Couple Swears Their Sonogram Shows Fetus 'Tebowing'

Via LifeNews:

Champ, clearly Tebowing

A Colorado couple and their family who are big fans of the Denver Broncos say their unborn baby was captured on an ultrasound image in the now-famous “Tebow” prayer stance, made popular by pro-life champion and Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow.

“After the Broncos won the Steelers in the playoffs…We went in for a ultrasound to find out the gender of our baby,” Elizabeth Vigil says on YouTube in a post of a local television news clip of her unborn son. “This is the 4D photo that captured our baby BOY!!! “Tebowing” baby is due in May 2012 Our little Champ!”

The couple plans to name their baby Champ, but are not sure if that will be their son’s first or middle name.

Now, of course we all know by now that Tim Tebow is unapologetically anti-choice, in part because of the messianic Bronco quarterback's origin story. Anti-choice activists have made Tebow their poster boy -- a living, breathing, Tebowing example of the potential of a blastocyst. (Remember that Super Bowl ad by Focus on the Family?)

We also know that Tebow's overt displays of faith, and a series of clutch performances, have caused the faithful to conflate coincidence with divine intervention.

We also know that fetuses are pretty cramped in the womb, and that they have limbs which they can position in any number of ways.

We also could say that the fetus is doing any number of things in the ultrasound -- perhaps a facepalm?

But we also know that humans are often irrational -- Bronco fans possibly more so.

Randall Terry To Run Graphic Anti-Choice Super Bowl Ads During Super Bowl

While you and your family gather around the television to watch the Super Bowl this year, you may be subjected to graphic anti-choice ads featuring aborted fetuses.

Randall Terry, anti-choice activist and founder of Operation Save America (formerly Operation Rescue), has found a loophole that will allow him to run the ads on local stations during the Super Bowl. How can he do this? Quite simple: He's running for President of the United States.

Via The New Civil Rights Movement:

Terry, who has spent a year in jail and been arrested 50 times for his anti-abortion efforts, is using a Federal Election Commission loophole that ensures ads for political candidates cannot be prohibited within 45 days of an election. Apparently, primaries count, so Terry will be running ads on local stations during Super Bowl XLVI February 5.

Got that? Terry has filed to run for president.

If you think his tactics won't work, you might want to think again.

Terry has already run political ads featuring graphic images of babies killed by abortion during the first and second trimester. The ads were part of a three day ad run in New Hampshire on WBIN. The ads consisted of four 30 second spots that ran in rotation that attacked Obama’s support of child killing by abortion. (Greeley Gazette)

Of course, you can predict that any opposition to the ads will be met with the old standby: "If abortion isn't wrong, then you shouldn't mind seeing the pictures on TV."

A stupid remark that misses the point, but I don't really care to see graphic images of babies being born during Sunday TV commercials, either.

Mississippi's 'Personhood' Amendment Is Ludicrous (It May Be Coming to Your State, Too)

Update: The Mississippi personhood amendment was defeated on Tuesday, Nov. 8, but other efforts are underway in other states. This initiative is not going away anytime soon.

A blastocyst (aka 'person') on the tip of a pin

Mississippi is on the verge of passing a constitutional amendment that would define a person as a fertilized egg.

The so-called "personhood" amendment is on the November 8 ballot, and according to the most recent polling, it is very likely to pass.

This should be ridiculously alarming to anyone who is not completely out of touch with reality. Not only would the amendment have cascading legal implications, it would also have serious impact on the health and rights of all women. In addition, the amendment endorses all sorts of religious ideas, whether or not those are defined in the legislation.

Slate served up a slightly humorous, yet incredibly scary, list of legal questions that would arise from the legislation, including the following:

If you are legal person at fertilization, does that mean you could drink at 20 years and three months? Could you drive at 15 and three months? Could you vote at age 17, and collect Social Security at 64?

For legal purposes, would your birthday still be your “birth” day? Or your fertilization day?

Could you arrest women for smoking or drinking while pregnant? Could the state file a child abuse case against a mother who didn’t wear a seatbelt or otherwise endangered her fetus?

If a doctor doesn't take all possible steps to stop a miscarriage, would that be manslaughter?

Could you post ultrasound photos of your fetus (naked) on Facebook? Or would that be child pornography?

Would you be an American citizen if you were conceived in Mississippi but born elsewhere? Could there be “anchor babies” whose parents come to the United States, have sex, and then return home to Mexico for their baby’s birth?

If a woman eats food contaminated by Listeria and miscarries, could the agribusiness be prosecuted for murder?

What about ectopic pregnancies? If the embryo is not removed, it could kill the mother. Should the mother or the doctor be prosecuted for manslaughter if they remove it? Maybe it would be fairer to prosecute the embryo. If the fertilized egg is a person, isn't that person trying to commit murder-suicide?

Granted, some of these examples seem silly. But their ludicrousness underscores a few things: A) Such an extreme and broad amendment has huge implications on the interpretation of the law moving forward, and B) The amendment is ludicrous from the get-go.

Let's look at the human blastocyst. (By definition of the personhood amendment, a blastocyst would now constitute a person.)

Neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris wrote about blastocysts in relation to the ethics of stem cell research, but his arguments are just as apt in debating 'personhood':

A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. [These] human embryos...do not have brains, or even neurons....Perhaps you think that the crucial difference between a fly and a human blastocyst is to be found in the latter's potential to become a fully developed human being. But almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering. Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings. This is a fact. The argument from a cell's potential gets you absolutely nowhere.

Sure, a fertilized egg has the potential to become a human being. But we must also remember that an acorn is not a tree. It has the potential to become a tree, sure. We must take into consideration the fact that trees evolved to overcompensate -- to produce acorns that outnumber the trees that result from those acorns. This is how nature works.

Twenty percent of all pregnancies result in miscarriage. If all fertilized eggs are 'people,' then 20 percent of all people are killed before they are born. Will there be investigations to determine who was responsible for the untimely death of 1/5 of all 'people' in Mississippi? Will every woman who suffers a miscarriage be interrogated? If it was natural, is God the most prolific serial murderer in Mississippi's history?

Now that I've brought religion into the picture (how can one not?), let's look at this business of souls. Harris writes:

But let us assume, for the moment, that every three-day-old human embryo has a soul worthy of our moral concern. Embryos at this stage occasionally split, becoming separate people (identical twins). Is this a case of one soul splitting into two? Two embryos sometimes fuse into a single individual, called a chimera. You or someone you know may have developed in this way. No doubt theologians are struggling even now to determine what becomes of the extra human soul in such a case.

Isn't it time we admitted that this arithmetic of souls does not make any sense? The naive idea of souls...is intellectually indefensible.

The vote occurring in Mississippi should be very concerning to anyone who cares about privacy, science, liberty, and the enforcement of religious ideology as law. This amendment would ban all abortions, including those that result from incest and rape. It would ban IUDs and 'morning-after pills.' It would render embryonic stem cell research illegal. It would hamper in-vitro fertilization treatment.

God granting personhood to a blastocyst (artist rendering)

And, if successful, it will serve as a template for similar amendments across the country (there are already efforts brewing in Florida, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Wisconsin and other states), and passage could fundamentally transform the entire framework of laws in each state.

But what should be most troubling about this amendment is it attempts to define legally something which has yet to be defined by science. There is no consensus whatsoever as to when 'life' begins. There is no consensus on the definition of 'life,' in reproductive terms. The legislation attempts to define life in language that is in no way scientific. What it attempts to do is say that a bolt comes down from on high at the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, and transforms it into a person.

This is supernaturalism, it's not supported by science, and it's about to become law.

Ray Comfort's Abortion/Holocaust Movie May Be Coming To A High School Near You

If you're familiar with Ray Comfort, you likely know him from of a video that circulated a few years ago featuring Comfort and former teen heartthrob Kirk Cameron, and a banana.

Comfort, enjoying an 'atheist's nightmare'

In that video, Comfort and Cameron, discuss how the banana is the 'atheist's nightmare,' because it is so perfectly designed: it has a natural wrapper (perforated and biodegradable, even!), a pull-tab, fits perfectly in your hand, and it even points towards your mouth as you're eating it. Certainly this is God's design, Comfort argues.

Comfort later offered a pseudo-apology after it was pointed out to him that the modern banana, as you and I know it, is the result of thousands of years of domestication by humans.

Ray Comfort's latest project is '180,' described as "33 minutes that will rock your world!" Comfort describes it as “so powerful that it not only changed the people’s minds about abortion, and made them do a 180 (degree turn in viewpoint), but it made them do a 180 when it comes to their own eternal salvation.”

I've seen the film. While I won't deny that the film has changed some folks' minds on the issue of abortion, I think it's more accurate to describe the film as watching a snake oil salesman coaxing kids into a anti-choice stance through dishonesty, logical fallacies, and emotional coercion. Comfort is a skilled showman. He's a carnival barker with a Bible. What he does in '180' has much more to do with manipulation, and backing kids into ethical corners where they feel they must concede to his viewpoint. Most of these same kids would buckle under similar pitches from car salesmen.

Comfort poses hypothetical dilemmas for the kids, asking if they'd follow Hitler's orders to bury Jews alive with a bulldozer. If they wouldn't, he asks them why. If they say it's because they value life, he asks them how killing per Hitler's orders is different from performing an abortion.

Elie Wiesel responded to Comfort's film by stating, "...Those who call [a woman] a Hitler and relate [abortion] to the Holocaust prove that they do not know what the Holocaust was."

The fact that this movie exists is not terribly surprising. It's simply a viral internet version of an argument that has existed for decades.

What is surprising, however, is the fact that Ray Comfort is trying to get this film into schools under the guise of Holocaust education.

From a press release circulated today:

A free DVD of the award-winning viral movie "180" may be coming to a high school near you. The creator of www.180movie.com, Ray Comfort, said "180 received over a million views in 22 days, because it's 'shocking.' It opens with 14 people (mainly college students) who have no idea of the identity of Adolf Hitler. One reviewer said, 'So, what's a pretty good documentary could have been even stronger without the fools early on.' Perhaps those who are quick to call these students fools lack perception themselves. These young people are rather ignorant as to perhaps the darkest period of human history, because the American education system has failed them."

Late last month, between 180,000 and 200,000 copies of the 33-minute DVD were given out at 100 of America's top universities, and now the Jewish author and TV co-host is turning his attention to high schools. "No doubt some will say that Holocaust education isn't appropriate for high school kids. However, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum says that the appropriate age is '11 years of age and older.' Nelly Silagy Benedek, Director of Education, The Jewish Museum (New York) agrees: 'From my experience, the best age to introduce students to the topic of the Holocaust is in high school.'"

Ray Comfort wants to teach your child about the Holocaust by showing them a movie about abortion and eternal salvation through Jesus Christ.

I hope you won't mind, Ray, if we teach kids about livestock through viewings of Brokeback Mountain, or about the value of physical fitness through viewings of al Qaeda training tapes.

Comfort adds:

"It's evident that many of the States aren't bothering to teach kids about one of the darkest periods of human history. I am concerned that we may become like the U.K. where some schools dropped teaching about the Holocaust for fear of offending Moslems, some of whom deny that the Holocaust even happened. This is more than a travesty, so we are giving hundreds of thousands of kids a free documentary that received more than a million views on YouTube in 22 days. We have already started locally, and they are going like hot cakes on a cold winter's day."

Like hot cakes on a cold winter's day... There's that carnival barker again.

Michele Bachmann: Keep Your Hands Off America's Penises (But Control The Vaginas!)

Today, Michele Bachmann (R-Batshit) posted an article on her Facebook page about a potential ballot measure banning circumcision.  She writes: "Really? So much for "freedom to choose!""

Politifact's reigning Queen Pants-on-Fire apparently thinks the government should stay out of our pants. Except when they shouldn't. So much for "freedom to choose!"

To be fair, nobody ever said Michele Bachmann was consistent. Except for Politifact, I guess. 

Georgia's Miscarriage Bill: Make Way For The Uterus Police

Pro-life conservatives have been using every trick in the book to chip away at Roe v. Wade since the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision.  Recently, we've seen the Personhood movement, the calls to de-fund Planned Parenthood, the GOP's attempt to re-define rape ("If no force is involved, it's not really RAPE-rape, is it?") as a way to reduce instances of federally funded abortions, and bills in Iowa and Nebraska to allow for "Justifiable Homocide" defense against abortion doctors.

GA Rep. Bobby Franklin

But something is brewing in Georgia that takes the cake.  Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin has introduced a bill to criminalize miscarriages and outlaw abortions completely.  Any "prenatal murder" according to the bill, including "human involvement" in a miscarriage, would be a felony and would be punishable by life in prison or death. Yes, death. The bill states that "The State of Georgia has the duty to protect all innocent life from the moment of conception until natural death. We know that life begins at conception."  Yes, that's right. All blastocysts, zygotes and embryos are fetuses, according to the bill, and destruction of any constitutes murder.  The full text of HB 1 can be found here. (Warning: your head may explode.)

The strategy of such bills, it must be noted, includes pushing for legislation that is overreaching and/or provocative such that by compromising on the "crazy" part of the bill, the not-so crazy parts get passed in some form (These parts are usually crazy too, until juxtaposed against the bill's crazier parts).

Over at Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!, a reader (and MD) writes about the chilling effects of such a bill:

"Since 30-90 percent of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, seems, according to Franklin, every woman should be required to track their menstrual cycle, and if there is a variance, they need to account for it to authorities, such that a spontaneous abortion can be investigated to determine if somehow the woman was responsible for the death of a human being."

Sure, this example is hyperbolic to some degree, and Rep. Franklin and the pro-lifers would certainly argue that this is not about punishing those who miscarry under "normal" circumstances.  But who is to decide what is "normal?" And how is a miscarriage's "legality" ascertained?

And isn't it interesting that the same core group of folks who want smaller government and less government intrusion want  to monitor your menstrual cycle?  They want the TSA to stop touching their junk, but want the menstrual police up in yours?

Ladies, get ready for the Uterus Police.