Discussions of Mormons and Mormon life, Book of Mormon issues and evidences, and other Latter-day Saint (LDS) topics.

Sunday, February 07, 2010

Celebrating a Mother's Decision to Not Abort Her Baby: Is It Really That Controversial?

I'm marveling at the anger and angst created by an upcoming Superbowl ad that will celebrate Pam Tebow's courageous CHOICE to have her baby, Tim Tebow. I've heard some genuine outrage from the pro-abortion camp over this. Does the word "choice" only mean "abortion"? Is the brave decision to not have an abortion somehow an anti-choice that needs to be downplayed? Is the existence of a vibrant human being who lives in spite of pressure on his mother to have an abortion stand as a threat to something? Indeed it does. Not to choice, but to those who see abortion as a good in itself.

Matt Evans at Times and Seasons puts his neck on the chopping block by calling attention to the desperate position revealed in the response of a major pro-abortion activist. Thanks, Matt. Bet you'll continue to get a lot of heat.

A woman or a couple face many conflicting pressures and issues when grappling with some of life's difficult choices. One piece of information that needs to be considered, though, is reflected in stories like those of Pam Tebow. I'm proud of her courage in choosing life and glad that the world will hear that choice isn't a one-way street (or one-way alley).

11 comments:

Rich said...

Hi Jeff,
I have the same question, why does choice only mean abortion? It really doesn't but people seem to be upset because this will encourage women to ignore medical advice and risk their life for a baby they could abort. I see it as you should take all the advice and knowlegde you can get your hands on so you can make an informed choice. Of coarse I would add prayer into the mix also. I think we need a new classification of people in the mix. I am all about people having choice, agency is at our core. But I am against abortion under most circumstances.

Anonymous said...

I think choice can be how ever you define it. One side just took over the term I guess. And it stuck.
BTW, calling pro-choice people Pro-Abortion. That is pretty dishonest. Why don't you go a step further and say they hate babies and want them all dead? I mean, if you are going to cross that line, at least have the guts to go all the way.

Mormanity said...

Anonymous, if you're sincerely anti-abortion, thank you! But I'm tired of many who say they are opposed to abortion but vote to fund abortion on demand, to remove parental rights to approve a medical procedure when a minor wants to get one, prevent girls from having medically accurate information about the baby within them and the risks they are facing, or work to keep fair information about alternatives out of the hands of our youth. They say they are pro-choice, but the only choice they want to encourage is abortion on demand.

I think "pro-choice" is the dishonest term for such folks. Pro-abortion is much more accurate.

Did you read the article Matt was referring to? Why would you suggest that she is not pro-abortion?

Anonymous said...

I read it. And your post said, " I've heard some genuine outrage from the pro-abortion camp over this. Does the word "choice" only mean "abortion"? "
My question would be, what is the genuine part of the outrage you heard?
Are you not suggesting in your post that anyone that is pro-choice is pro-abortion?
You see the world in such black and white terms? No wonder your world view is such as to think anyone who questions Mormon theology is ANTI. ANTI ANTI ANTI, it is like a rant you have. Well, genuine questions arise because of the sordid past of your Prophets. OR should no one question?

I am tired of anyone who wants to allow women a choice jump up and down and shout baby killers. Seriously. They frame the argument in such a way to suggest that anyone that is pro-choice is morally corrupt and a baby killer.
Pro-Choice does not mean Go out And Kill your fetus. It means, just what it says. Choice.
Seems that the US went through a period where choice was not an option, that didn't work out to well for you now did it?

Mormanity said...

The post used the term "pro-abortion" to describe one person discussed by Matt. In a later comment, I question some who say they are about choice when their real agenda, based on their deeds, seems to be promoting abortion rather than any reasonable definition of choice.

I haven't advocated yelling at people. And when have I said that anyone who questions Mormon views is ANTI? My latest post happens to question a common Mormon view. I repeatedly recognized that people can question many of our views without being anti.

There are a lot of words you're trying to put in my mouth in a very short comment. I'd appreciate a little more clarification on why you say what you do.

Mitch said...

The term pro-abortion is silly. There is nothing wrong with the commercial. The real problem is who funded the commercial. Focus on the Family is an extreme right-wing group. The other problem is that this commercial goes through, along with BigDaddy, but gay dating does not make the cut. That is where the debate should be.

Mormanity said...

The gay dating commercial did not make the cut, according the network, because they couldn't prove that they had the money to pay for the ad. Not sure there is much of a debate there. But I would agree that some ad content is family inappropriate and people should have the right to object.

But what exactly is the problem with an allegedly "extreme right-wing group" (is that a synonym for conservative Christians?) funding a non-offensive, non-extreme commercial? Does being conservative negate the right to buy and place a family-appropriate ad?

Is free speech, like choice, a one-way street?

Mitch said...

There were funds available for the gay dating commercial. Watch the Larry King episode from last week. The commercial would not have been axed if it was a straight dating service.

Nothing wrong if conservatives want to make a commercial. One problem here is that the commercial lacked a a message. The story line was vague since there wasn't any plot to it. The mom being tackled didn't make much sense. The Carls Jr salad commercial with the close-up on cleavage had a much clearer message.

The biggest problem is Focus on the Family is an extreme group where they want to make all abortion illegal. Let them do a commercial showing pictures of aborted babies. At least then they would stand on their beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Then I think Pro-abortion should be synonymous with Pro-life!

Having an abortion allows a female to have a life and a future life.

I don't understand, what is so wrong about an abortion? I went through a couple of them when I was young. Now I am happily married with two children ~a blessed life indeed. Having the abortions allowed me to finish school, have fun, a successful/fulfilling career and meet/marry the man of my dreams. Now I'm a stay at home Mom and love evey minute of it.

If it weren't for my choices earlier in life I wouldn't have the children I do now... they wouldn't be who they are.

I have several girlfriends who feel the same way. And come to think of it, I don't have any experience with those who regret their decision.

Anyway, just want you folks who are in your little box to know there are plenty of people out here who have good experiences with abortion.

Mitch said...

ARE YOU NUTS!!!! Women should have the right to an abortion, but it's silly to think it does not work on one's conscience. Having an abortion is much more serious than cutting your toe nails.

Ryan said...

anon@9:36

What I see as wrong with abortion, even when the end outcome appears good like yours, is that the same outcome so often could have been achieved by a different set of choices (well, one particular choice a few months earlier, really) which did not require termination of a pregnancy.

There are lots of choices that allow females to finish high school, marry the man of their dreams, and have children, which do not require abortion.

Necessary sometimes? Yes, sometimes. Best option of many bad ones? Yes, sometimes (though far less often than certain folks are willing to admit). Ever Good? Nope, sorry.

I see abortion as a necessary evil like divorce, which like divorce is too-often abused as the easy way out without fixing the underlying problem.

In my experience a classic signature of an Evil design is that it's always somebody else who suffers as part of the proposed solution to my problems. Abortion falls squarely in this category all too often (as does divorce).

Please note, I do not know your particular circumstances and will not pretend to judge whether it was the right choice for you... though I can't help but wonder what might have been, either.

FWIW, my very small but random sample size (three) wrt abortion has universally been extreme regret, usually to the point of tears.