I think there are a lot of pro-choice people out there who are like you and who don't object to this ad. The groups raising a ruckus about it, though, are clearly pro-abortion and not truly pro-choice. If they were really pro-choice they wouldn't object to the ad because it showcases one woman and the choice she made. If they wanted to expand the discussion and showcase other choices, they could make their own ad showing a woman who chose abortion and went on to live a happy life. But that's not what they want to do - the only choice that matters to them is abortion.

Come on, you can't tease us with that! What is the derivation of the word bummer?

I'm confused - are the white people providing the solution to the minority person's problems, or is the "magic negro" providing wisdom to the white people? If the "magic negro" is so smart that he can offer wisdom to the white people, then why can't he solve his own problems? Which is it? Only a brain-dead idiot critic would throw out both of these criticisms without realizing that they are contradictory.

I don't think many people bother to hire tutors for their prized pack animals, or encourage their prized pack animals to go to college. I can understand your objection to comparing Michael Oher to Ferdinand the Bull, but it seems a stretch to assume that that is all the Touheys saw in him.

It's only censorship when the government tells you what you can and cannot watch. When tv execs make the decision to air or not air full frontal nudity, that's not censorship, that's a business decision. Businesses can make decisions that would improve the culture, if they wanted to. Aren't lefties always urging corporations to be good corporate citizens (when they're not villifying them for making a profit)?

But the problem doesn't go away entirely. I may be able to control the culture in my own home by not watching, but I still have to live in a degraded culture when I walk out my front door. My kids have to live in a degraded culture when they go to school. Every time I have to interact with others, I'm dealing with people whose morality has been coarsened by what they choose to watch on tv.

That was exactly my thought - why are food police banning bake sales and vending machines from schools in the name of protecting the children, but letting all kinds of moral filth on the television?

But why do you assume that the people protesting abortion are neglecting the poor, abandoned, and neglected children? Why do you assume people can't do both? Why must it be either/or?

Christianity helps no one? You might want to check out the amount of charitable work Christians do in the world.

The fact that the abortion debate continues 37 years after the Supreme Court decided that they would settle the matter once and for all shows why we should be very wary of Obama, Reid and Pelosi pushing through any legislation that nobody wants.