« Burn Him! | Main | Matthew 19:18 »
Exodus 20:16
By Jeff Fecke | January 26, 2010
As you know, Tim Tebow — Florida Gators quarterback and the 2010 version of Eric Crouch — is going to star in a Super Bowl ad with his mom, in support of Focus on the Family. In the ad, Tebow and his mother, Pam, will evidently tell the tale of how Pam, pregnant with Tim and doing missionary work in the Philippines — fell ill, and how doctors in the Philippines urged her to have an abortion to save her life. She refused, and now America has had Tim Tebow inflicted on us, thus making the ultimate case for why abortion is a good thing. Kidding! Of course, it’s to argue that if only abortion was illegal, all of us would have kids like Tim Tebow.
Now, there are many directions one could go with this news. One could note that the United Church of Christ was not allowed to run an ad during the Super Bowl because one of its arguments — that homosexuals are human — was “too controversial.” One could note that anti-Bush ads were routinely rejected as “too political.” One could note the fact that the founder of Focus on the Family, James Dobson, has advocated that men shower with young boys to show off their penises. (I am not making this up.)
But the direction I choose to go is different. You see, while Pam Tebow may have been advised by doctors to seek an abortion, she’s leaving a very big background piece unstated: abortion is illegal in the Philippines.
“Well,” you say, “this is different. I mean, her life was in jeopardy, so obviously, that was legal.” Au contraire. The Philippine criminal code makes no exception for life or health of the mother. Had Pam Tebow had an abortion, she could have been jailed, as could her physician and anyone else who assisted her.
Now, that doesn’t mean Pam Tebow is lying. There are about 470,000 abortions performed annually in the Philippines, and about 80,000 women hospitalized for complications of abortion. 12 percent of all maternal deaths in 2000 were due to unsafe abortons, of course, because abortion is illegal — but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. As anyone with a rudimentary understanding of abortion policy knows, outlawing abortion doesn’t stop abortion. It just makes it much less safe.
But this is an important part of the story that Pam and Tim Tebow are ignoring. Because the organization they’re supporting — Focus on the Family — is virulently anti-abortion, and supports making it illegal. But by Pam Tebow’s own admission, outlawing abortion didn’t stop her Filipino physician from recommending it. She had a choice — but one that was more dangerous than it had to be, one that could have had legal repercussions for her and her family.
Understand, I don’t begrudge Pam Tebow if she would have made that choice freely. The whole point of pro-choice is that it places the ultimate decision to continue or abort a pregnancy with the woman who is pregnant. Pam Tebow was willing to risk her life to bring her son into the world. That was her choice.
But doubtless, there are Filipinas who even today are in the same grave position Pam Tebow was in, who would like to make their own informed choice, but who are not American and lack the connections and relative wealth Tebow had. Some may choose to carry to term. Some may choose an abortion. But all of them deserve to make that choice based on the dictates of their own consciences, without fear of jail or death.
Ultimately, Pam and Tim Tebow want to limit the right of women to decide what happens in their own bodies. And to do so, they’re willing to fudge the truth about the circumstances surrounding her own choice — one that was not completely free, one that was not completely safe, one that she could not make based solely on her own conscience. She wants to argue that she had a choice when, frankly, she did not. I do believe the Bible has something to say about bearing false witness. But that, I suppose, isn’t important when you’ve got an anti-choice message to share.
Topics: Abortion, Christianity, Sports | 11 Comments »
January 26th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
There are about 14,180 Homicides performed annually in the US. Of course, because Homicide is illegal — but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. As anyone with a rudimentary understanding of Homicide policy knows, outlawing Homicide doesn’t stop Homicide. It just makes it much less safe.
Fixed that – And besides your point that Pam didn’t have a ‘choice’ makes the the pro-life sides argument if Pam did have a cholice maybie Tim would not be here today. Therfore making aborting illegal probably saved his life – QED.
January 26th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
PS –
The prolife crowd does not want to limit what people do to their own bodies, just what they do to other peoples bodies. and Oh – I am sooooo glad you did not note that Dobson mentioned the word penis once, that would really have been below the belt, misleading and quite frankly benieth you. That was close
January 26th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
“The prolife crowd does not want to limit what people do to their own bodies, just what they do to other peoples bodies.”
No. They feel that women who become pregnant – whether by their choice or not – forfeit the right to have control over their bodies insofar as they pertain to [potential] people. In the Philippines, they even would rather have women die than have an abortion that could save their life.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Ben – No. They can control their own bodies, just not kill other people. There is no such thing as a ‘potential’ person. That is a convenient euphemism that the pro-infanticide crowd uses to deny objective reality. Tell me please: if a unborn child is not human, then exactly what is it? A carrot? Biology and logic are clear on this, a human is a human regardless of what stage of developemnt they are at. You apperently beleve that it is ok to kill some innocent people based on their developmental status. If you are going to be pro-infancide then just buck up and admit it honestly.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
The point of civil society is to limit and contain the various evils that can befall an individual citizen, be it an earthquake, a stalker, an exploitative health insurance company or some other such thing. It is not to bring about a perfectly consistent philosophical order in society. That being the case, some evils must be tolerated in the process of a cost-benefit analysis. Outlawing homicide does not stop all homicides, but it limits them. On the whole, the problematic morality of legal abortion is far outweighed by the prospect of dangerous and illegal abortions not least of all because forcing abortion underground apparently does little to prevent the practice. So yes, if you insist on calling safe and legal abortion infanticide (I don’t), I am pro infanticide, because I do not think restricting abortion will save anyone’s life.
As such, the abortion debate is supremely boring. I am unimpressed with your arguments about what is human or what is not because it’s just utopian dreaming. If you want to impress me, tell me how you intend to reduce the abortions taking place. Making it illegal won’t do that.
It is a simple fact that an average American woman would, under the right circumstances, consider ending her pregnancy. But as soon as that baby pops out of the oven she wouldn’t dream of killing it. That woman does not make perfect philosophical sense. But nobody cares, least of all you, because you aren’t the one who has to raise that child.
How interested are you in paying higher taxes to cut that woman a welfare check? If you’re answer is that “she shouldn’t be having sex so it’s not my responsibility” then you are again in la-la land. People have sex and no amount of philosophizing, preaching or shaming will change that. If you say that her irresponsible decision to have unprotected sex should doom her to poverty, then I ask you: whence this “should”? There is no such thing as “should.” She will have an illegal abortion and two lives will end instead of one. Legal abortion decreases the suffering individuals in society must bear.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
tom – You are at least intellectually honest. Wrong, but intellectually honest.
1st, while the abortion rate has been gradually declining over the past 30 years, immediately after Roe vs Wade decision the rate spiked to all time levels, and pre all legalization (remember there were a few states that had already legalized it) it was even lower. And it has not returned to pre row v wade levels. I submit to you that making it illegal IS the #1 thing you can do to reduce it.
2nd. Simply legalizing it reduced the stigma associated with it, making it legal produced a change in popular culture, one that has been difficult to change back. It has also helped a great deal in sexualizing our culture which is part of the problem as well, if we did not have a promiscuous culture we would not have as many abortions. Making abortion illegal would help to change the culture.
3rd welfare checks are not relevant to this debate any more than cutting aid to anyone in this country who is getting government support, no one would argue that we should kill people because they are on the government dole.
4th Philosophy matters. Once we state that some people are expendable because, well after all it’s an imperfect world, then we will continue down that sipperly path until only the truly strong in society has any rights, we are on that path right now. The Ends do not Justify the Means. “We are Endowed by our Creator by certain unalienable rights” Those rights MUST be protected as a matter of first principles, that is the primary purpose of government, not to decide which evils are OK in order to prevent other evils. A government which can decide that may someday decide that the evil against you is necessary. Be very afraid of a government that decides these things without a consistent philosophical core.
January 28th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
PS – earthquakes / natural disasters or other even personal accidents (excluding negligence) are not an evil. I should have noted that from the beginning. It is important to note that only people can be evil and It is actual evil that legitimate government should protect citizens against, you cannot legislate against accidents or other unfortunate mishaps, without causing serious unintended side effects.
January 29th, 2010 at 7:39 am
I don’t have time to write much at the moment so I will only say that if you like to differentiate between natural and human-caused difficulties, that’s fine, but all the same governments have to try to limit them. Building codes, police officers, medicare, and the court system are all part of the same project.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:27 am
I continue:
If there was a spike after Roe v. Wade and the rate has been steadily declining since, it does not seem likely to me that that decision has had much effect on promiscuity. Obviously, people were already promiscuous (they didn’t get that way overnight) and the rate has only declined since, so I think your second claim is inconsistent with the first. At least it is unlikely that the sexual revolution was intimately connected with Roe v. Wade, seeing as the prior preceded the latter and the decision was made by a bunch of old guys anyway.
Welfare checks are relevant. It’s a question of how society is willing to pay for marginalized individuals – and we pay for poverty one way or the other, be it in cash, emergency room care, law enforcement etc. Since the 80s and 90s we have demonstrated amply that we do not want to support poor people. I think it is hypocritical and self-destructive then to demand that poor women complete their pregnancies. Morality costs money.
I think we are on the path away from what you describe in the fourth paragraph – undeniably so. Very few dispute the personhood and humanity of all the various minorities that were earlier commonly regarded as sub-human. That began with common subjects asserting their rights against royalty and spread over centuries to others who asserted their rights as people. At the same time we have moved into a situation in which the federal government is so powerful in certain respects (the president can murder thousands at the touch of a button; no matter what kind of 2nd amendment rights you claim, nobody in this country can really oppose the military. If there is ever a revolution in these United States, it will come through military leadership).
Admittedly, I find many pro-choice arguments about the humanity of a fetus (or lack thereof) unconvincing. But full, protected individual personhood for fetuses is untenable socially and problematic philosophically. Social reality always trumps philosophy and philosophy is usually just a way of justifying what one already wants – that is, it is usually sophistry and that is doubly true of the abortion debate.
Socially, I just can’t see how the government can justify intruding into the medical decision of women about their bodies – and to be clear, the fetus has distinct organs and so forth, but it is still housed in the woman’s body of which she has full control. Subverting that control is wrong. It is at least as wrong as telling people that they cannot smoke dope because it is unhealthy. (The only plausible justification for making a drug illegal is the danger it poses to those who do not use drugs). It is not the job of the government to impose philosophical consistency on individuals. You confuse the non-interference in personal decisions with active decision making on the part of the government when you say: “A government which can decide that may someday decide that the evil against you is necessary.” A government may decide not to interfere in some evil against me (for instance if a hurricane were to hit my city or if credit card companies rip me off) but that is a fundamentally different situation from, say, unjust taxation or extra judicial torture and murder by the CIA, both of which would be active decisions by government entities.
February 1st, 2010 at 9:27 pm
tom-
“But full, protected individual personhood for fetuses is untenable socially”
This is simply wrong. You would like to believe it and therefore, for you it is true. outlawing it would be the first step.
I cannot help you with your rejection of philosophy and logic, but I would submit that is the root cause to why you find pro-life arguments ‘unconvincing’. It is logic not feelings that draw us to proper conclusions, you feel for the pregnant mom but not the unborn person, so you conclude that the unborn person should have no rights. I feel for them both, but use philosophy to determine the truth.
Calling Logic, sophistry (or any other name for that matter) does not change the fact that it is indeed the only way we can determine truth.
I do hope that society dose not feel that your fundamental rights should be stripped away, because I am sure that by that time there will be no one able to philosophically defend your rights against whatever emotionally generated mob mentality that brought about those events, and even if there is, certainly no one able to understand the arguments defending said rights.
February 1st, 2010 at 9:41 pm
When society decides to strip my fundamental rights away, all the philosophizing in the world won’t change it. Rights, laws, legal privileges, precedents… these are all nothing but a long-standing truce between those capable of harming each other (significantly, fetuses cannot intentionally harm anyone). Quite often majorities decide to oppress minorities and they often get away with it. But everyone knows that when you break the truce, you may be the next victim. Of course, you may be the next victim anyway. This civilization business is a very precarious situation, but it beats the alternative.