Posted on 02/03/2010 10:34:38 AM PST by presidio9
New Orleans Saints linebacker Scott Fujita addresses hot-button issues the way he might meet an opposing running back: directly.
So Fujita was not shy Tuesday about entering two Super Bowl debates that have little to do with his team’s game Sunday against the Indianapolis Colts.
At issue are two Super Bowl television commercials, one about abortion, the other about gay rights.
The first ad — which will be shown on CBS — is an antiabortion message from Focus on the Family that includes Tim Tebow, the former Heisman Trophy winner from Florida.
The other ad — which was rejected by CBS — is for ManCrunch, a gay dating service. Fujita has spoken out before in favor of abortion rights and gay rights.
“It’s just me standing up for equal rights,” Fujita said. “It’s not that courageous to have an opinion if you think it’s the right thing and you believe it wholeheartedly.”
The Tebow ad suggests that Tebow’s mother was advised about having an abortion when she was pregnant with him, but chose instead to give birth.
The issue resonates with Fujita because he was adopted,
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Hmmm...
They're cruising the locker rooms looking for brand-name athletes who will take the line, "Good for Tebow's mom, but abortion is also a great choice." Somehow I don't think this is going to fly.
Why do you have such strong urges to control others’ lives? Why do you feel that you or the government knows better than an individual how to run his life?
What do you have against the patients’ wishes having primacy?
Hmmmm...in the Netherlands, Britain, Canada and Oregon, people are having their lives continue or end at the pleasure of the government. I clearly stand against that, yet you accuse me of standing for it. You ignore my argumanrts and then claim I'm arguing something completely different. You're no different than those annoying, empty-headed twits who say that pro-lifers want to control what kind of sex people have.
Do you think that the Dutch, British, Canadian and Oregonian pols promised people more control, or less? You have to answer these questions if you're going to claim your position involves patient freedom, used car salesman.
What do you have against the patients’ wishes having primacy?
As I've stated before (I say this for the lurkers, since we've pretty much established you don't care what my real position is), my position is as follows:
I am not willing to screw up the finest medical system in the history of the world so that you guys can have your way.
I am not willing to screw up the legal system that guards my rights and the rights of everyone I love so that you guys can have your way.
I am certainly not willing to do these things to "solve" problems that only arise in an infinitesimal number of medical cases.
That goes double when many of those problems result from bad case management or family meddling.
That goes triple when we can see that other countries and even a U.S. state have gone down this road and found that it leads to coercion of the sick and vulnerable.
The simple facts--and simple compassion--are on my side.
Go talk about primacy of wishes with one of those folks who's gotten a lovely (unsigned!) "no chemo for you, but we'll kill you for free" letter from the Oregon government. You're trying to sell us the same thing your crowd sold there.
The Cowboys may have been "America's Team" in the 70's, when they won two Super Bowls in eight years, and were coached by an extended member of the Mara family. Nobody outside of Dallas Ft Worth thinks that way anymore. The fact that the frachise quarterback is gay is the worst kept secret in professional sports, and the team hasn't won anything since he retired.
Why? Because it was idiotic? "America's Team" is, was, and always will be The New York Yankees.
I have no doubt that you'd like to be the case, but it is an illogical argument. There is only one legitimate basis for opposition to legalized abortion, and that is the belief that it is the moral equivalent to murder. An example of this belief is the Catholic Church's teaching that life begins at conception, and therefore an unborn person has the same right to life as any other person. An athiest can (and often does) come to the same conclusion, but the uniformity of the religious teaching makes it easier to point to. Obviously, there is no conclusive evidence to prove or disprove this belief. Meanwhile, as the legitimate argument for a pro-life position is the respect for human life, it stands to reason that someone who was pro life would also oppose euthanasia for the same resons.
Nope.
All one has to support is the belief in individual freedom and self-determination.
That would mean that anyone from a baby to an adult has the right to choose for himself whether to live or to die.
Jealous much?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.