Confession:  I’m Pro-life.

I’m also pro-choice.  I believe it would be better if there were few or no abortions.  I wish they were never necessary.  For the most part, I’d hope that people would choose that path as a last resort and only when necessary.  But it should be a choice.  That choice should rest solely with the parties involved and not dictated by the Government.

The fact that one can be both pro-life and pro-choice is not a result of some internal conflict of psyche.  It is a reflection of the fact that these are political labels meant only to polarize the camps.  They do not mean what they sound that they mean.  I’m pro-life.  I believe that people should be allowed to live.  I’m against murder and the death penalty.  I’m pro-choice.  I think that terminally ill people should be able to choose to end their lives in dignity and lack of pain.  I think that people should be able to choose whether or not to have an abortion.  The terms pro- and anti-abortion are not much better – at least by half.  I believe in choice, but I’m not pro-abortion.  I don’t go around promoting them – I just think it’s not my place nor the governments place to tell someone else what they can and can’t do in this regard.  Instead of labels, it would be more useful to have arguments.  A position posited, argued, refuted, counter-pointed, defended.  But we can’t do that – because of the charged political atmosphere, the polarization of sides and most of all the dishonesty of rhetoric masquerading as valid logic.  The anti-abortion side, in particular, does not really want to argue, because their positions defy logic.  They are emotional and dogmatic.  They are not logical or reasoned.

Case in point: There is currently a controversy raging about the advertisement, sponsored by Focus on the Family, that will feature star University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his Mom.  The advertisement is scheduled to air during the superbowl next Sunday.  The ad supposedly features Tebow thanking his mom for not aborting him.  She was living in the Phillipines at the time of her pregnancy and had amoebic dysentery.  Doctors were afraid that the drugs taken for treatment would cause birth defects, but she “decided” to carry to term – resulting in Tim Tebow being born.  Others have already pointed out two of the problems with the ad – first that Superbowl broadcasters traditionally reject advocacy ads (but now apparently allow ‘anti-abortion’ as an exception.)  The second is that Ms. Tebow didn’t actually have a choice.  Abortion was illegal in the Phillipines and the punishments were severe.  I have no idea what her choice would have been had abortion been safe and legal – chances are, she might have chosen to carry to term anyway, but the fact that the ad is being couched in terms of ‘making the right choice’ is disingenuous. 

But there is a bigger problem with the Tebow ad, in my view.  Arguments are always like a coin.  They have two sides.  I don’t mean two sides in the usual sense of ‘for’ and ‘against’.  Any position in an argument, for either side, will have logical outcomes that are both ‘good’ and ‘bad’.  The inherent argument that Focus on the Family is putting forth with this commercial is that abortion is bad because it would have taken the wonderful Tim Tebow away from us.  By not having an abortion, Ms. Tebow allowed her son Tim to bring all the glory to the world that he has.  I have no problem with Tim Tebow.  It is wonderful that he is here with us.  By all accounts he is a stellar human being. He possesses rare skills as a football quarterback.  He is an acknowledged leader.  He is in possession of a strong Christian faith.  He has performed wonderful works of public service in the world.  I do have a problem with the argument.  You can’t use the fact that a wonderful human being came to the world as a result of lack-of-abortion, unless you also recognize, acknowledge and embrace the fact that the opposite is true as well.  The fact that Hitler’s Mom, Jeffery Dahmer’s Mom, Osama bin Laden’s Mom did not abort them brought great evil into the world.  Logically speaking, how can one justify giving Ms. Tebow credit for not having an abortion, if you also don’t condemn the other’s for not having one?

Not following that?  Here is it broken down:

Argument: Abortion is bad because it prevents good people from entering the world.

However, logically speaking, then abortion must also be good, when it prevents bad people from entering the world.

It is not logically possible for only one of these things to be true.  Either both are true or neither. To put forth one half of this coin while pretending the other side does not exist is not valid.  To do so, one must be either stupid or dishonest.

So, Focus on Family, which one is it?