Family Research Council Attacks Obama on Life Starting at Conception

Is this the year of the squirming baby political TV commercial? Following on the heals of the MoveOn.org squirming baby ad, comes the Family Research Council equivalent.

TPM Election Central and the New York Times' Caucus Blog are reporting that the Family Research Council is airing a new TV ad attacking Sen. Barack Obama on the issue of life beginning at conception. The ad is running in Cincinnati, then Atlanta, Dallas and other markets. FRC is not disclosing how much air time they bought or how long the ad will run. Its low production values suggest they are putting more into airing it than making it, but low production values don't work on TV, suggesting this is more of an online effort to provoke news coverage.

In the ad, Tony Perkins, President of FRC, takes issue with Obama talking about fathers being responsible beyond conception, then twists the point Obama made into a question about when life begins. In a statement, Perkins said,

"Barack Obama has made some very important points in his speeches, particularly his speech about fatherhood, but there is a disconnect between when he is saying and the political positions he has taken, and if he is going to be pro family he has got to be pro family."

Here is what Tony Perkins is not saying.

1. If you believe life begins at conception, when egg and sperm meet, then you must also believe, as Perkins and other social conservatives want you to, that contraception and birth control cause abortions and thus should be outlawed. Birth control and contraception are not abortifacients.
2. If you believe life begins at conception, you will also support the Colorado Ballot Initiative to define a fertilized egg as a person, with all the rights and responsibilities of a fully born, living, breathing human being. The problem is, it is impossible to tell exactly when an egg has been fertilized, thus when the "date of birth" (now nine months or so prior to what we currently think of as birth) actually is, and thus when these rights are conferred. There are many other problems with defining eggs as people with rights, as one of our commenters said, "I could now harvest and fertilize dozens of my eggs, and declare them as dependents." The list goes on.
3. If you believe life begins at conception, that the egg is a person and that contraception should be banned, then outlawing abortion for any reason, including rape, incest or the life and health of the mother, will be easy. Most Americans support safe, legal and rare abortion -- especially in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life and health of the mother.
4. By only discussing conception/abortion, an issue many people find difficult to discuss, Tony Perkins and social conservatives have not been honest about their desire to outlaw contraception, and redefine birth as an unknowable moment of fertilization. They have been more upfront about their efforts to teach failed abstinence-only programs in place of comprehensive sexuality education, and come to think of it why not -- if their goal is to outlaw contraception, why would they want to teach people how to be responsible in planning their families.
5. It is possible to be pro-family, pro-sex-ed, pro-contraception, pro-family planning and pro-choice. Tony Perkins does not define what it means to be pro-family.

No, Tony Perkins doesn't go into the detail behind his over-simplified notion of why he wants you to define life as starting at conception. He doesn't tell you that he wants to take away your condoms, birth control pills and other contraceptive devices. He doesn't tell you he wants you to have 5 or more kids just like he does, regardless of your ability to love, provide and care for them, or the circumstances under which you became pregnant.

Tony Perkins won't tell you that the very best way to reduce unintended pregnancies is by empowering women, teaching young people the facts with comprehensive sexuality education, and making sure that contraception is accessible and affordable.

Most importatnly, he won't tell you that instead of engaging Sen. Obama on the point he was making, the importance of responsible parenting, Tony Perkins does what social conservatives always do -- distract the debate about serious issues in this country to focus on the one issue they need to have front and center in order to turn out their base supporters -- abortion. For them, it's not about life, parenting, fatherhood or responsibility -- it is about overturning Roe v. Wade and prohibiting one medical procedure, which will do nothing to reduce abortion, it will only harm women and make them criminals. Like the baby in the ad, anyone who has ever used contraception or wanted to determine when and how many childen to have, should be suirming when they see this ad.

 

Originally posted on RH Reality Check.org

Comments

[arvay]

What uneducated simpletons these right-to-lifers are!

About 50 percent of fertilize eggs never successfully implant themselves in the uterine wall, and are flushed away what doctors calla "spontaneous abortion." Most of these women never realize they were briefly pregnant.

What the hell is God doing here, flushing away all these hapless little blastulas with their little multicellular souls? Do they get raptured our of the sewers of the world along with Rev. Hagee?

It should be obvious that preventing unwanted children from being born will avoid a lot of abuse, neglect and domestic violence.

And the eventual leveling-out and even shrinkage of the human population, so we can live in some reasonable balance with the rest of nature, is a worthy goal. Birth control will help with that. There are more than six billion people. Think about six billion orangutans , wouldn't that be bizarre?

[JimR]

Tony Perkins definitely oversimplifies things, but with all due respect, I think you do also.

[farseer]

Life begins at conception and abortion is murder. The IUD works as an abortifacient and the pill may, in a small percent of cases, work as an abortifacient. There are effective contraceptive methods which do not work by means of abortion.

I think Obama and the Democrats in general are wrong about the abortion issue. OTOH the GOP is wrong about global warming, which has already killed lots of people, is wiping out whole species, is in general ruining the whole planet, and may end up killing more people than abortion. Consequently I support Obama's election.

[swift goat pet for truth]

So, if an egg is fertilized, and does not implant on the uterus wall and is flushed out of the body naturally, is the woman guilty of murder?

[synergie]

um no. That is clearly manslaughter. :-p Though by that logic shouldn't anyone with a vagina be fined for sperm slaughter? Since normal vaginal pH kills most of 'em?

And please don't take my last point to its clear and icky end, we don't want to open that can of worms :-D

[Rockerbabe]

I am a member of a family with lots of people. I and most members of my family fail to see how forced childbearing is pro-family. It seems to me, that forced childbearing and denial of contraception is a disrespectful way to "honor" women, especially women who don't want to be pregnant. Failing to safe guard the female members of a family from death, disablement and recovery from violence is not pro-family; it is abandoment of responsibility to a member of the family. How is dealth and disability pro-family, pro-woman and pro-child? Are women just babymakers and if they can't or won't do that, then they are to be treated is nothing? Since when is denying a person the right of survival, anti-family?
The FRC is a farce, haters of women and disrespectful of women's humanity. They should not be taken seriously and yes, I know they can and have caused much grief, but with the coming of a new President, maybe, women will regain the dignity and self-survival rights and constitutional rights they have and are seeking.

[Merg]

I,too, believe it is possible to have Christian beliefs, and also to believe in Women's equality and be pro choice. The Bible (Scripture is a male interpretation or events and may or may not be entirely valid depending upon the motives of the reporter, just like today's news)

[synergie]

Why is this such an issue? I'm pro choice, and anti-abortion, but pro sex education and encouraging safe sexual practices. Just call the opposition what they are, "anti-personal freedom". Why let them frame this into some moral thing?

And why is it more moral to bring a baby into the world no matter what and then fail to provide for it in any manner. Pro-zygote but anti-child?

[lisakaz2]

Good point. The whole "life begins at conception" mantra is a ruse for most Reichwingers. Birth control pills prevent conception, don't they? Heck, I don't even ovulate anymore, which might have something to do with these pills, but I'll never know for sure. Anyway, the ruse allows this group to bury its unflattering positions that:

They want sex to be punitive, esp. for women (which is consistent with their lack of concern with actual children).

They want the state to have a monopoly on these kids for military service, as if they are a throwaway caste (hence why no criticism on imperialism via EyeRak).

[bigbingtheory]

Stick your family values up your behind Tony.

[optomdoc]

In February 2005 the Surgeon General of the United States posted an updated advisory on alcohol and pregnancy warning that consumption of alcohol before women could be aware that they were pregnant can cause birth defects.

Alcohol research further indicates that the facial deformities associated with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome occur around the 17th to 18th day of conception--and that consumption of alcohol before that time can result in spontaneous abortions.

As there is no warning as to the danger that alcohol poses to the conceptus on the labels of alcohol beverages about the danger prior to becoming aware that a woman is pregnant, it is certainly fair to ask John McCain where he stands on warning women of this danger, as well as what liability should attach to manufacturers (a nd wholesale distributors such as his wife) for their failure to adequately warn of the risk of spontaneous abortions caused by alcohol.

The Alcohol Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 agreed to by the industry and printed on the side of alcohol containersdoes warn women not to drink "during pregnancy." The problem with that warning is that "during" is ambiguous--it can mean "at some point" or "throughout". To prevent spontaneous abortions, women should be advised to use at least two methods of contraception if they choose to drink because of the risk.

[drb2008]

I respect the opinions at this web site. I like to think of my beliefs as those of a conservative. That's a conservative - not the pretenders that dominate "conservative" discussions these days. Anyway, I'm troubled by the concept of the woman's right to choose. It takes two to make a baby. What is the reason that the right to choose is reserved entirely for the woman. I don't believe that Roe v Wade should be overturned necessarily - if anything I believe that its up to the states to determine. I do believe that life begins at conception - but I don't think this issue can be resolved. Its too deep for anything to change. I just don't get where the father ends up in this decision.