Anti-abortion group to screen TV ad to 100m Super Bowl viewers

2010-01-23 00:34:20

#1

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6508|teh FIN-land

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ja … owl-advert

https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/1/22/1264180352868/American-footballer-Tim-T-001.jpg

The advert, entitled Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life, will feature Tebow and his mother Pam, who will tell what the group describes as an inspiring story from her life. It has not released details of the advert, but US media have speculated that she will describe a 1987 pregnancy during which she became ill on a missionary trip to the Philippines. She ignored medical advice to have an abortion, instead giving birth to Tim.

Personally, I'd rather they don't show it cos the less Evangleical Religious shite we get (well, it probably won't be on telly here, but 'we' as in 'the world') get on TV the better. Especially in the middle of a sports game. Plus, the fact she gave birth to that eedjut is kind of an argument FOR abortion imo.

But if they show anti-abortion, anti-drug and anti-tobacco ads, shouldn't they also NOT show ads for alcohol?

Or, they should then show PRO-choice and PRO-drug ads. 'Smoke weed, it's better than alcohol'.

2010-01-23 00:39:20

#2

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6666|MN

I agree, if a pro-choice, pro-drug, or pro-tobacco group wants to air an ad, let them.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2010-01-23 02:00:30

#3

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6416|Carnoustie MASSIF

Pro-Drug/Pro-tobacco ads are slightly different from abortion...

Whilst I don't believe that this should be shown during a massive sporting event, you shouldn't have pro-drug/pro-tobacco ads either.

2010-01-23 02:02:34

#4

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6961|Canberra, AUS

A hundred million dollars for politically motivated preaching.

Hooray.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-01-23 02:12:10

#5

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6508|teh FIN-land

CammRobb wrote:
Pro-Drug/Pro-tobacco ads are slightly different from abortion...

Whilst I don't believe that this should be shown during a massive sporting event, you shouldn't have pro-drug/pro-tobacco ads either.

No me neither, but it's all or nothing innit? Or it should be.

2010-01-23 02:18:28

#6

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6416|Carnoustie MASSIF

ruisleipa wrote:
CammRobb wrote:
Pro-Drug/Pro-tobacco ads are slightly different from abortion...

Whilst I don't believe that this should be shown during a massive sporting event, you shouldn't have pro-drug/pro-tobacco ads either.
No me neither, but it's all or nothing innit? Or it should be.

Having nothing shown implies a draconian level of blinkering, you have to have some level of advertising/pro-whatever adverts.

2010-01-23 02:23:11

#7

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6508|teh FIN-land

No no, I mean - if you have an anti-abortion ad, there should also be a pro-choice ad. I don't mean there shouldn't be ANY advertising at all, necessarily. I was actually agreeing with you (I think) - you shouldn't have pro- or anti- abortion ads during a sporting event for example, but IF you have one, you should have the other. Something like that. Not sure about the 'draconian level of blinkering'. Me?

2010-01-23 02:24:50

#8

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6416|Carnoustie MASSIF

ruisleipa wrote:
No no, I mean - if you have an anti-abortion ad, there should also be a pro-choice ad. I don't mean there shouldn't be ANY advertising at all, necessarily. I was actually agreeing with you (I think) - you shouldn't have pro- or anti- abortion ads during a sporting event for example, but IF you have one, you should have the other. Something like that. Not sure about the 'draconian level of blinkering'. Me?

Ahh, sorry, misunderstood you. Yeah, you're totally right, you shoulda have either both sides of the argument being represented or neither of them. Makes perfect sense.

2010-01-23 02:26:29

#9

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|7018|St. Andrews / Oslo

This is, imo, the toughest part of the abortion debate. Telling a healthy, succesful person that "you shouldn't have existed".

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png

2010-01-23 02:28:02

#10

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6416|Carnoustie MASSIF

Jenspm wrote:
This is, imo, the toughest part of the abortion debate. Telling a healthy, succesful person that "you shouldn't have existed".

If you're big enough and emotionally aware enough to contemplate that, you should also be prepared enough to admit that to the person who's life you could have easily ended abruptly.

2010-01-23 08:28:43

#11

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6971|United States of America

CammRobb wrote:
ruisleipa wrote:
No no, I mean - if you have an anti-abortion ad, there should also be a pro-choice ad. I don't mean there shouldn't be ANY advertising at all, necessarily. I was actually agreeing with you (I think) - you shouldn't have pro- or anti- abortion ads during a sporting event for example, but IF you have one, you should have the other. Something like that. Not sure about the 'draconian level of blinkering'. Me?
Ahh, sorry, misunderstood you. Yeah, you're totally right, you shoulda have either both sides of the argument being represented or neither of them. Makes perfect sense.

What makes you say that? One side can afford to put an ad in and has the will to do so, the other folks shouldn't get a free ride in the interest of fairness. It's all about the $$$.

2010-01-23 08:31:20

#12

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

DesertFox- wrote:
CammRobb wrote:
ruisleipa wrote:
No no, I mean - if you have an anti-abortion ad, there should also be a pro-choice ad. I don't mean there shouldn't be ANY advertising at all, necessarily. I was actually agreeing with you (I think) - you shouldn't have pro- or anti- abortion ads during a sporting event for example, but IF you have one, you should have the other. Something like that. Not sure about the 'draconian level of blinkering'. Me?
Ahh, sorry, misunderstood you. Yeah, you're totally right, you shoulda have either both sides of the argument being represented or neither of them. Makes perfect sense.
What makes you say that? One side can afford to put an ad in and has the will to do so, the other folks shouldn't get a free ride in the interest of fairness. It's all about the $$$.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-23 08:37:59

#13

jord: Member; +2,382|6964|The North, beyond the wall.

Who has their opinion changed by an ad during a sports game?

2010-01-23 08:38:52

#14

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6508|teh FIN-land

DesertFox- wrote:
CammRobb wrote:
ruisleipa wrote:
No no, I mean - if you have an anti-abortion ad, there should also be a pro-choice ad. I don't mean there shouldn't be ANY advertising at all, necessarily. I was actually agreeing with you (I think) - you shouldn't have pro- or anti- abortion ads during a sporting event for example, but IF you have one, you should have the other. Something like that. Not sure about the 'draconian level of blinkering'. Me?
Ahh, sorry, misunderstood you. Yeah, you're totally right, you shoulda have either both sides of the argument being represented or neither of them. Makes perfect sense.
What makes you say that? One side can afford to put an ad in and has the will to do so, the other folks shouldn't get a free ride in the interest of fairness. It's all about the $$$.

OK that's true, it is all about if you can pay for it or not. BUT I strongly suspect (and it's only a suspicion, I admit) that IF a pro-choice group wanted to put an ad up, or a pro-marijuana, or whatever, there would be a massive hue and cry about it and it probably wouldn't get shown. Nonethless, having a thirty second ad is hardly a brilliant way to get across all the intricacies and uncertainties of the abortion debate. Of course, they don't want to get people to THINK about it, they just want people to FOLLOW them...

2010-01-23 08:41:06

#15

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

ruisleipa wrote:
DesertFox- wrote:
CammRobb wrote:
Ahh, sorry, misunderstood you. Yeah, you're totally right, you shoulda have either both sides of the argument being represented or neither of them. Makes perfect sense.
What makes you say that? One side can afford to put an ad in and has the will to do so, the other folks shouldn't get a free ride in the interest of fairness. It's all about the $$$.
OK that's true, it is all about if you can pay for it or not. BUT I strongly suspect (and it's only a suspicion, I admit) that IF a pro-choice group wanted to put an ad up, or a pro-marijuana, or whatever, there would be a massive hue and cry about it and it probably wouldn't get shown. Nonethless, having a thirty second ad is hardly a brilliant way to get across all the intricacies and uncertainties of the abortion debate. Of course, they don't want to get people to THINK about it, they just want people to FOLLOW them...

Marijuana is illegal. So no, you wouldn't be able to run an ad promoting marijuana usage.

And a pro-choice ad would be perfectly fine on tv. Abortion is legal.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-23 08:42:20)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-23 08:41:50

#16

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6508|teh FIN-land

oh plus the fact that they're not SELLING A product they're espousing a moral or religious belief. Like with political parties, there should be the possibility of opposing points of view being shown as well. imo.

2010-01-23 08:41:55

#17

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5545|foggy bottom

you could for medicinal purposes in california.

Tu Stultus Es

2010-01-23 08:42:24

#18

S3v3N: lolwut?; +685|6804|Montucky

i'll be too drunk during the superbowl to care anyway..

2010-01-23 08:42:25

#19

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7061|Moscow, Russia

jord wrote:
Who has their opinion changed by an ad during a sports game?

consciously? nobody. but...

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2010-01-23 08:43:01

#20

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

ruisleipa wrote:
oh plus the fact that they're not SELLING A product they're espousing a moral or religious belief. Like with political parties, there should be the possibility of opposing points of view being shown as well. imo.

So pay for the ad time. You don't get face time on tv just because you have an opposing point of view. That's just silly.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-23 08:48:48

#21

cpt.fass1: The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n; +329|6982|NJ

It's America, you can pretty much do what every you want as long as your willing to pay for it.

2010-01-23 17:21:21

#22

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6666|MN

CammRobb wrote:
Pro-Drug/Pro-tobacco ads are slightly different from abortion...

Whilst I don't believe that this should be shown during a massive sporting event, you shouldn't have pro-drug/pro-tobacco ads either.

Public outcry will dictate what is acceptable. The Stations airing the Ad are the ones who will determine what they show based on that. If any group wants to TRY to air an ad, have at it I say. If the station thinks the public is OK with it, they will air it, if not, they should not be forced to air anything.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2010-01-23 17:23:09

#23

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6961|Canberra, AUS

JohnG@lt wrote:
DesertFox- wrote:
CammRobb wrote:

Ahh, sorry, misunderstood you. Yeah, you're totally right, you shoulda have either both sides of the argument being represented or neither of them. Makes perfect sense.
What makes you say that? One side can afford to put an ad in and has the will to do so, the other folks shouldn't get a free ride in the interest of fairness. It's all about the $$$.

Unfortunately, as much as it sickens me, this. 100 million is bad enough, 200 million is downright disgusting.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-01-23 18:19:23

#24

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,056|7058|PNW

ruisleipa wrote:
No no, I mean - if you have an anti-abortion ad, there should also be a pro-choice ad. I don't mean there shouldn't be ANY advertising at all, necessarily. I was actually agreeing with you (I think) - you shouldn't have pro- or anti- abortion ads during a sporting event for example, but IF you have one, you should have the other. Something like that. Not sure about the 'draconian level of blinkering'. Me?

If the pro-choice people want to air an ad too, let them. I don't see why media should be forced to have fair content variety.

2010-01-23 18:31:51

#25

Narupug: Fodder Mostly; +150|5883|Vacationland

It's Fox, they're probably showing it for almost nothing

BF2S Forums Anti-abortion group to screen TV ad to 100m Super Bowl viewers

CammRobb wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

jord wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Board footer