abortion

Freedom of Speech

~ brandon ~ 1 Comment

In America we enjoy free speech.  We can voice our opinions, religious, political, etc, without fear of government reprisal or censorship.  This is a great blessing, for sure.  Of course, we must also, then, be prepared to be offended.  If free speech means anything, it means people get to say unpopular things.  After all, it’s not really free speech if they can only say what I agree with.

Thus, I find it somewhat curious that those who hold pornography to be protected speech are up in arms over the upcoming Focus on the Family Superbowl ad.  This ad, which appears to be the Tim Tebow’s mom recounting her decision to not abort him, has raised the hackles of many pro-abortion groups, such as the National Organization for Women.  Many are attacking CBS for even allowing the ad to air–despite the fact Focus on the Family is paying for the ad, just like Miller or Budweiser or anyone else.

In this case, NOW specifically states:

Make no mistake about this ad: it’s offensive to women.

I’m not a woman, but I don’t think its offensive to women–just to some women.  But, even if it is offensive to every woman alive, does that mean CBS’ decision to air it is ‘revolting?’  Or, is CBS exercising their right to do business with whom they please, while Focus is exercising their right to free speech?

Sometimes I think they don’t want free speech for all, but just for them.

Washington Times – Tebows pro-life ad set for Super Bowl.

a great question

~ brandon ~ Leave a comment

By Cal Thomas, in World Magazine:

What makes the ruling and the march ironic is that the 1973 court, in essence, downgraded a human fetus to the level of nonperson, while the modern court has invested “personhood” in corporations. Does anyone else see a contradiction or at least a moral inconsistency in these two rulings?

via WORLD Magazine | Personhood | Cal Thomas | Jan 26, 10.

I hadn’t really thought of this inconsistency.  While I’m not sure it really is a new inconsistency, it is inconsistent.  Why ascribe rights to corporations as legal persons while denying rights to the unborn, who are actual persons?

Can you think of any reasons, outside the Bible, to be Pro-Life?

~ brandon ~ Leave a comment

I can think of many, such as unique DNA.  Within moments of conception the new baby is blessed with his own DNA.  This DNA tells us 1) the baby is human and 2) she is not the mom or the dad.  In other words, from moments after conception the DNA tells us it is a distinct human individual.

Also, being anti-life subjects human dignity and value to a cost/benefit analysis.  For example, only 7% of abortions are performed for tough cases such as rape, incest or serious health problems.  That means the overwhelming majority of abortions aren’t done out of medical necessity (in fact, fully 50% of women having abortions admit to using it as a form of contraception).  So if, in the mother’s eyes, the costs of bearing the child are greater than the benefit, then she aborts the child.  Doing so devalues that child and it devalues all of us.

We find the similar logic used to argue for euthanasia and assisted suicide.  Where the cost of life is higher than the perceived benefit, Doctor’s should be able to help end life early, we are told.  Again, connecting the value of someone’s life to the costs of keeping them alive devalues all of us.  Once we connect the dignity of human life to some cost/benefit analysis, we are only as valuable as we are perceived to be.  The big question then becomes who gets to make that determination.

While my Pro-Life views are primarily religious, they are solidly supported by science and logic.