if youre gonna let a commercial during the suiperbowl change your opinion on abortion, you didnt have very strong opinions
Tu Stultus Es
i bet you try and stare at goats now.eleven bravo wrote:
if youre gonna let a commercial during the suiperbowl change your opinion on abortion, you didnt have very strong opinions
They all have. I wonder what group cold possibly have led to advert restrictions...LividBovine wrote:
I agree, if a pro-choice, pro-drug, or pro-tobacco group wants to air an ad, let them.
I see wot yu did thar. Ya dick.Catbox wrote:
If you had the money ruislemunnition... you could buy airtime for an "I Hate America and everything about it" commercial. lol j/k kind of
you've seen a pro-drug ad on at the superbowl? I just remember the isane fuss after Janet Jackson showed 0.5 nanoseconds of tit that one time. lmao so funny the moral outrage.DBBrinson1 wrote:
They all have. I wonder what group cold possibly have led to advert restrictions...LividBovine wrote:
I agree, if a pro-choice, pro-drug, or pro-tobacco group wants to air an ad, let them.
Let em run the advertisment. It could save a life. I was a 'teebow' baby long before he was a sparkle in daddy's eye. That's right the doctors gave mumsie a bad diagnostic and reccomendation. If she followed their advice -no me. Can't understand why I dissaprove of abortion....
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-01-24 01:28:40)
Single issue nutballs telling people what their can and can't do with their life.LividBovine wrote:
Why is someone a bigot here Dilbert?
agree. but i agree with the rape thing also. they need to set limits.Stingray24 wrote:
The problem is, Braddock, that the vast majority of abortions are retroactive contraception. And Planned Parenthood and similar organizations are making bank on that. If that's not reprehensible, I'm not sure what is.
That doesn't mean you should just outright ban abortion and use religion to back yourself up. It just means that there are flaws in the system, and in society, that needs to be fixed. Blanket bans are never a solution to anything. That's my take on abortion.Stingray24 wrote:
The problem is, Braddock, that the vast majority of abortions are retroactive contraception. And Planned Parenthood and similar organizations are making bank on that. If that's not reprehensible, I'm not sure what is.
That may be so (though I've never seen any facts or figures to agree or disagree with your claim) but my opinion is unchanged as the option simply has to be there for women who are the victim of rape or might be at risk of death through childbirth themselves. If a woman has been violated in the most violent and horrific way possible who is anyone to tell her what she can or cannot do with the bundle of cells that have been placed inside her womb without her consent? And if a woman stands the very real risk of dying through childbirth who is the State to decide whether she lives of dies? What if she has 7 other children who will have to live without a mother if she dies... nothing is ever black and white, life is complicated.Stingray24 wrote:
The problem is, Braddock, that the vast majority of abortions are retroactive contraception. And Planned Parenthood and similar organizations are making bank on that. If that's not reprehensible, I'm not sure what is.
Mekstizzle wrote:
It's on the BBC over here, which means good old socialist state sponsored programming with no commercial adverts slash political dogma.
also if the Jets are gonna somehow be in it I'll refuse to watch the game entirely, but that's another thread
fucking new york...