Oh Pam and Tim Tebow, if only life were so simple as your sweet rainbows and sunny skies portrayal of it. Sure, all women who are told by doctors they should medically abort should instead go forth because they will both survive and that child shall be a blessed being, capable of all sorts of football greatness (with the exception of taking the snap from under center). Sure, that’s the way it works, except of course for the fact that abortion is illegal in the Philippines, including for medical reasons. Uh-oh, story is starting to fall apart. I wonder what else might be fishy in this lovely and possibly fantastical tale the Tebow's are set to tell during a Superbowl ad?
First off, I should make it clear that I am not pro-abortion. As much as the anti-choice (because I’m sure they are against all choices in all situations) people would like to pretend, I don’t know a single pro-choice person who actually advocates for abortion. Personally, I have never gone up to a woman and told her she should get an abortion. Although, if those damn Duggars get pregnant one more time I might start doing just that. No one is pro-abortion. I know a ton of annoying children and even more irresponsible, narrow-minded and just bad parents, but I still would never have told any of them that abortion should be their choice. So no, people are not pro-abortion just like the other side is not anti-choice. (I prefer to call them Fascists, and since many of them aren’t actually all that smart, they don’t know to be offended.)
The reality is that there are well educated, kind, loving people on both sides of the argument. All pro-lifers are not stupid (despite my joke above) or even Republican. All pro-choice supporters are not tree hugging liberals, feminists or elitists. We’re just all people with our own opinions and the Tebow's are no different. My problem with their ad is that it’s airing during a sporting event that should be more about neutrality than taking sides. Sports unify races, religions, and ethnicities so we shouldn’t let it be divisive politically. My other concern is that the ad is sponsored by Focus on the Family (FOTF), which is not just a conservative group, they are a hateful bigoted organization. During an Oklahoma 2004 political rally, the FOTF leader Dr. James Dobson added to his usual homophobic rhetoric by saying gay marriage will destroy the earth. Um . . . okay.
I believe the Tebow’s genuinely want to spread what they believe to be a message of love and Godliness. When you let an organization with such a hateful background and overall message be your trumpeter, however, you cancel out your own the benign nature of your message. Add to that the basic fact that it is most likely impossible that any physician in the Philippines advocated an abortion in Pam Tebow’s case. A quick and completely non-thorough ten minutes of research suggests that the Philippine abortion laws are 100% comprehensive and punishment is very severe. Doctors do not suggest abortions there and underground clinics and back alley abortions are practically unheard of. So I’ve got to doubt the premise of their story.
I’m not going to object to the expression of one side’s views. You want to spend $2million dollars on an ad, go right ahead. I’d rather the pro-choice side used that money to actually help women in need, so I hope we don’t waste time or money trying to respond. I do not agree with that ad airing during a major sporting event. So much of life is divisive and political, it would be nice to just enjoy three hours of a violent sport without the type of aggressive and confrontational behavior an ad like this is sure to evoke. Ironic yes, but the violence of football will be unmatched in the fight for the right to choose.
No, your arguments claiming the Tebow story could not be true falls apart for several major, major reasons (and it all has to do with the fact your research is NOT thorough). First, you bought the Gloria Allred claim hook, line, and sinker. In the Philippines, under its law, since 1930, abortion is illegal in all cases, but an exception is made for mother's life in danger. Allred is lying there.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, while the law in letter is restrictive, in practice, it does hardly anything to prevent abortions, including done by doctors. Prosecution is RARE for illegal abortions used for birth control. And PP estimated 150,000-750,000 abortions done per year. 20 percent of those are done by physicians, meaning if you do the math 30,000-150,000 abortions are done by doctors per year.
So the claim that no doctor would suggest abortions don't wash, when 1) in the case of Mrs. Tebow, it was legal given her circumstance that her life may be in danger, 2) many abortions per year are in fact done by doctors, and 3) given prosecution is RARE, the law hardly is deterrent (can't deter anyone when you won't prosecute for breaking the law). So the facts lay out that there are plenty of doctors that do not just suggest abortions, legal or not, but themselves perform them, including many ILLEGAL ONES.
The attempts by Allred and others like her to discredit Mrs. Tebow is not intellectual honest for another reason. We hear often that as an argument that even if abortion is banned, if women want to do it, they will regardless if it is banned or not. We all know there were doctors who provided abortions before Roe v Wade.
So to claim that no doctor would break the law or risk prison time is ridiculous. Allred knows full well as lawyer that laws get broken everyday in every country, regardless of the laws, the country, the harsh sentences that can possibly follow.
Here is UN site, which hardly is pro-life source, that gives detailed info on the Philippines abortion law:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/philippines.doc
ABORTION POLICY
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.
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.
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.
Lot's of thoughts come to mind, but here's where I take issue. The superbowl is known just as much for it's commercials as it is for the game. In fact some people (like me, perhaps) watch the commercials and potty/eat during the action.
ReplyDeleteIf someone is willing to spend 2 million dollars to tell me a story, and I'm not too busy at that specific moment to pay attention, then I'll listen. I've been exposed to a lot worse. As a parent, I'd rather my child see a pro-life (or anti-abortion ad...to be fair) than be bombarded with wardrobe malfunctions, objectifying and degrading female sexuality, subliminal satanic messages (could happen...), or simply one more ad for a big mac or pizza, or one more reminded that Chase Bank has us all by the short hairs. Free speech is free speech, and if big budge corporations can razzle dazzle us with lights, sounds and catchy jingles, then the Tebow's can have their 2 million dollar minute. Chances are I'll be refilling my drink, anyway.
I thank you all for your comments and points of view. As I stated, I am not against the ad because of its message. As a staunch believer in freedom of speech I support the right of the Tebows to tell their story and promote their viewpoint. My research, though quick, did not involve Gloria Allread. She is a capable attorney, but I find her legal skills a bit too sensationalistic.
ReplyDeleteI looked up several articles and sources -- as many as ten minutes allowed for -- and found the actual Philippine penal code(Act 3815) on abortion. Unlike the United Nations version, the actual law states that in cases to save the life of the woman there is: "No express provision in the law, although may be implied from the principle of necessity in criminal law."
That is not a yes or a no, so I clearly paraphrased here. The penal code goes on to say: "The Philippine law on abortion is among the most restrictive in the world, as it contains no express provision for any kind of exemption from criminal liability. Nevertheless, 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. [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]This silence of the law on any exception, even if to save the mother’s life, however, may have a chilling effect to medical practitioners and thus imperil women’s lives.
So while I was correct in my assertion, I spoke too soon on the implications of the law. It does appear that abortions are practiced and medical necessity is a factor. I apologize that my research only reported half of the truth.
Still, I have to wonder at a Ms. Tebow's premise. Firstly, her condition, placental abruption, has a 50% chance of producing a healthy baby. Hardly a death sentence for the fetus, but risk enough that doctors would be remiss if they did not make a pregnant woman aware of the potential for complications. I'm not sure any woman who truly wants her baby would abort with only a 12% chance of perinatal death or death within four weeks. Secondly, as a mother of four, she did not just risk having a sickly or developmentally disabled child, she risked leaving her four children motherless. I'm not sure risking your own life at that point is worth it, as I believe parents have a responsibility to live as safe and healthy a life possible once they make the choice to be parents.
I guess what I'm saying is contradictory, but still true. Pam Tebow's condition was not so grave as to guarantee a fatal consequence as reports of the ad suggest she asserts, however, I think it somewhat irresponsible to risk her own life when she was already a mother of four. Again, it's not the message of pro-life I object to, I wish all people who conceived did so because they genuinely want a child, I take issue with the dubious nature of the message and its sponsor. Focus on the Family is not just a conservative or pro-life organization, it is a dangerously irresponsible and hateful one.