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

Braddock wrote:

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.

In regard to rape or actual risk of death, that certainly is a different set of circumstances.  The black and white of it, is the life is being ended, no matter the situation.  However, in those two circumstances, as you say, life is complicated and there should be consideration of the individual circumstances.  Anything elective, however, is sickening.

JohnG@lt wrote:

mek, i'll put an avy bet on the game. 2 weeks, avy of your choice for me if the Colts win, avy of my choice for you if the Jets win. deal?

I'm not Ken Jennings (check the NFL thread)

you got yourself a deal mate

Stingray24 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

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.

In regard to rape or actual risk of death, that certainly is a different set of circumstances.  The black and white of it, is the life is being ended, no matter the situation.  However, in those two circumstances, as you say, life is complicated and there should be consideration of the individual circumstances.  Anything elective, however, is sickening.

My attitude on the issue of rape is that the choices of the mother outweigh those of the child that should never have been conceived in the first place. The woman has already been violated and will most likely never recover fully from her ordeal, for anyone to tell her that she MUST give birth to the child of the man who raped her is simply unfair. A woman should not be forced to change her entire life-plan because of the actions of a rapist. The act of rape itself is traumatic enough, never mind having to pay for it for the rest of your life.

Many argue that the victim should simply give birth and then give the child up for adoption, but this too is not fair. The victim would have to put her life on hold, suffer the public humiliation of being quite obviously the victim of rape by carrying the child for 9 months, go through the ordeal of forming an inevitable bond with the child of her rapist, then ultimately go through the ordeal of giving the child up and living the rest of her life in the knowledge that her offspring is wandering the world possibly with a whole host of abandonment issues.

If the victim wants to have the child then that's great, good for her. I have a friend who decided to keep the child that resulted from her being raped and she's one of the sweetest kids you could imagine.

ruisleipa wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

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

They all have.  I wonder what group cold possibly have led to advert restrictions...

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....

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.

And you disapprove of abortion...why? Because you can't think outside your own life experience to understand other people might not want or be able to look after their children? Or are your arguments based on anything more than totallt subjective points of opinion?

Hmmmm.

On topic of course you're all basiclally right, that if they can afford it, they can show their ad.

Viva viagra?  Any alcohol commercial?  That Jackson shit was planned. 

Actually rammu, I'm against abortion for it is basically murder.  Besides the fact that some doctor tried to kill me without even giving me a chance. kay? Has nothing to do with your near sighted appraisal of me.

Meh, it will be annoying but so are all commercials. On good side of it, that's going to be a 30 second piss break for me so I won't be seeing it. And I won't even miss one of the good Superbowl commercials.

The really annoying part for me really comes from this groups attempt to usurp the voice of families... thanks but no thanks, I speak for my family, I set my family's values and morality. I don't need a group of nuts with an agenda trying to usurp my voice. "focus on the family" indeed, you know what I mean, run around all week shitting on other people and "sinning" and then run to church to get their weekly spiritual enema so that they can go back out and do it all over again. Please, we're all individuals so... do unto others, turn the other cheek and Focus on your own family. In other words, mind you own dam business... with damnation being the operate word for those who meddle in the affairs of other individuals.

Stingray24 wrote:

That's the crucial point in all of this for me ... we have some of the sweetest kids we can imagine out of tragic circumstances.

and that's it. for YOU. now tell me, who are you again to tell others what to do with a small set of their cells which, if not removed, will dramatically change their lives?

Dilbert_X wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Why is someone a bigot here Dilbert?

Single issue nutballs telling people what their can and can't do with their life.

1) What makes you think they're "single issue nutballs"?

2) What makes you think they're telling people what they can and can't do with their life?

Neither of those cases is being laid out, according to the OP.

Telling one's story and the ramifications of one's decision isn't telling someone what they can or can't do with their life. If anything, it's telling someone that they have many more options than they realize at the time.

And the Tebows are anything BUT "single issue nutballs".

Dilbert_X wrote:

No doubt the ads are funded by single issue nutballs.
Unless the Tebows rounded up however many million dollars a super-bowl ad cost?

I'm not saying abortion is terrific by any means, but trying to ban it is wrong.

I don't know who funded the ad. Don't really care. The message of the ad is what is important--there are alternatives to abortion that people need to think about.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Maybe these people could put their efforts towards setting up the adoption processes required to discourage people from having to do it.

How do you know they aren't?

You don't. You just assume they are "one issue nutballs" because the Tebows are known evangelicals.

FEOS wrote:

You don't. You just assume they are "one issue nutballs" because the Tebows are known evangelicals.

Well, there is a precedent for this sort of thing....

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You don't. You just assume they are "one issue nutballs" because the Tebows are known evangelicals.

Well, there is a precedent for this sort of thing....

I guess that's what one gets when one doesn't bother to look any deeper than 1mm on a given topic...

Spoiler (highlight to read):
not you, Turq

I'm just hoping the commerical follows a Viagra ad.

If you want to complain about airing the commercial, focus on the networks relaxing their stance on politically driven issues in their advertising.  They've relaxed their policies recently.  It's got nothing to do with "some douchebag wants to epouse their beliefs on me" - it's the networks making a business decision.  Which means, it probably is possible to buy $1m of airtime to place a pro-weed ad as well.

Last, if you don't want to watch the commercial - don't watch the fucking game.  Christ, if you can't manage your remote control you are a fucking moron.

Mitch 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?

NO. Your thinking like a &()@"+/?#   &-+@"(?# liberal. "Oh its not fair that one side gets to advertise but the other side doesn't, WAHHH, WAHHHHH, WAHHHHHHH"

Shut up. Its up to whoever owns the &+?,#*"@ network. They own the air time, they can sell it to whoever they want. If i were them, i would sell it to whoever the /!$:#? paid most. If a pro-weed&hooker organisation wanted to give me 500mill for a spot, and the anti-weed&hooker org could only pay 200mill. GUESS WHO GETS IT.

What Mitch said, but without the swearing.