Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad (Page 3)

So are you saying that you and your friend Hollis acknowledge that Dobson's intention here is to save the lives of children, and that you simply disagree about the best way to do it?

I just want to understand what you are saying.

Is your concern here about the most prudent way to spend $2.5million to help save children?  Are you acknowledging that FOTF is trying to save children, and just disagree that running a 30 second ad is a prudential use of the money toward that end?

I have to agree - it is not up to CBS to censor based upon content as long as the add conforms to good decorum.  Aren't all ads advocating a change in behavior or belief?

ChrisM -  Don's trying to get you to say that FotF is saving children, therefore a fetus is a child, therefore if you support the right to choose you support the right to kill a child. Or something like that. He's sneaky that way

Well that's the ballpark, although I'm not trying to trick anybody.  Just seemed like he made a mercurial statement. 

Anyway, Jim seems to agree that FOTF's intentions are good, even if he doesn't agree with what they are doing.

Well I was doing some reading tonight, and it turns out that apparently the Tebow pregnancy was a case of placental abruption.

This sort of changes the conversation for me a bit.

I'm glad that his mother carried him to term.  It was a heroic act.

However, if she had decided to address her risk of hemorrhaging by aborting him, it may in fact have not been a direct abortion, but rather one that would fall under the principle of double effect; her principal intention would have been to save her life, the unintended effect would have been his death.   In that case, it would be a moral act according to the standard that I subscribe to.

Ending an ectopic pregancy is a classic and clear case of when the principle of double effect comes into play.  The principle effect is to protect the mother's life, not to end her child's life, and thus is not a direct abortion.

I'm not familiar with what is involved in placental abruptions.  Any insight by medical folks here is much appreciated.  I'm not completely clear that the principle of double effect would have come into play, but it's a possibility.

Now one of my concerns is that the ad may add to some of the confusion and misunderstand about what at least the Catholic Church's teaching is on the issue.  The Church's teaching is based in both faith and reason.  My concern is that this particular case may muddy the understanding of the reasoned part of it.  Guess we'll see.

While I appreciate Tim Tebow's principles, they are just that.  His.  And while I wouldn't ever want my wife to have an abortion, those are my beliefs.  Everyone has the right to make that choice for themselves, and our beliefs can not make the choice for someone else.

As for the quote above that it is just as elective a surgery as lasiks, I disagree.  It is more like Greg Lemond being shot by a shotgun.  The lead pellets may or may not have an adverse affect on his life.  If they do, insurance should pay for it.  If a woman (as mentioned above) is raped and gets pregnant, then that will affect her emotionally and physically the rest of her life.  In that case an abortion may not be elective or optional.