I am completely at a loss as to why this ad is so bloody controversial.

Agreed. And it doesn't speak well of those opposing it that they're going to such lengths to discredit the idea that giving birth might be preferable to abortion... Pro-Choice is supposed to mean pro-CHOICE, and an add which trumpets the positive result of one woman's choice to give birth shouldn't be controversial in the least.

Several posters have repeated the strange argument that the abortion decision should be free from outside influence... Even if you only consider abortion a harmless medical procedure with no other implications (which it clearly is not), it's hard to fathom somebody advocating such a decision is best made without thinking it through and being fully informed...

If you consider yourself "Pro-Choice" and not "Pro-Abortion", you have zero reason to quibble with a mother and son saying "We're glad the decision wasn't for abortion". Regardless of what group supports the message.

(1) I can't see any purpose to making this announcement in such a public way unless it's an attempt to influence others.

Of course it's an attempt to influence others. When Planned Parenthood advertises, they're attempting to influence others. When NARAL issues a press release or Pro-Choice groups picket or march, they're attempting to influence others.

Pro-Life groups and individuals have every right to attempt to influence others, just as those on the other side do.

(2) The presumption that Tim Tebow has any meaningful advice for thousands of women he knows nothing about is offensive.

Straw man.

(3) They're taking a clear anti-life/ anti-woman position by advocating against abortion in a case where the mother's life was in danger and a birth, if the mother lived that long, was predicted to be still-born.

Advocating for the life of the child is not advocating against a the mother of the child.

I don't see how anyone could value a fetus above a human life

And that's the crux of your misunderstanding.

A fetus IS a human life. Legally, the unborn child doesn't have the protective designation of "Person", but there's no scientific doubt that a fetus is a human life. Fetus is simply one stage in human development, just as infant, adolescent, etc.

(4) The choice between a mother's life and a fetus's "life" shouldn't be taken so lightly, imo, that it's presented in the middle of an annual beer-drinking ritual.

I'm sure the Tebows appreciate your concern for when and where they speak their minds. However, they obviously believe their message is important enough to present to the largest audience available.

"unless they also say they will adopt every child born in this unfortunate circumstance."

That's one of my favorite logical fallacies used in the abortion debate.

I don't believe in randomly murdering homeless men; in order to advocate against randomly murdering the homeless, am I morally required to bring all of them into my house to live?

Further, there is, in this country, no shortage of families willing to adopt an unplanned/unwanted or orphaned newborn.

"It's a pity hundreds of thousands of foster children languish in group homes while well meaning Baptists flock to China and Russia to adopt."

Agreed, but that's pretty much unrelated.

Anyone who says outlawing abortion in the U.S. will stop abortions don't know that when it was illegal in the U.S. we had thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of women hospitalized from botched abortions every year.

#72 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

Untrue.

"there is, in this country, no shortage of families willing to adopt an unplanned/unwanted or orphaned newborn."
say what?! so they're willing but they just won't or don't want to? where were they when all these kids were "newborn" then?

Perhaps you're unaware, but there are waiting lists several years long in this country for couples to adopt newborns, which is why- to answer your other question- couples often choose to adopt from overseas: it's faster.

Children who end up in foster care or state custody, etc. generally weren't available for adoption to begin with. Either they were taken from the home because of abuse, or otherwise lost their parents. It's apples and oranges.

"If the Tebows want Tim to be the poster child for why not to abort, they invite scrutiny of this kind. Particularly given the law in the Philippines."

So far, the only "evidence" the ad isn't accurate is a supposition by Gloria Allred... the same Gloria Allred who wanted Scott Peterson charged with TWO murders when he killed Laci- her murder, and that of their unborn child... Funny how she changes her opinion of the unborn based on who's paying her at the time...

If somebody more reasonable than an attorney-for-hire pops up, that angle might be worth considering.

(3) They're taking a clear anti-life/ anti-woman position by advocating against abortion in a case where the mother's life was in danger and a birth, if the mother lived that long, was predicted to be still-born. -- Phoenix

Advocating for the life of the child is not advocating against a the mother of the child. -- #66 | Posted by ken_schwartz
Go back and re-read (3). If the choice is between the mother's life or a still-born fetus, arguing against abortion is anti-life, anti-woman, and creepily fetishist.

That's not only incorrect logically, but simplistic and stupid.

It's not an either-or proposition. And we're not talking about "still-born fetus". We're talking about live birth.

A fetus IS a human life. -- #66 | Posted by ken_schwartz
Not according to science or the law.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

According to science, a fetus very definitely IS human life. Human is without question- an unborn fetus will never grow to be a dog, a chicken, or an aardvark. The genetic material is purely human.

Life is defined as the division of cells (also known as growth). An unborn fetus is both human, and alive.

The law doesn't touch on whether a fetus is a human life, only whether it is a person worthy of legal protection. Just as African Americans were once deemed only 3/5 a person and therefore unworthy of legal protection, the law has deemed unborn children less than "persons" and unworthy of the same protection any other human being has.

If you agree with that, that's one thing, but at the very least try to know what you're talking about.

Only according to some religions, and this country was founded on the separation of church and state.

Abortion is not a religious issue anymore than it's a women's issue.

It's a human issue.

Please stay on topic.