How Tim Tebow survived Abortion

Nov 2008
62,219
4,783
Washington state
#62
I call bullshit on the story. Doctors in the Philippines would NOT have encouraged her to abort the fetus, because abortion has been illegal in the Philippines since 1930. Obviously, illegal abortions are available in every country where abortions are banned - but doctors are unlikely to risk criminal prosecution by steering patients toward an illegal procedure.
She was an American, so she could have been advised by Doctors of her condition either in the Philippines or the states. You are assuming she is lying, but have no proof of that FACT CHECK: Tim Tebow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jun 2013
17,626
15,180
Here
#63
Sure. That’s why I vote. But I’m more concerned about people trying to be my thought police and tell me how to think, feel, or act.



People are full of contradictions.

Meaning what? When stuck in the quicksand you ask someone to throw you a rope, then you toss it away, because between the time you asked someone to throw you the rope you decided you didn't want it and as soon as someone pulls the rope away, you decide you want it again? How do you get out of the quicksand? How does this nation stop its self imposed gridlock? How does anyone change what they think is a highly corrupt government to one that is less corrupt when they what they don't want and don't want what they want? Have you ever seen a small child throw a tantrum about something being taken from them, then push it away, when offered back to them, then go into tantrum mode again, when after they push it away, you pull it away from them? This increasingly seems to be the way our current society works

Where's the direction? Where is consistency in values and attention to one's own hypocrisy and double standards? Where is some consistency of thought?

How does one make a law against what they deem to be the "thought police" then enforce it, without doing what they have just outlawed? How does one say you can't restrict me and to ensure you can't, I'm going to restrict YOU, from doing so? Why can't human brains and society formulate voluntary respect for one another, WITHOUT needing rules and regulations from ANY angle, as a means to either remind or enforce people from pissing on one another? I have lived long enough to see some pretty nasty things in life, but NEVER before the last 20-30 years did I feel people were living by double standards saying they don't give a "*&^% what others think, yet at the same time hoping someone will give a *&&^^ what they think. The "Golden Rule" is an ethic of reciprocity, it is not exclusive nor the first such expression of the same "notion" or "advice" or "rule" for a more harmonious society. Ethics of reciprocity have been stated and observed across thousands of years, across all sorts of cultures, included in all kinds of religious thought. It is a very SIMPLE concept, regarding mutual respect and raising our consciousness to THINK before we do or THINK about whether we meet the same standards we expect others to meet. Awareness and respect for others seems to be going by the wayside. Everything is all about "us" and how we are the victims of others, with rarely or nary a thought about how WE might be negatively impacting or disrespecting others. Ethics of reciprocity are self-checks and require, integrity, humility and the honesty needed to keep us from lying to ourselves, about ourselves.

In the analysis, your thoughts on the "thought police" are what? If you are fully a live and let live kind of person, then what's your complaint about the "thought police"? Societies tend to set values based on observance of what causes harm, distress, negatives and general ill will, versus all that is observed to cause the opposite. While some rules and regulations may be arbitrary and based on personal opinion, most rules and regulations come into being because something is causing harm to the "general welfare" and greater good of the people of a society. Your responses seem to indicate that the only rules you like are your own, the only people you trust, is yourself. That's fine and dandy if the population of the earth amounted to one person per 1000 square miles and they rarely, if ever ran into one another and were all totally self sufficient. Because there are roughly 7.6 BILLION people on the planet and someone dumping raw sewage on their OWNED property next to yours, flows into your drinking water supply, some "thought policing" is needed to protect your drinking water from people who "don't THINK" or don't think enough to realize how their dumping could or would affect YOUR drinking water or if they did think enough to know their dumping could, NOT giving two sh*ts about what your "thoughts" are, regarding a need for clean drinking water.
 
Last edited:
Likes: ATLglock
Dec 2018
2,852
1,044
Florida
#64
Meaning what? When stuck in the quicksand you ask someone to throw you a rope, then you toss it away, because between the time you asked someone to throw you the rope you decided you didn't want it and as soon as someone pulls the rope away, you decide you want it again? How do you get out of the quicksand? How does this nation stop its self imposed gridlock? How does anyone change what they think is a highly corrupt government to one that is less corrupt when they want they don't want and don't want what they want?
Historically speaking? With violence

Where's the direction? Where are the values?

How does one make a law against what they deem to be the "thought police" then enforce it, without doing what they have just outlawed? How does one say you can't restrict me and to ensure you can't, I'm going to restrict YOU, from doing so?
I’m going to arm myself with whatever is neccesary to prevent you from restricting me. If it is a gun? A knife? Facts? Or votes? So be it.
 
Jun 2013
17,626
15,180
Here
#65
Historically speaking? With violence



I’m going to arm myself with whatever is neccesary to prevent you from restricting me. If it is a gun? A knife? Facts? Or votes? So be it.

Your suggestion is that violence is needed or that we can leave that sort of "solution" to the "historical?? If you would suggest a need for violence, would that come from the "government of by and for the people" first or come from the Timothy McVeigh types who have single-handedly decided the U.S. government is corrupt and therefore it is okay to kill women, children and babies to exorcise the "tyranny/corruption?

AND???? Your suggestion is ONLY YOU, should be able to "prevent" (is "restrict" a synonym?) what others do, yet THEY have no business, doing the same? That appears to be an incomplete, one way street, thought process. You want to restrict others, from restricting you. And when they show up at your place with bigger TOOLS, to restrict you from restricting them, because they have the bigger bucks to spend on such things, while you're busy worrying about how to put food on the table or choosing whether you eat or buy ammo and weapons to restrict those who wish to restrict you.

An arms race? Escalation?

The Mexican standoff? The point? The progress? Lots of blood and guts before getting around to what you could have done in the first place, without all the blood and guts, by using your whole brain, instead of only half of it and seeing people are just the same as you and want you to stop offending or restricting them, as much as you want them to stop offending or restricting you?

Who on earth WANTS to be tread upon, except perhaps some masochists?

Peaceful and harmonious societies don't "stand their ground"........they find common ground and the things they ALL want in common, then work on a means to achieve that as best they can. We seem to want to spend (waste?) all our time arguing, arming ourselves against one another and even killing one another over whose way of accomplishing the same things all humans want, should be accomplished.

it does seem somewhat reasonable to try to ensure there is some base level that provides for a lack of suffering, before some of us go off hoarding ten or a hundred times what anyone needs to live in luxurious comfort.

Here's a fairly simple thing we can all do. Next time we feel like whining about something or someone, see if we ourselves, live up to the criteria we're holding others too and be honest to ourselves about it. If we don't like others "restricting" or dissing us, then it seems a pretty good bet, they feel the same as we do and don't like it when WE do unto them, as we WOULD NOT, like them, to do, unto us.

It's not a complicated thought process for those who actually put it into practice. For those that don't want to, it seems frivolous and hypocritical to talk about terrible others are, for doing the same things we do......unless we recognize when we offer such critiques, we are including ourselves in those we are critical of.
 
Last edited:

Djinn

Council Hall
Dec 2007
50,526
36,892
Pennsylvania, USA
#66
She was an American, so she could have been advised by Doctors of her condition either in the Philippines or the states. You are assuming she is lying, but have no proof of that FACT CHECK: Tim Tebow
The anecdote says she was in the Philippines, where abortions were illegal. If the article is to be taken at face value, she was not in the United States. Doctors in the Philippines would have risked serious consequences if they recommended illegal procedures to their patients, regardless of their patients' nationalities.
 
Jan 2019
22
27
MD USAa
#67
Not here to change minds. Here to reflect what Liberal minds embrace. Tim Tebow would never have existed in a Liberal mother’s mindset. A Liberal needs to know a unborn child is a human. When they decide to end that life, realize they could be killing a Tebow , Cher, Jack Nicolson, Celine Dion, that survived 12 Famous People Who Were Almost Aborted!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But because s he a preacher?
 
Nov 2008
62,219
4,783
Washington state
#68
The anecdote says she was in the Philippines, where abortions were illegal. If the article is to be taken at face value, she was not in the United States. Doctors in the Philippines would have risked serious consequences if they recommended illegal procedures to their patients, regardless of their patients' nationalities.
I know quite a few Missionaries they don’t spend 100 percent of their time abroad. Depending on which organization the are working thru they are required to come home and speak at all the churches that contribute to their missionary work. They are not allowed to go abroad until they have reached their financial goal. Most spend 50 percent of their time abroad. ( based on what Assembly churches do) Our mission agency told us to expect support raising to take 9-12 months. What should my husband and I do for income during this time? - Ask a Missionary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk