Life Report: Recent Comments

Comment on #87 - Superbowl Ad Conclusion / Scott Brown Debate

2010-03-07T03:33:25Z

There are so many problems with the Tim Tebow ad I'm not sure where to begin.

First off, the question is how pro-life is the commercial? Commercials for Pepsi take a harder stand against Coca-Cola than this commercial takes against abortion. Abortion is not even mentioned. Also, just because a woman chooses not to abortion doesn't make her pro-life. Pro-choice women choose to go through difficult pregnancies all the time, and they should not be considered pro-life. At least define the abortion-debate properly.

Second, isn't it kind of problematic picking a woman whose pregnancy and child turned out just wonderful? What if Tim Tebow had turned out to be a low life? Or what if the pregnancy had killed the mother?

Comment on #86: That Superbowl Ad (Alt. title: "Watching NOW get PWNED in the Media")

2010-02-20T03:43:13Z

This is an amazing podcast!

1. The "uses sports to divide rather than unite" analysis was brilliant!

2. Actually, the far Left is VERY pro-censorship. To oppose the gay agenda is "homophobic hate speech", etc.

3. Good job pointing out which abortion-advocacy groups were not being moonbats. That goes far to get people to listen and see prolifers as reasonable. You also made great use of Sally Jenkins quotes.

4. Ditto for great choice of quotes from ScrappleFace.

5. On the NOW claim that the ad "glorified violence against women" -- since when is NOW such a defender of traditional gender roles, that only fathers are allowed to roughhouse with the kids?

6. On the "intrinsic vs. instrumental" -- I don't think that the point of the ad is instrumental, i.e. Pam's choice was a good one because her baby grew up to be such a great kid. (Ditto for the "Imagine the Potential" ad.) I think the point is that who the child will turn out to be is an UNKNOWN, and it's intended to be an attack on the prochoice assumption that a child born under less than ideal circumstances will necessarily have a wretched life and/or inflict misery and mayhem on the world. It's less a stand-alone message than it is a challenge to underlying abortion advocacy assumptions. People who tolerate abortion as the lesser evil -- the alternative being a child doomed to wretched suffering who will grow up to be Henry Lee Lucas -- will have their only reason for tolerating abortion undercut.

6. Touching on Pam's medical condition and the fact that the DOCTOR counseled an abortion which Pam never would have sought on her own. This is a MAJOR weak spot in prochoice politics; we need to expose the degree to which "prochoice" organizations are fine with doctors pushing women into unsought, unwanted, unnecessary abortions. Pam Tebow learned that her doctor was wrong because she refused the abortion. A woman who trusts her doctor and submits to the recommendation loses a wanted and loved child and never learns that the abortion was unnecessary. How often does that happen, and why do "prochoice" groups not care?

Comment on #86: That Superbowl Ad (Alt. title: "Watching NOW get PWNED in the Media")

2010-02-17T17:31:04Z

That's a great point. It's something we've covered several times before, but you're right, it's very relevant to this story. Thanks for adding to the conversation!

Comment on #86: That Superbowl Ad (Alt. title: "Watching NOW get PWNED in the Media")

2010-02-17T02:24:17Z

Wow! You really hit a lot of vital points. But one I think you missed was the whole issue of abortions being pushed on women who don't want them and didn't seek them, ostensibly on "medical necessity" grounds. This is a very vulnerable spot for the "pro choice" side, and we need to bring it to the surface, because it really gets to the heart of the "Who decides?" lie. It's doctors making a choice, lying to patients, scaring them into submitting into abortions that destroy loved and wanted babies. People need to realize how vulnerable they are, how vulnerable their own loved and wanted unborn children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews are.

Comment on Josh Brahm: Q&A from Making Abortion Unthinkable Presentation

2010-01-18T17:48:44Z

Thanks, Nulono. I fixed the typo.

Comment on Josh Brahm: Q&A from Making Abortion Unthinkable Presentation

2010-01-17T18:50:42Z

I think you mean "segregationists".

Comment on Josh Brahm: "Proving Pro-Life Points with Pro-Abortion Materials" (Full Audio)

2010-01-15T23:28:35Z

Ok, the links are up. Enjoy!

Comment on #61: Our Starbucks Screw-Up; Josh at UCSD; Using Pop Culture to Beat Abortion Arguments

2010-01-05T19:49:41Z

Thanks for noticing, Matt! I just updated this blog entry with a link to episode 76, which has all of that compiled. Check it out!

Comment on Josh Brahm: "Proving Pro-Life Points with Pro-Abortion Materials" (Full Audio)

2010-01-05T19:44:28Z

I'll add that to my to-do list, Matt. Thanks! I'll send you an email when it's all up. Several of the documents have already been published on this site, but it would definitely be helpful to have everything handy right here, if I quoted it in the talk.
~Josh

Comment on Life Report 52: Listener Mail - Overpopulation, Speech Preparation & Boycotts

2010-01-02T02:55:25Z

In a discussion around the table last night, a family member stated the world is overpopulated. I've never believed it, but for once I had some facts to respond with, other than just assertions of disbelief. Thanks a bunch and keep up the great work!!