Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 7
 
 
2010-01-29 11:48 PM
in reply to: #2639451

User image

Champion
5183
5000100252525
Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad

Sigh. I vowed to never come back to these forums. These kinds of conversations are always so upsetting, But Jim had to go and invoke me, so here's my take, and why this whole thing pains me so, as a mother, a woman, a follower of Jesus, a teacher...

There is so much money being poured into anti-choice messages. SO MUCH FREAKING money. Particularly by people and groups who pay this money on behalf of their Christian beliefs. I get this, Jesus spent so much of his time loving and healing children, using "child" and orphan as metaphors in His parables, etc.  As one of my favorite Christians says, "what if Jesus really meant all that stuff?" What we we really be doing? We all go about this business differently, and as Jim said, the issue is how we define "children" and life. If we believed that Jesus really meant all that, we would be busting our butts to take care of the lives of children, especially orphans (and widows- women!) And we aren't, as a country, doing that very well.

Right now is a critical time for those of us who are moved to act for social justice, via politics, to bring about God's Kingdom here and now.  We need to be Jesus. There are so many children on this earth in crisis, from the kids in the US who are living below the poverty line, not vaccinated, poorly educated, cold, alone, homeless... there are gay teens killing themselves after being thrown away... there are wealthy priviliged suburban kids wasting away in front of machines while parents work too many hours and are unaware of their children's spiritual internal decay, or worse, don't care... Then there's the Congo. Rwanda. Sierra Leone. Girl babies in China. The thousands of babies of prostitutes rotting in orphanages in Eastern Europe, most of whom have variations of syphyllis, FAS, HIV... 

And now Haiti. The poorest country in our hemisphere that already had 380,000 orphans before the hurricane.  And the country is in unspeakable conditions and any paperwork that was in place to get some of those kids out to families who will love them is long gone. And the corruption was mind boggling BEFORE the hurricane.  Now we are being told of human trafficking and organ mining in a place where the "least of these" have already been exploited.

So, Mr Tebow, Mr Dobson et al. Please. Help those babies already here. You have the money, and you have the votes. Let's get back to basics and feed and heal our children.



2010-01-29 11:53 PM
in reply to: #2639451

User image

Champion
5183
5000100252525
Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad

Additionally, for all those who have mentioned that it is perfectly OK for other groups to buy ads, of course it is. It's OK, in that if it is your money you get to do what you want with it, unless of course the networks won't let you. See this in today's WP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902505.html

snip below:

"Pro-choice advocates were shocked when CBS appeared to violate internal policy and accepted this spot -- reportedly at a price of at least $2.5 million -- produced and paid for by Focus on the Family, a conservative antiabortion, anti-gay group. Though CBS says it has altered its policy, the networks have consistently rejected advocacy ads on controversial topics. The United Church of Christ was turned down by CBS in 2004 when it wanted to air a Super Bowl ad that celebrated diversity and welcomed gay and lesbian Christians to the denomination. And last year NBC rejected a spot from an antiabortion group that tried to use President Obama's life story to convey its message. The rules of the game seem to have changed without warning."

2010-01-30 8:17 AM
in reply to: #2639451

User image

Champion
5529
500050025
Nashville, TN
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
Back to the OP's idea:
CBS rejects ad for gay dating site

Not saying that it is an apples to apples comparison.  CBS "may" have some legit reason to deny this group, despite ad space being available.  IMO, as I initially stated in this thread, it is a perception issue that is at stake.  CBS changed its policy for an advocacy group on a hotly contested issue.  Would it do the same if the issue was equally controversial in the opposite direction?  I don't know what the process is at CBS to determine an organization's 'credit status' but this decision sends a mixed message.

2010-01-30 9:33 AM
in reply to: #2639451

User image

Pro
4824
20002000500100100100
Houston
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad

Are radio stations different from TV stations?  I think CBS should be able to broadcast any commercials they want and turn down any they want for whatever reason.

Here in Houston the bigger radio stations are owned by Clear Channel and they broadcast Planned Parenthood commercials all the time.

What's the difference?

Not a fan of the organization because I am not OK with spanking and don't think gay is something you catch.  But then again there are a lot of pro-choice groups/organizatons/supporters I am not a fan of, it's impossible to avoid all the companies that support/donate to Planned Parenthood.

2010-01-30 9:46 AM
in reply to: #2639451

User image

Elite
4547
2000200050025
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
Does anyone else find it odd that the Tebow ad is allowed...yet, a gay dating service that wanted to air an ad during the Super Bowl was denied?  The company had some silly name like mancrunch.com. 

Mancrunch is denied, yet I have to sit through commercial after commercial for erection medications and clearly sexist godaddy.com commercials.

Does the gay dating company have any legal rights?  Just wondering.


2010-01-30 9:49 AM
in reply to: #2639451

User image

Elite
4547
2000200050025
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
I don't know what the commercial's going to look like...but man, I'd love to see a cameo there including Ted Haggard. 


2010-02-02 10:14 AM
in reply to: #2644260

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad

Well this seems to be stirring the pot today in various corners of the interweb:

Sally Jenkins, Sports columnist in the Washington Post:

Tebow's Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are

I'll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won't endear me to the "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL, but I'll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.

As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow's pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We're always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.

I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do. read more...

 

It's starting to seem like with all of the buzz about this ad, FOTF has made a brilliant media buy.  The $2.5M is resulting in a lot of exposure.  Way beyond the 30 seconds that most of the beer buys are going to get for their money.



Edited by dontracy 2010-02-02 10:15 AM
2010-02-02 10:28 AM
in reply to: #2642834

User image

Expert
715
500100100
PA
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
drewb8 - 2010-01-29 1:59 PM
wabash - 2010-01-29 7:35 AM

if Greg Lemond doesnt want to get shot, he shouldnt play with a loaded gun and should take all necessary precautions. 
if a woman doesnt want to get pregnant, she shouldnt play with a loaded gun either and should take all necessary precautions.
abortion as birth control IS as elective as plastic surgery.  there's no NEED for an abortion or plastic surgery.  they're WANTs. 
are you also saying that a child born out of a rape is incapable of, and has no chance of ever being loved by anyone?  could never grow up to be a loving husband/father/wife/mother?  is not precious in Gods sight?  that there's no way the woman who was raped could ever possibly love that child? even as traumatic as the situation is, that nothing good could possibly come out of it?  is it anyones decision to make to deem someone elses life is worthtless even before they've been born? 


What if someone is takes  all the necessary precautions and still gets pregnant?  Who decides what the proper precautions are?  Who verifies that they were taken?


so people shouldnt be made to face the results of their actions?  is becoming a parent a punishment?
2010-02-02 10:52 AM
in reply to: #2649816

User image

Pro
4311
20002000100100100
Texas
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
wabash - 2010-02-02 10:28 AM

drewb8 - 2010-01-29 1:59 PM
wabash - 2010-01-29 7:35 AM

if Greg Lemond doesnt want to get shot, he shouldnt play with a loaded gun and should take all necessary precautions. 
if a woman doesnt want to get pregnant, she shouldnt play with a loaded gun either and should take all necessary precautions.
abortion as birth control IS as elective as plastic surgery.  there's no NEED for an abortion or plastic surgery.  they're WANTs. 
are you also saying that a child born out of a rape is incapable of, and has no chance of ever being loved by anyone?  could never grow up to be a loving husband/father/wife/mother?  is not precious in Gods sight?  that there's no way the woman who was raped could ever possibly love that child? even as traumatic as the situation is, that nothing good could possibly come out of it?  is it anyones decision to make to deem someone elses life is worthtless even before they've been born? 


What if someone is takes  all the necessary precautions and still gets pregnant?  Who decides what the proper precautions are?  Who verifies that they were taken?


so people shouldnt be made to face the results of their actions?  is becoming a parent a punishment?



Depends on the kid.



This is a lot of hub-bub over a guy that's going to be a fullback in 6 months.
2010-02-02 11:08 AM
in reply to: #2649897

User image

Expert
715
500100100
PA
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
JBrashear - 2010-02-02 11:52 AM
wabash - 2010-02-02 10:28 AM
drewb8 - 2010-01-29 1:59 PM
wabash - 2010-01-29 7:35 AM

What if someone is takes  all the necessary precautions and still gets pregnant?  Who decides what the proper precautions are?  Who verifies that they were taken?


so people shouldnt be made to face the results of their actions?  is becoming a parent a punishment?
Depends on the kid. This is a lot of hub-bub over a guy that's going to be a fullback in 6 months.


i knew that question would draw a response of that nature.....  
2010-02-02 11:17 AM
in reply to: #2639451

User image

Pro
4824
20002000500100100100
Houston
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
If you take all the necessary precautions you CAN'T become pregnant because one of those precautions is not having sex!


2010-02-02 11:56 AM
in reply to: #2639451

User image

Elite
5316
5000100100100
Alturas, California
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
I am not sure how one can advocate for the protection of the needy, the orphans, the hungry, the disempowered, the homeless, the rejected, the innocent, to a right to life as a defining feature of our country "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" and then murder the smallest, most innocent, most needy.  

Planned Parenthood was created to cleanse the world of the above mentioned folks by stopping them from reproducing (think genocide here) just like the laws that were on the books for so long to involuntarily sterilize cetain subgroups in the United States (yes this went on until the 1960's).

If your stance is that orphans, the elderly, the sick, the mentally retarted, the physically disabled, the emotionally disturbed ....or in essence all non-workers who are eaters... should be killed for organ donation (partial birth abortion for stem cell research) or just so that they do not drain the advantaged or healthy, smart people of their wealth... then at least you are being consistent.  If not, then you are chosing who you want to live and who you want to die.. judge, jury and executioner or playing God.

Ya this will offend folks.  But I just get tired of folks saying that killing babies is a morally just act and that people who want to defend those who can not defend themselves whose only offense is that they exist are evil people.... is offensive to me.  

Someone please explain to me what an unborn child has done that is so evil that he or she is deserving of the death penalty without trial.  The only offense I can see is that he or she is unwanted.  By that reasoning all unpopular, unwanted people should be killed.  Shall we make a list of folks we don't like who are an annoyance to us and then make them go away?  Is that really our right to chose, who lives and dies with no trial, with no crime commited by that person?  
Please help me understand this one.  It is a radical idea that has massive ramifications for our society.  Hypothetically speaking... people in nursing homes are no longer producers.  Think of the money we could save by just killing off everyone in all the nursing homes.  But why stop there, we have folks on SSI who are disabled.  That is an increadible drain on our society.  Why not just kill all of them.  Just think of the fiscal savings.  What is the big deal, if folks don't have health insurance... let them die, shrug no big deal, their fault for getting sick or injured.  Massive financial savings for the group in power.  Do we really want to go there?  Is that who we are, is that who you are? 

That's all I've got, discuss.           
2010-02-02 12:06 PM
in reply to: #2650088

User image

On your right
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
Baowolf - 2010-02-02 12:56 PM I am not sure how one can advocate for the protection of the needy, the orphans, the hungry, the disempowered, the homeless, the rejected, the innocent, to a right to life as a defining feature of our country "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" and then murder the smallest, most innocent, most needy.  

Planned Parenthood was created to cleanse the world of the above mentioned folks by stopping them from reproducing (think genocide here) just like the laws that were on the books for so long to involuntarily sterilize cetain subgroups in the United States (yes this went on until the 1960's).

If your stance is that orphans, the elderly, the sick, the mentally retarted, the physically disabled, the emotionally disturbed ....or in essence all non-workers who are eaters... should be killed for organ donation (partial birth abortion for stem cell research) or just so that they do not drain the advantaged or healthy, smart people of their wealth... then at least you are being consistent.  If not, then you are chosing who you want to live and who you want to die.. judge, jury and executioner or playing God.

Ya this will offend folks.  But I just get tired of folks saying that killing babies is a morally just act and that people who want to defend those who can not defend themselves whose only offense is that they exist are evil people.... is offensive to me.  

Someone please explain to me what an unborn child has done that is so evil that he or she is deserving of the death penalty without trial.  The only offense I can see is that he or she is unwanted.  By that reasoning all unpopular, unwanted people should be killed.  Shall we make a list of folks we don't like who are an annoyance to us and then make them go away?  Is that really our right to chose, who lives and dies with no trial, with no crime commited by that person?  
Please help me understand this one.  It is a radical idea that has massive ramifications for our society.  Hypothetically speaking... people in nursing homes are no longer producers.  Think of the money we could save by just killing off everyone in all the nursing homes.  But why stop there, we have folks on SSI who are disabled.  That is an increadible drain on our society.  Why not just kill all of them.  Just think of the fiscal savings.  What is the big deal, if folks don't have health insurance... let them die, shrug no big deal, their fault for getting sick or injured.  Massive financial savings for the group in power.  Do we really want to go there?  Is that who we are, is that who you are? 

That's all I've got, discuss.           

The whole debate I'm not dealing with, but I'll take exception to this part.

Where do you then draw the line on ANY type of judgement?  You meet someone that you don't like, and think they're a jerk, you're judging.  Does that make you playing God then? 
2010-02-02 12:12 PM
in reply to: #2644256

User image

Champion
14571
50005000200020005002525
the alamo city, Texas
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
ChineseDemocracy - 2010-01-30 10:46 AM Does anyone else find it odd that the Tebow ad is allowed...yet, a gay dating service that wanted to air an ad during the Super Bowl was denied?  The company had some silly name like mancrunch.com. 

Mancrunch is denied, yet I have to sit through commercial after commercial for erection medications and clearly sexist godaddy.com commercials.

Does the gay dating company have any legal rights?  Just wondering.




if i have to watch another skanky godaddy ad i'll flip!  but i agree, they are probably going to argue that two men making out (the mancrunch ad) is inappropriate, but they'll put godaddy on?  that's ridiculous.
2010-02-02 12:18 PM
in reply to: #2639451

User image

Elite
5316
5000100100100
Alturas, California
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad

There is a diffenerence between having an opinion about folks or a feeling, ie judging them versus killing them based on that feeling, don't ya think?  The statement was judge, jury and executioner.... they go together to cause a problem. 

2010-02-02 12:18 PM
in reply to: #2639451

User image

Pro
4189
20002000100252525
Pittsburgh, my heart is in Glasgow
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
Planned Parenthood was created to cleanse the world of the above mentioned folks by stopping them from reproducing (think genocide here) just like the laws that were on the books for so long to involuntarily sterilize cetain subgroups in the United States (yes this went on until the 1960's).


Or PP was created to give women access to sexual health clinics. So many of my female friends were without health insurance after college, with no way to get routine check ups (pap smears, etc etc) outside of Planned Parenthood. One of my good friends got pregnant with a very much wanted baby after college, lost her insurance due to the economy, and was only able to have proper pre-and post-natal care thanks to Planned Parenthood. While she was on her way to a routine ultrasound at the clinic, she was harassed by people saying the very same thing you are saying here, which reduced her to tears. Access to well woman care, like those services provided at your local PP, are CRUCIAL to bringing healthy and happy babies into this world, something that should be available to everyone, not just those who can afford health care.


2010-02-02 12:23 PM
in reply to: #2649975

User image

Pro
4311
20002000100100100
Texas
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
KeriKadi - 2010-02-02 11:17 AM

If you take all the necessary precautions you CAN'T become pregnant because one of those precautions is not having sex!


So you were a virgin until marriage, right?
2010-02-02 12:36 PM
in reply to: #2650191

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad

JBrashear - 2010-02-02 1:23 PM
KeriKadi - 2010-02-02 11:17 AM If you take all the necessary precautions you CAN'T become pregnant because one of those precautions is not having sex!
So you were a virgin until marriage, right?

I wasn't, but I wish now that I had been.

Chastity is a beautiful thing.  It's difficult, but most worthwhile pursuits are.

It's what I teach my children, according the the appropriateness of their ages, and what I would tell any young people willing to listen.

The problem is that we live in such a sex saturated culture, that the true beauty of sex gets lost in the noise.  My kids are as effected by that as any other.

My hope is that perhaps the Tebow ad and buzz will help move the culture, if even just a tiny bit, toward sanity.

2010-02-02 12:38 PM
in reply to: #2650172

User image

Champion
14571
50005000200020005002525
the alamo city, Texas
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
phoenixazul - 2010-02-02 1:18 PM
Planned Parenthood was created to cleanse the world of the above mentioned folks by stopping them from reproducing (think genocide here) just like the laws that were on the books for so long to involuntarily sterilize cetain subgroups in the United States (yes this went on until the 1960's).
Or PP was created to give women access to sexual health clinics. So many of my female friends were without health insurance after college, with no way to get routine check ups (pap smears, etc etc) outside of Planned Parenthood. One of my good friends got pregnant with a very much wanted baby after college, lost her insurance due to the economy, and was only able to have proper pre-and post-natal care thanks to Planned Parenthood. While she was on her way to a routine ultrasound at the clinic, she was harassed by people saying the very same thing you are saying here, which reduced her to tears. Access to well woman care, like those services provided at your local PP, are CRUCIAL to bringing healthy and happy babies into this world, something that should be available to everyone, not just those who can afford health care.


thank you!  i am pro-life, but planned parenthood provides some very important needed services!!!
2010-02-02 12:39 PM
in reply to: #2639451

User image

Elite
5316
5000100100100
Alturas, California
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
PP was created for the purpose I stated....  not all of its services directly lead to that end or it would not recieve so much power.  

I am happy for any person that gets the health care they need for pregnancy, to set a broken bone or to help with any medical problem that does not cost someone else their life.  Peace.   
2010-02-02 12:56 PM
in reply to: #2650238

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad

Baowolf -  PP was created for the purpose I stated....  not all of its services directly lead to that end or it would not recieve so much power.   

It's true. Margaret Sanger was a rabid eugenicist.  That was the founding principle of PP.

I was a long time supporter of PP.  It's full of people of good will.  However, I think now that it's core mission is still colored by the principles of its founding which rest mostly in population control.

For example, my understanding is that PP was brought in as a consultant during the Chinese cultural revolution, and helped Mao develop the one child policy.  This then has led to certain policies, among others, of forced sterilization and forced abortion.

I'm friends with one of the founders and main benefactors of a local PP clinic.  He remains unabashedly a eugenicist.  He believes there are too many people of color in the world.  He's reached the age some old men get to where they don't care if they fart in public. For my friend, instead he's willing to quietly rant about eugenic issues, not caring who hears.  He decided to support PP because of it's roots in the eugenics movement.

Sadly, my friend's intentions have been successful.  It's estimated that half of all black babies in Philadelphia are killed by direct abortion.

It's true that more services need to be provided for pregnant women. I bet if PP stopped doing abortions, there would be plenty of pro life folks who would quickly step up and help them do that.



Edited by dontracy 2010-02-02 12:57 PM


2010-02-02 12:58 PM
in reply to: #2650228

User image

Pro
4311
20002000100100100
Texas
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
dontracy - 2010-02-02 12:36 PM

JBrashear - 2010-02-02 1:23 PM
KeriKadi - 2010-02-02 11:17 AM If you take all the necessary precautions you CAN'T become pregnant because one of those precautions is not having sex!
So you were a virgin until marriage, right?

I wasn't, but I wish now that I had been.

Chastity is a beautiful thing.  It's difficult, but most worthwhile pursuits are.

It's what I teach my children, according the the appropriateness of their ages, and what I would tell any young people willing to listen.

The problem is that we live in such a sex saturated culture, that the true beauty of sex gets lost in the noise.  My kids are as effected by that as any other.

My hope is that perhaps the Tebow ad and buzz will help move the culture, if even just a tiny bit, toward sanity.



Even if there was no TV, the culture would still be sexually charged. If there were no movies, the culture would still be sexually charged. Hell, one of the greatest plays of all time(Romeo & Juliet) is about a pair of teenagers wanting to bang. Sex is endemic to the human experience. People have been screwing their brains out since the beginning of time; there's a reason prostitution is known as 'the world's oldest profession'. 'Sanity' is a subjective ideal of yours regarding sexuality, and it's an unrealistic one IMO. The truth is that premarital sex & teenagers having sex is unavoidable. It was unavoidable a thousand years ago and it's unavoidable today. That's not to say I'm condoning the act, but kids are going to want to nail each other whether we approve of it or not. Trying to preach abstinence to a hormone-fueled teenage boy is like telling Tebow there is no God; he's not going to listen no matter what videos you show him or stories you tell him.

2010-02-02 1:01 PM
in reply to: #2650299

User image

Pro
4311
20002000100100100
Texas
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
dontracy - 2010-02-02 12:56 PM
It's estimated that half of all black babies in Philadelphia are killed by direct abortion.



Please cite your source on that. In a city with ~700,000 black people, that's a lot of abortions you're claiming.
2010-02-02 1:31 PM
in reply to: #2650317

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad

JBrashear - 2010-02-02 2:01 PM
dontracy - 2010-02-02 12:56 PM It's estimated that half of all black babies in Philadelphia are killed by direct abortion.

 

Please cite your source on that. In a city with ~700,000 black people, that's a lot of abortions you're claiming.

I don't have a source tracked down for that specific claim of mine.

Here is information by Martin Luther King's niece, Dr. Alveda King regarding statictics in the general African American community.  It references the Guttmacher institute:

Black Americans, who represent one-eighth of the U.S. population, constitute 37 percent of America’s 1.2 million annual abortions. In other words, of the 45 million abortions conducted between 1973 and 2005, 17 million black children were terminated.

“I would say wiping out one-quarter of the African American population qualifies as a negative impact on a minority group,” said Dr. King.   “There is no greater violator of civil rights than the abortion industry and if the Obama Justice Department is serious about investigating discrimination perpetrated by recipients of federal money, it should start with the billion dollar abortion giant, Planned Parenthood.”

Black woman are five times more likely to abort their children than white women and two times more likely than Hispanic women, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The institute is a leading collector of reproductive health statistics.



Edited by dontracy 2010-02-02 1:32 PM
2010-02-02 1:38 PM
in reply to: #2650088

User image

Champion
6962
500010005001001001001002525
Atlanta, Ga
Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad
Baowolf - 2010-02-02 12:56 PM I am not sure how one can advocate for the protection of the needy, the orphans, the hungry, the disempowered, the homeless, the rejected, the innocent, to a right to life as a defining feature of our country "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" and then murder the smallest, most innocent, most needy.  

Planned Parenthood was created to cleanse the world of the above mentioned folks by stopping them from reproducing (think genocide here) just like the laws that were on the books for so long to involuntarily sterilize cetain subgroups in the United States (yes this went on until the 1960's).

If your stance is that orphans, the elderly, the sick, the mentally retarted, the physically disabled, the emotionally disturbed ....or in essence all non-workers who are eaters... should be killed for organ donation (partial birth abortion for stem cell research) or just so that they do not drain the advantaged or healthy, smart people of their wealth... then at least you are being consistent.  If not, then you are chosing who you want to live and who you want to die.. judge, jury and executioner or playing God.

Ya this will offend folks.  But I just get tired of folks saying that killing babies is a morally just act and that people who want to defend those who can not defend themselves whose only offense is that they exist are evil people.... is offensive to me.  

Someone please explain to me what an unborn child has done that is so evil that he or she is deserving of the death penalty without trial.  The only offense I can see is that he or she is unwanted.  By that reasoning all unpopular, unwanted people should be killed.  Shall we make a list of folks we don't like who are an annoyance to us and then make them go away?  Is that really our right to chose, who lives and dies with no trial, with no crime commited by that person?  
Please help me understand this one.  It is a radical idea that has massive ramifications for our society.  Hypothetically speaking... people in nursing homes are no longer producers.  Think of the money we could save by just killing off everyone in all the nursing homes.  But why stop there, we have folks on SSI who are disabled.  That is an increadible drain on our society.  Why not just kill all of them.  Just think of the fiscal savings.  What is the big deal, if folks don't have health insurance... let them die, shrug no big deal, their fault for getting sick or injured.  Massive financial savings for the group in power.  Do we really want to go there?  Is that who we are, is that who you are? 

That's all I've got, discuss.           


I will go with your extreme example and ask now that we have killed all of those people what are we going to do with the jobs that the caretakers were doing?  Guess we will have to kill them too.  And who does the killing?  Well...there are jobs there.

So, in short, if you just let the people (man & woman) involved decide what is best for them we can just not have all this killing. 
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad Rss Feed  
 
 
of 7