It's reblogged from tj and originally posted by tj
(Comments, 22 notes)
-
cheaperthanacupofjoe liked this
-
kimplasters liked this
-
misseffieb liked this
-
jonathaneunice liked this
-
coyotesqrl liked this
-
reagank reblogged this from tj and added:
(I’m going to cut down a whole lot, go read TJ’s original post for... I tend to find...
-
theme-test-rg reblogged this from tj and added:
TJ — please ignore this reblog. I’ve started a side tumblr to work on themes in and I needed a reblogged post to test...
-
hurtling liked this
-
timbalanced liked this
-
gdub liked this
-
saidme liked this
-
texburgher liked this
-
bananacasts liked this
-
smartasshat liked this
-
toldorknown liked this
-
yeahyouoverhere liked this
-
tbridge liked this
-
redcloud liked this
-
notactuallyme liked this
-
calebsexton liked this
-
tj posted this
Is this the greatest voice speaking on behalf of atheism?
(I’m going to cut down a whole lot, go read TJ’s original post for the context
<SNIP>
And yet another observer misses the obvious point that the Tebow’s story is the “poster child” (so to speak) of pro-choice, assuming that your definition of “pro-choice” includes “can choose to keep a difficult pregnancy”
<SNP>
I tend to find find this but particularly ironic in a very delicious way - that the message is really pro-choice. But the fact remains that the Tebows DON’T SEE IT THAT WAY. They (and I suppose more precisely the group which funded the ad) see no choice at all - despite what the doctor says, despite how difficult it might be, despite how much a woman might not WANT to have the baby or WANT to risk her life that abortion is always wrong and should never be allowed. That’s Dawkins’ point, and it’s a valid one.
(Oh, and as a side note, while you can take issue with Dawkins’ suggestion of what the logical extreme of this view really is, the Quiverfull movement (which, if not really mainstream is certainly highly visible) makes an argument not to far off of that - that a couple’s duty is to procreate as often as is possible.
