I really like what Focus on the Family pulled off with the Tebow ad on television’s biggest stage. It wasn’t what I expected, but after reflecting on the strategy, it was a great “head fake” that produced unbelievable interest and then really offended no one, showed a sense of humor, and drove people to the Website for deeper messages on life and family (and the full Tebow story).

Focus’s site got 500,000 hits and 50,000 unique visitors in the hour the ad aired.

But the impact kept growing:

Focus spokesman Gary Schneeberger said:

“For Sunday and Monday only, we had 1.16 million unique visitors, which is eighteen times our normal traffic,” he says. “And we had 8.6 million terabytes streamed. I don’t know what that means [a terabyte is 1,000 gigabytes], but that’s apparently 267 times more than we normally have. The full interview with the Tebows that’s mentioned at the end of the ad had been watched a total of 762,897 times as of yesterday, and the ad on our website had been watched 305,000 times — and that’s not counting the number of views on other websites. I just saw a link on Yahoo!, which had posted the ad, and it had been viewed on their website over 1.1 million times.”

Hey, what’s a few more cases of breast cancer when something so important as the "right" to an abortion is on the line?  For some, that’s just a necessary tradeoff.

A women’s group is asking Congress and the Obama administration to investigate the expose’ showing how a top National Cancer Institute researcher recently admitted that abortion causes a 40% breast cancer increase risk but organizing a meeting to get the NCI to deny it.

As LifeNews.com reported earlier this month [January], the main NCI activist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor."

The study, conducted by Jessica Dolle and NCI official Louise Brinton, appears in the April 2009 issue of the prestigious cancer epidemiology journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

The Dolle study, conducted with Janet Daling of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, cited as accurate Daling’s studies from 1994 and 1996 that showed between a 20 and 50 percent increased breast cancer risk for women having abortions compare to those who carried their pregnancies to term.

Now, the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer informed LifeNews.com today it is sending a letter, signed by doctors and pro-life organizations to President Obama and the leaders of Congress calling for an investigation of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

Karen Malec, the head of the group, told LifeNews.com the letter "puts political leaders on notice of a discrepancy between what the National Cancer Institute says about the breast cancer risks of abortion … and what Louise Brinton, the NCI’s Chief of the Hormonal and Reproductive Epidemiology Branch, has reported in her research."

"The letter asks Congress to investigate the NCI’s failure to issue timely warnings about breast cancer risks and asks political leaders to remove public funding for abortion from all legislation being considered by this Congress," she said.

The truth doesn’t matter to these people.  What’s more important is the freedom to kill their inconvenient children.  Are those the kind of politics your vote supports?

Eighteen years ago, a bright and confident young woman in Evansville, Indiana, discovered a personal issue that would cause her high school education to be disrupted and would result in her mother kicking her out of the house. She’d made some bad choices, and she was pregnant. She had one more choice to make, and she wasn’t sure what to do. Should she quietly have an abortion and get on with life quickly, or go through the ridicule and embarrassment of her classmates, the scorn of her mother, the hard months of pregnancy, and the pains of child birth?

To my great joy, this young woman had lunch with a friend of her friend who worked at a local church’s adoption program, and after many hours of talking and crying and hand-wringing, she decided to bear the beautiful little baby girl who would become a member of our family through adoption. It wasn’t easy or convenient, but through the love and counsel of this new Christian friend, a fine teenager made the right choice. She chose life.

Although my oldest daughter will not win the Heisman Trophy, she is bright, confident, and beautiful in her own right. As the country agues over the propriety of the Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow, I think about that Evansville teenager who choose life, as well as another young woman three years later who made the same choice and gave birth to my oldest son, who we adopted through the same agency.

Thousands upon thousands of women make the same choice that Pam Tebow and these teenagers made, facing a battery of conflicting counsel, hardships, pains and dashed dreams.

I don’t believe the legality of abortion is an issue of choice but of the strongest moral necessity, but this Super Bowl ad (from what we’ve heard), and my own experience is not about the legality of having a choice, but the morality and ultimate joy of making the right choice.

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.

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something
important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.

There’s not enough space in the sports pages for the serious weighing of values that constitutes this debate, but surely everyone in both camps, pro-choice or pro-life, wishes the “need” for abortions wasn’t so great. Which is precisely why NOW is so wrong to take aim at Tebow’s ad.

Be sure to read the whole thing. Hats off to Ms. Jenkins for calling out the intolerant critics on the Left who wish to demonize the Tebows. Though we may not agree on whether abortion is wrong we can at least agree that we can respectfully disagree with each other.

Yup, the much-reviled (by the Left) program to teach kids to refrain from sex before marriage, rather than just avoiding pregnancy, seems to work.

Sex education classes that focus on encouraging children to remain abstinent can persuade a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported Monday in a landmark study that could have major implications for U.S. efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active.

The findings are the first clear evidence that an abstinence program could work.

"I think we’ve written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence," said John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who led the federally funded study. "Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used."

Critics do have a point.

Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.

"There is no data in this study to support the ‘abstain until marriage’ programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.

However, this is certainly a step in the right direction.  As Rush Limbaugh has often said, abstinence works every time it’s tried, and the more this message gets to the kids, the better.  The moral reasons for it can be left to the parents.

From Rick McKee (click for a larger image):

The censorship that the Left supposedly hates so much only applies, apparently, to issues they support. When they’re against it, censorship is okey dokey.

“Elective abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.” – Scott Klusendorf

At Conversant Life, we have the post Dobson and Pigskin Politics, regarding the recent controversy surrounding the pro-life commercial produced for the upcoming Superbowl. Excerpts from the post,

In the article [ABC], Gary Schneeberger, a Focus on the Family spokesman, is quoted as saying, “There is nothing political or controversial about the spot.” Are you kidding me? Nothing political or controversial… right. Focus on the Family has become synonymous with both politics and controversy due to its strong alignment with crazy right-wing ideologies.

…

Regardless of where one stands on abortion, the only thing most us will take away from this commercial is that Focus on the Family ran a commercial during the Super Bowl, and the message, however good it might be, will be lost. Look, I do think abortion should be avoided in most circumstances and there are many folks on both sides of the political aisle who agree on this. But how to actually reduce the occurrence of abortions is the point of contention and Focus on the Family has unfortunately become associated with the Christian Coalition/Pat Robertson political machine on this. (FYI, Robertson says things like, “The feminist agenda encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”)

Where does one begin when addressing such illogical ranting? Does Jonathan (the post’s author) truly believe that an argument for choice – which, if pro-choice supporters wish to be consistent, is what the pro-life option really is – is, in reality, some crazy ideology? And is their argument so weak that they need to make a National Enquirer-esque link with Pat Robertson?

One has to wonder what those, like-minded with Jonathan, have to say regarding the Scott Klusendorf quote leading off this post? If, in fact, the unborn are human beings, then that changes everything. The ‘rights’ issue being discussed, then, moves from that of privacy to that of civil; from reproductive rights to life rights. As I have argued before, when faced with arguments against the pro-life movement, consider replacing the word “abortion” with that of “slavery”. The shortcomings of the pro-choice (sic) argument then become painfully clear.

Regardless of where one stands on slavery, the only thing most us will take away from this commercial is that Focus on the Family ran a commercial during the Super Bowl, and the message, however good it might be, will be lost. Look, I do think slavery should be avoided in most circumstances and there are many folks on both sides of the political aisle who agree on this. But how to actually reduce the occurrence of slaves is the point of contention…

Yeah, there’s a crazy ideology at play here, but it has nothing to do with being pro-life.

If, as Pat Robertson says, Haiti is suffering God’s punishment, through the ravages of a 7.0 magnitude earthquake, because of their “pact with the devil”, then what can we expect Him to do to a country which has made a similar pact, resulting in the deaths of over 40 million innocent human beings?

Aid to Haiti via WorldVision – Donate at this link

HT: VerumSerum

Via HotAir, Boxer makes it clear she considers a male’s access to viagra equivalent to that of a woman’s access to abortion. Excuse me, ma’am, but your weak comparison should be directed, following your line of thinking, to that of the pill, and not abortion.

She didn’t just quit her job…

Planned Parenthood has been a part of Abby Johnson’s life for the past eight years; that is until last month, when Abby resigned. Johnson said she realized she wanted to leave, after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure.

"I just thought I can’t do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that’s it," said Jonhson.

She handed in her resignation October 6. Johnson worked as the Bryan Planned Parenthood Director for two years.

According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it’s business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.

"It seemed like maybe that’s not what a lot of people were believing any more because that’s not where the money was. The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that," said Johnson.

Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about.

"I feel so pure in heart (since leaving). I don’t have this guilt, I don’t have this burden on me anymore that’s how I know this conversion was a spiritual conversion."

…she joined the other side.

Johnson now supports the Coalition For Life, the pro-life group with a building down the street from Planned Parenthood. Coalition volunteers can regularly be seen praying on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood. Johnson has been meeting with the coalition’s executive director, Shawn Carney, and has prayed with volunteers outside Planned Parenthood.

Johnson’s description of the follow-the-money emphasis at PP these days woke her up to the real reason behind the group; not so much pro-choice as actually pro-abortion.  Would that others see it as clearly. 

Well, I had an long day (12 hours is long for me) and am fighting off a bug hanging in the wings. So, for tonight … a few hasty thoughts and we’ll see where that gets us:

Perhaps if we accept the ontological aspect of human dignity as a starting point in a discussion on abortion that might help make the argument more useful. For discussion based on human dignity can serve as on both sides. The dignity of the mother and father as well as the child. One side can point to the necessity of insuring that the parents dignity, specifically the recognition of their personal ethical choices need to be respected. The other to the fact that human life, any human life, needs to be treated exceptionally. Forming policies and arguments that respect both sides of this matter is the essential element. One which the radicals on both sides fail to accomplish.

A few Econ Nobel prizes ago (Stigler I think) taught me one lesson on investing by which I live … and which lead to my portfolio being dominated by index funds. Whether or not it really does beat playing the market or some other complicated (or simple) strategy (which Mr Stigler argues it indeed also does) … there is one thing it does really well, which might be more important. It take the time wasted on the whole investment aspect of life out of the equation. This years prize will be grist for plenty of later blog posts (after I get some reading on the matter behind me). But commenter JA, might need to re-orient his thinking some ultimately … as he has used the tragedy of the commons numerous times in discussions to amplify on why government intervention is necessary … but alas, when you study the matter … perhaps that assumption is wrong.

And getting wrong reminds me that a quote from Paul Collier’s book on Democracy keeps springing back. In which he notes that spreading democracy in the third world as a good thing to do … is an assumption both Mr Bush and Mr Soros agree. To bad it’s wrong.

H1N1 vaccinations are a subject for debate. One might ask, will they be required of students? Or of other organizations. “H1N1 required” pulls up a list of links. If I was more playfully disposed, I think this might be an interesting venue to push the argument in a real legal challenge by refusing to disclose vaccination (or not) of myself or (more likely) my children. Vaccinations of a variety of sorts are required for school attendance. Where and why the challenge? Because the abortion “right to privacy” is exactly the same right that is not protected by the school system (and thereby the government’s) right to demand vaccination.

Now normally I get a flu shot and will likely get the H1N1 and the seasonal flu shot this year … and so will my kids. But that in itself is irrelevant to a challenge. Typically with vaccination requirements the parent is required to prove vaccination with a doctors affidavit. This is the part I would refuse. If abortion is legal, it should not be legal for the government to require vaccination. The argument is the same. Abortion is therefore legal because a woman has a right to the disposition of  her body. Vaccination is programming of our immune system and clearly part of your body. Requirement of vaccination therefore is just in this case the state violating that right that abortion establishes.

In prior discussions on this point, the argument was put forth against it, that abortion and vaccinations differ in that getting a vaccination is for the public good and is not very harmful to the recipient. I’m not sure what bearing that has on the argument, but one might point out that children too are required for the next generation and are in general public good.

My friends at Stand to Reason, a Christian apologetics organization, like to use the catchphrase, “Truth is not ice cream.” It’s their way of sparking people’s thought processes about relativism within our culture. Essentially, they’re illustrating the difference subjective and objective truth. While we can have various subjective opinions about our best flavor of ice cream, such opinions have no bearing on the veracity of the objective truth about the healing properties of medicine.

But what about the state of being human? Does yours or my status, as that of being a living human being, rest on the subjective whim of other human beings?

In the late 1990s I was selected for jury duty and questioned regarding a murder case. The defendant was accused of battery against a woman – a pregnant woman. She survived, but her unborn child died. Thus, the murder case was regarding the death of her unborn child. During the juror interview process I expressed astonishment that we have laws that allow for an unborn child to be killed through abortion, yet also have laws which allow for the prosecution of those that kill an unborn child. It seems to me that such a combination of laws presents us with a logical contradiction, namely, that an unborn child is, at the same time, both a human being and not a human being. In such an ice cream world of thought, we end up seeing that whether or not someone is considered to have been murdered depends entirely on whether or not said someone is considered to be a human being.

So… who’s in charge of determining the humanity of the unborn?

The quandary of this contradiction, and its implications, can be seen in a couple of posts at the New Mexico Independent (see here and here). One may also want to refer to a list of the 36 states which have Fetal Homicide Laws.

What is truly scary to see, in the two posts referenced above, is not the inconsistency with which pro-abortion advocates apply their compassion but how, when faced with the quandary, inadvertently (it is hoped) venture into the realm of creating second class humans. From Santa Fe man accused of killing pregnant girlfriend has high-powered legal help, regarding the fetal homicide laws,

Such laws are strongly supported by anti-abortion groups and opposed by many in the pro-choice camp, who say they are part of a long-term plan to establish rights for fetuses—at the expense of rights for women—and overturn the right to an abortion guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.

Thus we are expected to refrain from establishing rights for the unborn in order to retain the right of women to kill their unborn? A civilized society can only accept such a proposition if, in fact, the unborn are not human.

The apologists at Stand to Reason have another saying they use, with regards to abortion, which comes to the point quite succinctly:  If the unborn child is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary; and if the unborn child is a human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate.

What kind of advisors is Obama surrounding himself with?  Radicals.

President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child “will ultimately develop into a human being” if he or she is properly fed and socialized.

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”

Emphasis mine, and which is noting why abortion is underemphasized by this administration; they’re not even considered human when they’re born.  There’s much more at the link.