I Don't Get Why The Upcoming Tebow Spot Is So Controversial?

[MARIS61]

You can't have it both ways.

Nearly all "Right to force people to have unwanted babies" proponents, or "Pro-lifers" as they erroneously call themselves, paradoxically oppose any and all public taxation to provide the lifelong social services these unwanted children will need to become and remain productive citizens.

 

[ABM]

You can't have it both ways.

Nearly all "Right to force people to have unwanted babies" proponents....

Unwanted babies is a result of unoquivocal irresponsibility upstream

 

[STOMP]

Unwanted babies is a result of unoquivocal irresponsibility upstream

education and access to condoms has shown to significantly lower unwanted pregnancies but the religious right is against that too, counting solely on proven loser abstinence only teachings and attacking everything else. It's not just the couple that has the baby that is responsible for unwanted pregnancies, it's also the taxpayer who bears the cost. I'd rather owe less then more.

I'll ask it again... when the Republicans had a born again in the White House, a decided advantage in the Senate, and the Supreme Court, why didn't they challenge Roe v Wade once?

STOMP

 

[ABM]

I'll ask it again... when the Republicans had a born again in the White House, a decided advantage in the Senate, and the Supreme Court, why didn't they challenge Roe v Wade once?STOMP

Personally, I don't think it's the Government's place to stipulate - one way or the other. However, I believe it "is" its obligation to educate the masses....such as Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign, which turned out to be quite successful at the time.

Therefore, I think it's absolutely appropriate/fine - during a national event - for Tebow and his Mom to declare their celebration of life.

 

[Denny Crane]

when the Republicans had a born again President, a decided advantage in the Senate, and the Supreme Court, why didn't they challenge Roe v Wade once? It would seem that their fundamentalist base would want to know why they never once stood up and acted on their rhetoric maybe because it is settled law and to do so would be political suicide as most of America is very much in favor of the right to choose?

STOMP

Because all the fearmongering that they would do so was unfounded.

 

[Denny Crane]

I really don't see what the fuss is all about here. Nobody's even seen the commercial yet, so there's nothing specific to protest. If anything, the decision by CBS to air an advocacy ad at all might be questionable.

I happen to be quite pro-choice, but I have no problem with ANY rhetoric (short of threat of physical harm) against it. Even if the ad were to advocate banning abortion, we all have the right to agree or disagree with it. If the ad convinces women to not have abortions, that is their decision. It all boils down to the woman's decision, period, and doctors shouldn't advocate abortions nor other options but should provide the options and let the woman choose, than facilitate that choice.

As far as the ad goes, it's a business deal between an advertiser and CBS. Nothing illegal about it. If the womens' rights groups want to buy ads to counter whats in this ad, I think they should go for it.

 

[STOMP]

Personally, I don't think it's the Government's place to stipulate - one way or the other. However, I believe it "is" its obligation to educate the masses....such as Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign, which turned out to be quite successful at the time.

so you support Planned Parenthood type education and the like or do you want to cling to the narrow scope of pushing abstinence only education despite it's clear failure?

Therefore, I think it's absolutely appropriate/fine - during a national event - for Tebow and his Mom to declare their celebration of life.

I haven't seen the ad, so I don't really know what it's about. If it's just about a mother and son celebrating life, whats to debate? If it's more them pushing unpopular political/religious views on the general population, I can understand why some chafe.

Me? I plan to be snowboarding (if the conditions are good) or hiking while everyone else is watching TV!

STOMP

 

[STOMP]

I really don't see what the fuss is all about here. Nobody's even seen the commercial yet, so there's nothing specific to protest. If anything, the decision by CBS to air an advocacy ad at all might be questionable.

after my last post I did some digging on google to see whats what. Very interesting first hit suggesting that their inspirational story is BS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/tim-tebow-super-bowl-ad-m_n_442808.html

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

after my last post I did some digging on google to see whats what. Very interesting first hit suggesting that their inspirational story is BS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/tim-tebow-super-bowl-ad-m_n_442808.html

STOMP

That article is nonsense.

There were 500,000 fully legal abortions the year before Roe v. Wade decision. It was legal in California and New York, as well as many other states.

Note that while it might have been illegal in the state she was in or lived in, it's fully legal to go to a state where it is legal and have one. Just like it's always been legal to gamble in Vegas while it was illegal in peoples' home states.

 

[STOMP]

That article is nonsense.

There were 500,000 fully legal abortions the year before Roe v. Wade decision. It was legal in California and New York, as well as many other states.

Note that while it might have been illegal in the state she was in or lived in, it's fully legal to go to a state where it is legal and have one. Just like it's always been legal to gamble in Vegas while it was illegal in peoples' home states.

Nonsense? Certainly it's a much longer flight from the Philippines to the states then from the East Coast to Vegas... It will be interesting to hear what sort of sickness she had that would have them recommending that she take a long flight back to the US and have an abortion. It seems farfetched to me that this is what the Philippine doctors were advocating and it certainly wasn't what her group's docs were pushing.

I hope she doesn't go light on the details about her illness

STOMP

 

[Eastoff]

But when is the right to choose? Is it before or after conception? If you have sexual relations knowing full well that pregnancy is a very possible consequence, isn't your choice then? Why snuff out the possibility for human life?

This of course excludes rape-pregnancy which is a very, very sensitive issue.

because condoms are not 100% nor is a pill. Although if you used both it is close to 99%. My health teacher in HS told us that she was a failed condom and her sister a failed diaphram. The reason people get abortions is because they do not think they can support a child at this time in their life.


Do you (everyone not just Sebastian at this point) really think a fetus has more self-awareness than a dog?

The reason people are upset, is because the superbowl decided an ad for a church that accepts gays was too controversial three years ago(don't remember number exactly).

The right to choose life is fine. It's when it because not a choice. When it's mandatory to not have an abortion. When you don't have a choice.

 

[ABM]

so you support Planned Parenthood type education and the like.....

I'm not necessarily against Planned Parenthood education so long as they're not "assisting" adolescents/minors in receiving birth control and/or abortions. As I understand, these kids can even get all of this stuff without their parents' knowledge. To me, that's inherently wrong..........and potentially dangerous, to boot.

 

[Eastoff]

such as Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign, which turned out to be quite successful at the time.

haha really? you think that was a success? You think the people who are likely to actually use "drugs" (ie not alcohol and cigarettes) are going to change their mind because a first lady says it's bad?

 

[Eastoff]

I'm not necessarily against Planned Parenthood education so long as they're not "assisting" adolescents/minors in receiving birth control and/or abortions. As I understand, these kids can even get all of this stuff without their parents' knowledge. To me, that's inherently wrong..........and potentially dangerous, to boot.

the parents have to be informed (varying on state) if you are under 16 I believe.

 

[Eastoff]

I'm not necessarily against Planned Parenthood education so long as they're not "assisting" adolescents/minors in receiving birth control and/or abortions. As I understand, these kids can even get all of this stuff without their parents' knowledge. To me, that's inherently wrong..........and potentially dangerous, to boot.

http://www.openeducation.net/2009/0...ducation-statistics-final-nail-in-the-coffin/

First, the rate of the teens taking part in sex was the same. Those taking the virginity pledge were just as likely to have intercourse. The only positive, statistically small, was that those taking the pledge had 0.1 fewer sex partners over the five year study than did those who did not take such a pledge.

However, two other findings were most damning. First, those taking the virginity pledge were less likely to protect themselves. Pledge takers were found to be less frequent users of condoms and other forms of birth control.

 

[ABM]

haha really? you think that was a success? You think the people who are likely to actually use "drugs" (ie not alcohol and cigarettes) are going to change their mind because a first lady says it's bad?

I think it worked for awhile. However, there needs to be solid and consistent education for it to maintain its effectiveness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_No

There is evidence to suggest that drug use and abuse significantly declined during the Reagan presidency.[11][12][13] According to research conducted by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, more young people in the 1980s were saying no to drugs.[11] High school seniors using marijuana dropped from 50.1% in 1978 to 36% in 1987,[11] to 12% in 1991[13] and the percentage of students using other drugs decreased in a similar fashion.[11] Psychedelic drug use dropped from 11% to 6%, cocaine from 12% to 10%, and heroin from 1% to 0.5%.[11]

Though a complete correlation between the drop in drug use and the Just Say No campaign cannot be definitely established, there is little doubt that Nancy Reagan's efforts of speaking out forcefully against drugs increased public awareness of the problem.[11]

The campaign drew some criticism from those who argued that the program was too costly.[14] Author Jeff Elliott stated that the Reagan administration's synonymous use of the terms "drug use" and "drug abuse" was improper, and that drug use in America was underestimated; Dr. Michael Newcomb claimed that there is "no evidence that most people who experiment with drugs get hooked."[14] It was also argued that the program did not go far enough in addressing many social issues including unemployment, poverty, and family dissolution;[14] Nancy Reagan's approach to promoting drug awareness was also labeled simplistic by critics who argued that the solution had been reduced to a catch phrase.[15]

 

[Denny Crane]

Nonsense? Certainly it's a much longer flight from the Philippines to the states then from the East Coast to Vegas... It will be interesting to hear what sort of sickness she had that would have them recommending that she take a long flight back to the US and have an abortion. It seems farfetched to me that this is what the Philippine doctors were advocating and it certainly wasn't what her group's docs were pushing.

I hope she doesn't go light on the details about her illness

STOMP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Philippines

One study estimated that, despite legal restrictions, in 1994 there were 400,000 abortions performed illegally in the Philippines and 80,000 hospitalizations of women for abortion-related complications. 12% of all maternal deaths in 1994 were due to unsafe abortion according to the Department of Health of the Philippines. Two-thirds of Filipino women who have abortions attempt to self-induce or seek solutions from those who practice folk medicine. [3]
The Department of Health has created a program to address the complications of unsafe abortion, Prevention and Management of Abortion and its Complications. This program had been tested in 17 government-run hospitals by 2003. [3]

I'm failing to see what Alred's issue is. There was no abortion performed, and clearly doctors are performing and suggesting abortions to women there.

 

[STOMP]

I'm failing to see what Alred's issue is. There was no abortion performed, and clearly doctors are performing and suggesting abortions to women there.

those statistics you relayed point to people other then doctors performing the abortions probably in less then sanitary conditions. Thats what happens when you make it illegal.

STOMP

 

[oldmangrouch]

Personally, I would be happier if ALL political ads were off limits for sporting events.

 

[STOMP]

I'm not necessarily against Planned Parenthood education so long as they're not "assisting" adolescents/minors in receiving birth control and/or abortions.

who should be assisting adolescents/minors in receiving birth control and/or abortions? Their parents? 15ish is the average age of losing virginity so obviously thats problematic.

As I understand, these kids can even get all of this stuff without their parents' knowledge. To me, that's inherently wrong..........and potentially dangerous, to boot.

we've established that kids are going to have sex whether they have access to birth control or not and that abstinence only doesn't work. So kids are the constant here, they're going to fuck. Adults setting policy are the one's responsible for dealing with the knowledge of this constant. For policy I'm for whatever brings about the lowest rate of unwanted pregnancies and spread of STDs/AIDS.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/21606.php

STOMP

 

[STOMP]

Personally, I would be happier if ALL political ads were off limits for sporting events.

how do you feel about being warned about erections lasting longer then 4 hours every single break?

STOMP

 

[Eastoff]

Personally, I would be happier if ALL political ads were off limits for sporting events.

I think this is a good rule of thumb. As we can tell, sports fans and politics get pretty heated.

 

[Eastoff]

who should be assisting adolescents/minors in receiving birth control and/or abortions? Their parents? 15ish is the average age of losing virginity so obviously thats problematic.

we've established that kids are going to have sex whether they have access to birth control or not and that abstinence only doesn't work. So kids are the constant here, they're going to fuck. Adults setting policy are the one's responsible for dealing with the knowledge of this constant. For policy I'm for whatever brings about the lowest rate of unwanted pregnancies and spread of STDs/AIDS.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/21606.php

STOMP

No joke, some of the bigger supporters of abstinence only and turn to christ, were the ones smoking pot and having sex in high school from the stories of my aunts and uncles and hearsay of co-workers.

 

[STOMP]

another interesting find on my dig.

The organization thats funding the ad (Family First) is against abortion "under all circumstances, except in the rare instance when the mother's life is threatened by continuing the pregnancy" according to their website. Isn't that what is supposed to have been the case here?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/19/news/companies/focus_on_family_super_bowl/

STOMP

 

[STOMP]

I think this is a good rule of thumb. As we can tell, sports fans and politics get pretty heated.

at risk of derailing the thread, do you know the origin of the term rule of thumb?

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

those statistics you relayed point to people other then doctors performing the abortions probably in less then sanitary conditions. Thats what happens when you make it illegal.

STOMP

I agree. It shouldn't be illegal.

At issue is what cause Alred thinks she can sue.

None, unless there's slander or libel.

 

[Eastoff]

at risk of derailing the thread, do you know the origin of the term rule of thumb?

STOMP

yeah, i heard about it in boondock saints. wife beating is awful, but I think we're passed it.

 

[STOMP]

I agree. It shouldn't be illegal.

At issue is what cause Alred thinks she can sue.

None, unless there's slander or libel.

okay, I don't really care about that aspect too much. If the Tebows want to do politics during the Super Bowl and they tell a story that doesn't ring true, I'd expect that there would be some scrutiny/attention.

apparently this Family First group has made some enemies

STOMP

 

[The Sebastian Express]

because condoms are not 100% nor is a pill. Although if you used both it is close to 99%. My health teacher in HS told us that she was a failed condom and her sister a failed diaphram. The reason people get abortions is because they do not think they can support a child at this time in their life.

The only thing that is 100% is simply not having sex, or you know people being completely sterile. If you don't want to risk getting pregnant then simply do not engage in sex. Why should life be snuffed out because someone cannot support a child at that time in their life? There are many people unable to have babies that would love to adopt one.

Do you (everyone not just Sebastian at this point) really think a fetus has more self-awareness than a dog?

.

No, but do you really think that a fetus doesn't deserve the chance to grow into something that can become a wonderful human being? Why should that chance at life be taken away because someone else was irresponsible and careless?

The reason people are upset, is because the superbowl decided an ad for a church that accepts gays was too controversial three years ago(don't remember number exactly).

Three years ago is not now, and I'd have to see the ad to see if it was declined for legitimate purposes. There is a reason the recent ManCrunch ad was declined, and it was legitimate.

The right to choose life is fine. It's when it because not a choice. When it's mandatory to not have an abortion. When you don't have a choice.

Your choice should be to engage in sex or not when you know there are consequences involved. Someone can't drink and drive then kill someone and be like "sorry! didn't know the consequences of drinking and driving."

And that analogy is sure to anger some people.

 

[Eastoff]

The only thing that is 100% is simply not having sex, or you know people being completely sterile. If you don't want to risk getting pregnant then simply do not engage in sex. Why should life be snuffed out because someone cannot support a child at that time in their life? There are many people unable to have babies that would love to adopt one.

You think the solution is to put more children into foster care? More babies probably get adopted from outside the US than inside.

No, but do you really think that a fetus doesn't deserve the chance to grow into something that can become a wonderful human being? Why should that chance at life be taken away because someone else was irresponsible and careless?

Why should the likelihood of an awful life be forced?

Three years ago is not now, and I'd have to see the ad to see if it was declined for legitimate purposes. There is a reason the recent ManCrunch ad was declined, and it was legitimate.

You really think the country has changed much in 3 years on that aspect of culture?

Your choice should be to engage in sex or not when you know there are consequences involved. Someone can't drink and drive then kill someone and be like "sorry! didn't know the consequences of drinking and driving."

And that analogy is sure to anger some people.

There is a BIG difference between drinking and driving and having sex. One can still drink, and simply not drive, just like having sex with protection. You do realize that the average american has sex on the third date now, right?