. This is a stupid analogy.