In regards to this article from the American Spectator and every other news organization and person out there who seems not to understand what the "big deal" is with the Pam Tebow Super Bowl ad:
No one -- I repeat, no one -- is upset that Pam Tebow (or Sarah Palin or whoever else) chose to give birth to their respective children. What this article and others never seem to mention is the obvious: THEY HAD A CHOICE.
Had Pam Tebow acted on her doctor's advice and had an abortion, she could have, because abortion is legal. (Well, not in the Philippines, but in America, yes.) Sarah Palin could have chosen not to give birth. The fact that they did give birth is fine. Good for them for doing what they felt was best for themselves. The point is, if abortion were illegal (and I'm pretty sure they would like it to be illegal), they would not have had a CHOICE in the matter. They would have had to give birth, by law. Pam Tebow's doctor could have said "this pregnancy is complicated and may result in your death," period. Because if abortion were illegal, that's all he or she could have said. The doctor couldn't recommend an abortion, regardless of the medical situation, if abortion were illegal.
The reason these women and others can pride themselves on "choosing life" is because THEY HAD A CHOICE. Without legal abortion, there would be no legal choice but to give birth.
This is not a case, no matter how hard this article and others try to make it out to be, of feminists being "anti-choice" or "anti-birth" or "anti-women" or "anti-babies" or anything even close to that. This is about feminists pointing out that those women HAD A CHOICE in the first place. This is about anti-choicers touting the CHOICE they made as the only one that should be allowed. If they had their way, no one would have a choice.
Are we clear?
By the way, Slate has an excellent article on the Super Bowl ad today.