I won't link it or copy the response, but NOW defended itself against Palin's Facebook post, basically saying that the Focus on the Family ad would not empower women, but would rather lead to Roe vs. Wade being overturned, or something like that.
Paranoid, much? The ad celebrates one mother's decision and shows an example of the amazing results of that decision. It works within the pro-choice framework. I swear, these people are just desperate.
And I'm sorry, I just don't understand how being allowed to kill your child is empowering to anyone. Murder empowering? Yeah, don't get it.
To me, abortion is murder. When someone says, "We just want women to have the right to choose," I think, "Do you want to give them the right to choose to kill their neighbor? How about their friends?" Murder is murder. If a guy can kick you in the stomach and kill the kid and face charges, or a murderer can kill a pregnant woman and it can be ruled a double homicide, that says it all.
I guess Planned Parenthood's (and perhaps NOW's) main argument would be that a human being only deserves to live if another human being wants it to live. If it's unwanted, eh, just flush it down the toilet. No biggie. It's empowering. Look at what a strong woman you are, to kill the defensless babe in your womb. Feel good about yourself?
Or maybe you should just put them out of their misery because their lives will be so horrible, like if they're born to a poor family, or a single mother. Without going into the arguments about how Tebow and Barack Obama himself are examples of the potential that life gives, let's see what Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was really thinking:
"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."Something tells me Margaret would have killed Trig.
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
"Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."
"Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."
"The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."
And who, exactly, gets to decide who is mentally and physically defective?
There are some who would take this kind of logic and extend it beyond birth. Believe it or not, there are some sick b******* (one of whom works in the White House) who have advocated that it be permissible to kill a child up to around a year old. Especially if that child is born with special needs, the parents should be allowed a time period where they would not face criminal charges if they just decided to end the kid's life and try for a new one.
I'm not making this up:
For me, the only time abortion is justifiable is if the mother's life is in actual danger. It's either the mom, or the baby. Not if the mom is depressed, or has a bad day, or has emotional distress.... That does not justify murder; I don't care what anyone says.
Now, as far as the ad goes, if Focus on the Family wants to pay for it, who is NOW to stand in their way? If they can air PETA ads that are about as close to pornography as you're going to get, they can surely air an inspiring story about a young football star. Yeah, football star. During the Super Bowl. Imagine that.