Anti-Choice Tim Tebow Ad to Air During Superbowl

[Cooper]

www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=12182

"Focus on the Family will air a 30 second anti-choice ad featuring University of Florida football star Tim Tebow during the Superbowl. The ad will feature the story of how Tebow's mother chose against having an abortion during her complicated pregnancy contrary to her doctors advice."

Focus on the Family is a conservative Christian organization.

Do you think that such an ad should be shown during the Super Bowl?

[Details]

At first, I was very much against it - because the Superbowl had a long standing policy of not allowing ads on 'controversial' subjects. So, they changed the rules, but only for one side of the debate.

Given that they've made it clear they've changed the rules for all, that is fine with me.

I think they're making the wrong choice - the Superbowl should be something more fun and frivolous - I think their original rule was a better option.

And I think it's very ironic to see a pro-life ad highlighting a CHOICE the mother made, not to mention highlighting the very real issues a real mother faces - she has a risk to her health, 4 other children, does she risk her life, and risk abandoning 4 children to have another? Or does she have the abortion? It's a choice only she can make - so it's really ironic to see that highlighted in a pro-life group's ad.

[crocdog1]

At first, I was very much against it - because the Superbowl had a long standing policy of not allowing ads on 'controversial' subjects. So, they changed the rules, but only for one side of the debate.

Given that they've made it clear they've changed the rules for all, that is fine with me.

I think they're making the wrong choice - the Superbowl should be something more fun and frivolous - I think their original rule was a better option.

And I think it's very ironic to see a pro-life ad highlighting a CHOICE the mother made, not to mention highlighting the very real issues a real mother faces - she has a risk to her health, 4 other children, does she risk her life, and risk abandoning 4 children to have another? Or does she have the abortion? It's a choice only she can make - so it's really ironic to see that highlighted in a pro-life group's ad.

Funny, isn't it?

I was thinking the same thing. A Pro- Life organization talking about CHOICES a woman makes regards her personal body.

HELLO OUT THERE!!! IF A WOMAN MAKES A PERSONAL CHOICE ABOUT HER BODY, THAT IS WHAT PRO CHOICE IS ALL ABOUT.

So why all the fuss, and why the AD?

Just My Humble Opinion

Please note: underline, bold, size and caps are for emphasis only.

[Cooper]

Croc,

The fuss is about this: Both Tim Tebow and his mother are anti choice, as Fundamentalist Christians. They have stated so in public. They like their choice but want to take choice out of the equation for other women.

I say Tim Tebow does not have to have an abortion if he doesn't want one. Neither does his mother.

[Carol25]

Unless the mother of a child is in jeopardy or incest, there should be no reason for this choice of murder.

The woman had a choice when she accepted the sperm in her body. From that point on, she is a vessel to keep the baby warm, nourished and complete his development until he/she is ready for the outside world.

I was pregnant berfore I was married and my mother was a product of a rape. The choice never enter my or my grandmothers mind to abort the babies. I consider abortions murder for any other reason..

[LisaM22]

yep, the ad is about a women who made a choice, a pro-choice choice - do republicans want to take that choice away from women and have the government decide for them when they can and can not give birth?

[pixiejoolz]

Unless the mother of a child is in jeopardy or incest, there should be no reason for this choice of murder.

The woman had a choice when she accepted the sperm in her body. From that point on, she is a vessel to keep the baby warm, nourished and complete his development until he/she is ready for the outside world.

I was pregnant berfore I was married and my mother was a product of a rape. The choice never enter my or my grandmothers mind to abort the babies. I consider abortions murder for any other reason..

See Roe v. Wade for a different opinion. Oh, by the way, and the law.

Your choices, your family history and your opinions are personal, not legal, and I'm very happy that they have nothing to do with anyone else's freedom to make different choices.

If you really believe that a woman is nothing more than "a vessel" once she is pregnant, then you shouldn't even support abortion as a life-saving measure because clearly, the baby is more important the the mother.
jmo

jmo

[LisaM22]

Unless the mother of a child is in jeopardy or incest, there should be no reason for this choice of murder.

The woman had a choice when she accepted the sperm in her body. From that point on, she is a vessel to keep the baby warm, nourished and complete his development until he/she is ready for the outside world.

I was pregnant berfore I was married and my mother was a product of a rape. The choice never enter my or my grandmothers mind to abort the babies. I consider abortions murder for any other reason..

women are nothing more then baby machines to some, not everyone believes life starts at conception, many Christians believe life starts at the first breath of life, which is why that is day we consider ourselves born into this world and mark it with a birthday

we have millions of cells in our bodies that are constantly renewing themselves, but alone they are not alive, do a biopsy of the skin in your arm and the cells will be alive too, but we do not worry about killing them, because it's not a life in the same sense - just as when a sperm and egg first meet it is not a life in the same sense as a baby, at that point it is a potential life and noting more, and the skin cells from earlier are potential lives too, as are all the sperm cells wasted after sex, should we consider that mass murder? how about natural abortions, should we get life insurance payouts on those if our life insurance includes our children? I think not

personaly I think life starts at about 26 weeks, but that is just my belief, so that would effect my choice - using my own stem cells for research or to repair damaged organs or cells would not be a issue at all with my beliefs, and once science gets to that point I am sure it will not be a problem for the majority of Americans beliefs

conscious meter
http://www.slate.com/id/2120872/
"a member of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn't possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain. Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead."

[crocdog1]

Unless the mother of a child is in jeopardy or incest, there should be no reason for this choice of murder.

The woman had a choice when she accepted the sperm in her body. From that point on, she is a vessel to keep the baby warm, nourished and complete his development until he/she is ready for the outside world.

I was pregnant berfore I was married and my mother was a product of a rape. The choice never enter my or my grandmothers mind to abort the babies. I consider abortions murder for any other reason..

RE:[The woman had a choice when she accepted the sperm in her body.]

IMO, if a woman (or, girl) is RAPED or has her Father, Brother, Uncle, etc, impregnate her, then , at least IMO, she had no way of preventing or stopping the sperm of a man from entering her body.

I believe that if a baby is conceived by RAPE or INCEST, or if the safety of the Mother is imminent, then the woman (or, girl) should have the CHOICE to terminate the pregnancy.

Just My Very Humble Opinion.

[Details]

women are nothing more then baby machines to some, not everyone believes life starts at conception, many Christians believe life starts at the first breath of life, which is why that is day we consider ourselves born into this world and mark it with a birthday

we have millions of cells in our bodies that are constantly renewing themselves, but alone they are not alive, do a biopsy of the skin in your arm and the cells will be alive too, but we do not worry about killing them, because it's not a life in the same sense - just as when a sperm and egg first meet it is not a life in the same sense as a baby, at that point it is a potential life and noting more, and the skin cells from earlier are potential lives too, as are all the sperm cells wasted after sex, should we consider that mass murder? how about natural abortions, should we get life insurance payouts on those if our life insurance includes our children? I think not

personaly I think life starts at about 26 weeks, but that is just my belief, so that would effect my choice - using my own stem cells for research or to repair damaged organs or cells would not be a issue at all with my beliefs, and once science gets to that point I am sure it will not be a problem for the majority of Americans beliefs

conscious meter
http://www.slate.com/id/2120872/
"a member of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn't possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain. Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead."Yep - exactly.

And pregnancy is always an unknown. It might be smooth and easy - or you might develop a problem that can risk your life or future health. You might have circumstances change dramatically in your life - at a point in time early in the first trimester - do you create a life to bring into a bunch of misery, or do you abort and wait until a better time?

I am not a mere baby incubator - I'm a person, with my own thoughts and rights. While the fetus is a mere cluster of cells, it's entirely my choice. When the fetus begins to develop some degree of consciousness, it still doesn't override my rights when my health is threatened. At the end, when it is far more developed, only a threat to my life takes precedence over it's life.

What seems ridiculous to me is the double-standard. I am a baby incubator to some, required to sacrifice my body and health and life even for a cluster of cells without a thought - but when a real living child is DYING for lack of a bone marrow transplant, liver transplant, even merely a blood transplant, no one can be forced to sacrifice even a little bit of their time, far less time and risk than my 9 months, to save that real living child.


It must always be a choice, to risk your health - even to the point of a needle stick - to save another's life. I've made that choice, risked my life to carry my daughter to term, with two pregnancy related disorders, one of which had significant odds of killing the both of us. My sister has made that choice - accidentally pregnant while she had 2 children, her husband was between jobs, her income was dropping, and their contraception failed. She found out plenty early for an abortion - that was not her choice, but it was, and must be, a choice. They had to consider the question of if they could make it financially - or would they have to risk their two children's lives by taking them homeless; physically, a past bad pregnancy - another way this could bankrupt them, etc. It's a choice, just as Tebow's mother made her choice.

A human being must never be reduced to the status of a mere incubator, a vessel. This is a human being. They may choose to sacrifice varying degrees of their life, income, health, etc. to create and nurture a new life - or they may not.

[Cooper]

Unless the mother of a child is in jeopardy or incest, there should be no reason for this choice of murder.

The woman had a choice when she accepted the sperm in her body. From that point on, she is a vessel to keep the baby warm, nourished and complete his development until he/she is ready for the outside world.

I was pregnant berfore I was married and my mother was a product of a rape. The choice never enter my or my grandmothers mind to abort the babies. I consider abortions murder for any other reason..

Yes, you can choose not to have an abortion. You do not get to make that choice for others based on your religious beliefs.

I say this with all due respect, Carol. You are a fine poster here.

[LisaM22]

Yes, you can choose not to have an abortion. You do not get to make that choice for others based on your religious beliefs.

I say this with all due respect, Carol. You are a fine poster here.

I agree, one can choose to have their rapists baby if that is their choice, but no rape victim should ever be forced to give birth to their rapists baby, that immediately puts the rapist on the family tree forever and ever

[ninetoes]

I think, as with most things these days, its about money. If a group/coorporation has the money, then they should be allowed to air their commercial. I was reading where there may also be commercials for gay dating sites shown during the superbowl. that will be another first. But so what? Free speech and all that. Personally, I am opposed to the superbowl, but thats a whole other issue.

[LisaM22]

I think, as with most things these days, its about money. If a group/coorporation has the money, then they should be allowed to air their commercial. I was reading where there may also be commercials for gay dating sites shown during the superbowl. that will be another first. But so what? Free speech and all that. Personally, I am opposed to the superbowl, but thats a whole other issue.

same sex dating sites or just dating sites that also have same sex couples looking for dates too? have a link or the name of the dating site you refer too

lol, I am not a big sports person either ninetoes, just never seen the point, but know others enjoy it, which is ok, there are worse things they could be doing....

I was thinking football did not sound like a same sex sport, but then started thinking men in tights could attract men as well as women...

[ninetoes]

same sex dating sites or just dating sites that also have same sex couples looking for dates too? have a link or the name of the dating site you refer too

lol, I am not a big sports person either ninetoes, just never seen the point, but know others enjoy it, which is ok, there are worse things they could be doing....

I was thinking football did not sound like a same sex sport, but then started thinking men in tights could attract men as well as women...

Think the site is mancrunch.com, or something like that. As far as I know, no final decision has been made, or at least it hadnt as of yesterday. IMO, revenue is revenue. It a football game for heavens sake, isnt like its some highly moral venue.

[crocdog1]

Think the site is mancrunch.com, or something like that. As far as I know, no final decision has been made, or at least it hadnt as of yesterday. IMO, revenue is revenue. It a football game for heavens sake, isnt like its some highly moral venue.

RE: It a football game for heavens sake, isnt like its some highly moral venue.]

If the anti-Abortion commercial is aired, as well as the gay dating one you mentioned, then the Superbowl will become a venue for moral and Religious issues.

To date this has not been so.

In olden times, the SUPER BOWL was a "let's party" affair--light and non-controversial. You know what I mean--arguments such as "my beer is better than yours," "My team is better than yours," or I think the beer commercial is better than the soda pop ad.

No fixations on MORALS. No arguments about RELIGION. Just plain old-fashion fun, food and football.

[ninetoes]

RE: It a football game for heavens sake, isnt like its some highly moral venue.]

If the anti-Abortion commercial is aired, as well as the gay dating one you mentioned, then the Superbowl will become a venue for moral and Religious issues.

To date this has not been so.

In olden times, the SUPER BOWL was a "let's party" affair--light and non-controversial. You know what I mean--arguments such as "my beer is better than yours," "My team is better than yours," or I think the beer commercial is better than the soda pop ad.

No fixations on MORALS. No arguments about RELIGION. Just plain old-fashion fun, food and football.

Showing a commerical doesnt make one argue, IMO. Its a commerical for heavens sake. They arent forcing you to belive what is being said. No different that saying this beer is better than that beer, IMO. If people cant be adult enough to avoid such arguements, then perhaps that is THEIR problem, not the television stations problem. IMO.

[LisaM22]

RE: It a football game for heavens sake, isnt like its some highly moral venue.]

If the anti-Abortion commercial is aired, as well as the gay dating one you mentioned, then the Superbowl will become a venue for moral and Religious issues.

To date this has not been so.

In olden times, the SUPER BOWL was a "let's party" affair--light and non-controversial. You know what I mean--arguments such as "my beer is better than yours," "My team is better than yours," or I think the beer commercial is better than the soda pop ad.

No fixations on MORALS. No arguments about RELIGION. Just plain old-fashion fun, food and football.

could be the end of football as we know it, trying to make foot ball both religious and political at the same time, what if the male meeting male sites pick up, is that because many gay men go to watch men in tights? believe me, religion and politics are not good bedfellows and the sports world should stay away from them if they know what is good for themselves and their fans

[LisaM22]

should we allow condom commercials at the SB football game? - say something like --- the pope doesn't need a condom is why he doesn't support them, but your young and attractive and you definitely need uncle bill's supper condom to keep you safe.....

[JennyM]

Showing a commerical doesnt make one argue, IMO. Its a commerical for heavens sake. They arent forcing you to belive what is being said. No different that saying this beer is better than that beer, IMO. If people cant be adult enough to avoid such arguements, then perhaps that is THEIR problem, not the television stations problem. IMO.

You surely aren't trying to speak for everyone, are you?

Showing a commercial about a controversial subject would indeed make some people argue, just like people are arguing on this thread.

[LisaM22]

Showing a commerical doesnt make one argue, IMO. Its a commerical for heavens sake. They arent forcing you to belive what is being said. No different that saying this beer is better than that beer, IMO. If people cant be adult enough to avoid such arguements, then perhaps that is THEIR problem, not the television stations problem. IMO.

how could you avoid it other then to avoid watching the game, that is what I plan to do, but to be fair I did not plan to watch it in the first place ;) we have seen here some Christians get all up in a tisy if a non-christian celebrates a secular Christmas.... remember the war on Christmas some Christians tried to start

[ninetoes]

You surely aren't trying to speak for everyone, are you?

Showing a commercial about a controversial subject would indeed make some people argue, just like people are arguing on this thread.

I dont see anyone argueing on this thread. Guess I dont read into it as much as others.

As for speaking for everyone, dont think I even hinted at doing as much. I still hold the opinion if a commerical can destroy a friendship, it wasnt much of a friendship.

[ninetoes]

should we allow condom commercials at the SB football game? - say something like --- the pope doesn't need a condom is why he doesn't support them, but your young and attractive and you definitely need uncle bill's supper condom to keep you safe.....

sure, why not?

[ninetoes]

how could you avoid it other then to avoid watching the game, that is what I plan to do, but to be fair I did not plan to watch it in the first place ;) we have seen here some Christians get all up in a tisy if a non-christian celebrates a secular Christmas.... remember the war on Christmas some Christians tried to start

Everyone is offended by something. It is impossible to provide any type of broadcast that wouldnt offend someone.

[JennyM]

I dont see anyone argueing on this thread. Guess I dont read into it as much as others.

As for speaking for everyone, dont think I even hinted at doing as much. I still hold the opinion if a commerical can destroy a friendship, it wasnt much of a friendship.

You stated, "Showing a commerical (sic) doesnt (sic) make one argue." and I stated that is incorrect.

As far as a commercial being able to destroy a friendship, once again you are trying to speak for everyone and that doesn't work.

[crocdog1]

Everyone is offended by something. It is impossible to provide any type of broadcast that wouldnt offend someone.

Well, until now, there have not been any problems regards the SUPER BOWL broadcasts.

To say that it is proper and correct to put in commercials that can, and will, cause vociferous argument and discord, is exactly what happens when Religious and Political issues are involved.

One need look no further than these Message Boards to see what I am talking about.

Discussions about abortions are especially intense, as many of those who are PRO LIFE, believe that those of us who believe that a woman has the right to choose having or not having a baby that is conceived out of RAPE or INCEST, are baby killers.

This is, IMO, definitely not something that should be discussed at "party time."

And yes, it can end long standing friendships, if you and your friend have only talked about Religion and Politics in very general terms before the Tebow commercial, which will start some very heated arguments.

Just My Very Humble Opinion

[ninetoes]

Well, until now, there have not been any problems regards the SUPER BOWL broadcasts.

To say that it is proper and correct to put in commercials that can, and will, cause vociferous argument and discord, is exactly what happens when Religious and Political issues are involved.

One need look no further than these Message Boards to see what I am talking about.

Discussions about abortions are especially intense, as many of those who are PRO LIFE, believe that those of us who believe that a woman has the right to choose having or not having a baby that is conceived out of RAPE or INCEST, are baby killers.

This is, IMO, definitely not something that should be discussed at "party time."

And yes, it can end long standing friendships, if you and your friend have only talked about Religion and Politics in very general terms before the Tebow commercial, which will start some very heated arguments.

Just My Very Humble Opinion

Again, thats a matter of opinion. I object to all the alcohol commericals, so dont watch because I think it sends a terrible message to our youth. Now, some think I am wrong for holding that opinion, but so be it. I dont expect them to stop showing beer commercials simply because I dont find them appropriate.

[Details]

Think the site is mancrunch.com, or something like that. As far as I know, no final decision has been made, or at least it hadnt as of yesterday. IMO, revenue is revenue. It a football game for heavens sake, isnt like its some highly moral venue.Apparently they think it's some highly moral venue - they rejected the mancrunch ad. A humorous ad about two men celebrating a touchdown by kissing - out. A serious ad to support denying me the right to an abortion even if my baby will kill me - in.

If they're taking ads only from one side of the spectrum, then that is a problem.

[ninetoes]

Apparently they think it's some highly moral venue - they rejected the mancrunch ad. A humorous ad about two men celebrating a touchdown by kissing - out. A serious ad to support denying me the right to an abortion even if my baby will kill me - in.

If they're taking ads only from one side of the spectrum, then that is a problem.

The way I understood it, the spots that are still open are "advocacy ads", not commerical spots.

[Carol25]

Well, now that I have woken everyone up and got your opinions, let me apologize if I stepped on your toes. I had no right to come on so strong. I must have been in one of those pre-migraine moods, but no excuses!

All of you are allowed your choices as I am too. But I worry about the choice of a little one who just can't talk yet. Someone talked about all of the cells in their body that do reproduce and we think nothing of washing them away, but have you ever thought of a name for a sperm, skin or hair follicle?

No one really denies there is a baby inside you when they make the decision to have an abortion. Just sometimes I'd like to think there are more than just two choices, and that might be the baby's choice. Give me to somebody that will love me.

So let's go ahead with those choices. And think of all THREE of them!:smile:

Thank you for the respectful responses.

[incidentally]

snipped Someone talked about all of the cells in their body that do reproduce and we think nothing of washing them away, but have you ever thought of a name for a sperm, skin or hair follicle?
.

Someone really made THIS comparison? :laugh:

I believe in the right to choose but holy smokes.

[Lynden1000]

Everyone is offended by something. It is impossible to provide any type of broadcast that wouldnt offend someone.

Too true. Wasn't there a big to-do a few years back about the Super Bowl commercial showing the dog biting a guy in the crotch? I thought it was hysterical but people complained en masse.

I consider myself pro-choice, but I think tim tebow and focus on the family have every right to buy a spot and express their opinion if they want to. And if the person listening to it doesn't agree with the message, big deal.

Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice organizations can start taking out more ads too.

[ninetoes]

Too true. Wasn't there a big to-do a few years back about the Super Bowl commercial showing the dog biting a guy in the crotch? I thought it was hysterical but people complained en masse.

I consider myself pro-choice, but I think tim tebow and focus on the family have every right to buy a spot and express their opinion if they want to. And if the person listening to it doesn't agree with the message, big deal.

Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice organizations can start taking out more ads too.

Thats how I see it.

[JennyM]

Too true. Wasn't there a big to-do a few years back about the Super Bowl commercial showing the dog biting a guy in the crotch? I thought it was hysterical but people complained en masse.

I consider myself pro-choice, but I think tim tebow and focus on the family have every right to buy a spot and express their opinion if they want to. And if the person listening to it doesn't agree with the message, big deal.

Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice organizations can start taking out more ads too.

At $2.5 - $2.8 million a commercial? I'd rather see them use that money to provide birth control to people who need it but can't afford it.

[ninetoes]

At $2.5 - $2.8 million a commercial? I'd rather see them use that money to provide birth control to people who need it but can't afford it.

Not everyone believes in birth control.

[JennyM]

Not everyone believes in birth control.

People who don't believe in it don't need it, do they?

[ninetoes]

People who don't believe in it don't need it, do they?

Maybe the group sponsoring the commerial doesnt believe in it. If they dont, why should they provide it for others? Would be rather hypocritical if they did, IMO.

[JennyM]

Maybe the group sponsoring the commerial doesnt believe in it. If they dont, why should they provide it for others? Would be rather hypocritical if they did, IMO.

I was replying to Lynden's comment about Planned Parenthood taking out their own ad. They believe in birth control.

[ninetoes]

I was replying to Lynden's comment about Planned Parenthood taking out their own ad. They believe in birth control.

Yes, they do...and now that you have mentioned it...I have never seen an ad for planned parenthood. I guess they just assume everyone is aware of their services.

[LisaM22]

Everyone is offended by something. It is impossible to provide any type of broadcast that wouldnt offend someone.

well heck then ninetoes, why not just have a triple xxx condom commercial in there, if were gonna talk about abortions and what not, we may as well talk about how to not get pregnant in the first place, then maybe talk about the day after pill and maybe we could end it with a piece on octamom for the kids in the audience that want many many children - some things you just do not do ninetoes, people watch these events with children, lets keep the abortion debate out of football, jmho

[LisaM22]

how would you feel if we should millions dying from aids in Africa and said condoms could save many many of them, but the pope and the usa refuse to help due to them thinking condoms are a sin and prevent potential babies

[ninetoes]

well heck then ninetoes, why not just have a triple xxx condom commercial in there, if were gonna talk about abortions and what not, we may as well talk about how to not get pregnant in the first place, then maybe talk about the day after pill and maybe we could end it with a piece on octamom for the kids in the audience that want many many children - some things you just do not do ninetoes, people watch these events with children, lets keep the abortion debate out of football, jmho

LOL yet teaching our children it isnt a good time unless you have beer is just fine?

[ninetoes]

how would you feel if we should millions dying from aids in Africa and said condoms could save many many of them, but the pope and the usa refuse to help due to them thinking condoms are a sin and prevent potential babies

Well, since the USA (meaning the govt) doesnt go by what the church says, your scenario is impossible. That said, if the Pope condemns the use of condoms, and folks choose to listen to him...that is their choice. If some folks in Africa are against the use of condoms...that is their choice.

[Details]

Well, since the USA (meaning the govt) doesnt go by what the church says, your scenario is impossible. That said, if the Pope condemns the use of condoms, and folks choose to listen to him...that is their choice. If some folks in Africa are against the use of condoms...that is their choice.Really?

You've missed a lot of politics. Religion - as wrong as it is - has indeed played a part in USA govt - including, quite specifically, what contraception options are provided in Africa. Bush made sure we dropped funding for ANY organization that helped the poor in Africa - if they would ever, even to save the life of the mother, even for a rape victim, even for a rape victim with a dead fetus who would die in childbirth, recommend abortion. Obama repealed it. This is all about religion and what the church says.

It's wrong - but it does indeed happen, in reality.

[Lynden1000]

how would you feel if we should millions dying from aids in Africa and said condoms could save many many of them, but the pope and the usa refuse to help due to them thinking condoms are a sin and prevent potential babies

Like ninetoes said, the pope has every right to express his opinion, whether we like those opinions or not.

I work for the Catholic Church, so I have to listen to discussions about the sinfulness of birth control all the time. I don't think they're right about it, but so what? They believe it, and it's their right to express it.

Those on the other side should counter the claims by expressing their opinion; not by trying to restrict other people from saying things they find to be disagreeable.

[Maranatha]

how would you feel if we should millions dying from aids in Africa and said condoms could save many many of them, but the pope and the usa refuse to help due to them thinking condoms are a sin and prevent potential babies

The USA? Are you serious?

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/oha_pepfar.html

The pope isn't American and America isn't catholic. You need to get your facts straight in all due respect.

[LisaM22]

Well, since the USA (meaning the govt) doesnt go by what the church says, your scenario is impossible. That said, if the Pope condemns the use of condoms, and folks choose to listen to him...that is their choice. If some folks in Africa are against the use of condoms...that is their choice.

Bush did go by what the church decided though, that is the problem, we could of supplied them, but the Bush admin felt it was better they die I guess?

[LisaM22]

"Bush accused of Aids damage to Africa"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/30/usa.aids

"A senior United Nations official has accused President George Bush of "doing damage to Africa" by cutting funding for condoms"


"HIV spreads under Bush Africa policy"

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/12/Perspective/HIV_spreads_under_Bus.shtml

[ninetoes]

Since this is turning to politics rather than religion, I'll bow out now.

[Lynden1000]

Bush did go by what the church decided though, that is the problem, we could of supplied them, but the Bush admin felt it was better they die I guess?


If you're counting on the government to save the world, you're going to be sorely disappointed. It's not the government's job to be the world's caretaker, and if it was, I'd be very skeptical of its ability to do the job.

Instead, turn your attention, and your support, to the many philanthropic organizations who make it their personal mission to educate african citizens about birth control and to distribute birth control, as well as the companies who distribute free birth control to african nations. IMO, that's the place to look.

[Cooper]

Like ninetoes said, the pope has every right to express his opinion, whether we like those opinions or not.

I work for the Catholic Church, so I have to listen to discussions about the sinfulness of birth control all the time. I don't think they're right about it, but so what? They believe it, and it's their right to express it.

Those on the other side should counter the claims by expressing their opinion; not by trying to restrict other people from saying things they find to be disagreeable.

Yes, they can believe as they like, just don't try to interfere with other's choices.

[LisaM22]

Like ninetoes said, the pope has every right to express his opinion, whether we like those opinions or not.

I work for the Catholic Church, so I have to listen to discussions about the sinfulness of birth control all the time. I don't think they're right about it, but so what? They believe it, and it's their right to express it.

Those on the other side should counter the claims by expressing their opinion; not by trying to restrict other people from saying things they find to be disagreeable.

I do not think anyone had tried to prevent anyone from talking about abortion at a family outing... who knows, maybe it will become something families CAN talk about in the future because of it while they are making the choice

[LisaM22]

If you're counting on the government to save the world, you're going to be sorely disappointed. It's not the government's job to be the world's caretaker, and if it was, I'd be very skeptical of its ability to do the job.

Instead, turn your attention, and your support, to the many philanthropic organizations who make it their personal mission to educate african citizens about birth control and to distribute birth control, as well as the companies who distribute free birth control to african nations. IMO, that's the place to look.

the government was offering help, they were offering condoms, just Bush reversed that, her did not mind helping them, he just did not want them to learn about birth control or have condoms

it has only been in recent history that America allowed it's citizens to know about birth control or condoms - it was illegal, can you believe that, crazy, no wonder there were so many back ally abortions

if the religious right ever made Abortion illegal they would go after birth control next

[crocdog1]

Well, since the USA (meaning the govt) doesnt go by what the church says, your scenario is impossible. That said, if the Pope condemns the use of condoms, and folks choose to listen to him...that is their choice. If some folks in Africa are against the use of condoms...that is their choice.


re: [If some folks in Africa are against the use of condoms...that is their choice.]

It was not their CHOICE. It was government's choice--in other words, the Republican view of CHOICE.

Just My Humble Opinion [caps/underline for emphasis]

[LisaM22]

re: [If some folks in Africa are against the use of condoms...that is their choice.]

It was not their CHOICE. It was government's choice--in other words, the Republican view of CHOICE.

Just My Humble Opinion [caps/underline for emphasis]

exactly, Bush did not reduce spending, he just no longer allowed condoms to be bought for religious reasons, this was Bush's choice, not Africa's choice, condoms were a cheap solution to slow the spread of AIDS - more republican put off what you can do for less today for what will cost many more $$$ and lives tomorrow, unless of course it is war then bomb bomb bomb Iran as mccain would sing

[momof6]

You stated, "Showing a commerical (sic) doesnt (sic) make one argue." and I stated that is incorrect.

As far as a commercial being able to destroy a friendship, once again you are trying to speak for everyone and that doesn't work.

She made a comment and said it was her opinion.......Nowhere did I see where she was speaking for everyone.......lighten up a little.

[momof6]

www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=12182

"Focus on the Family will air a 30 second anti-choice ad featuring University of Florida football star Tim Tebow during the Superbowl. The ad will feature the story of how Tebow's mother chose against having an abortion during her complicated pregnancy contrary to her doctors advice."

Focus on the Family is a conservative Christian organization.

Do you think that such an ad should be shown during the Super Bowl?



Wow!!! I never saw this....thanks for the uplifting story....It is a miracle that Tim is alive and had the chance of becoming the great person he is.

I'm not a christian, and do not care who put the ad out......If it's a miraculous story, that is what is important to me.......I want to see some good news for once. It is nice to see something like this. IMO

[JennyM]

She made a comment and said it was her opinion.......Nowhere did I see where she was speaking for everyone.......lighten up a little.

Yes, she was. Not by problem you have poor vision.

[ninetoes]

She made a comment and said it was her opinion.......Nowhere did I see where she was speaking for everyone.......lighten up a little.

True. But no worries. Ive decided the ignore button is probably best.

[Cooper]

Wow!!! I never saw this....thanks for the uplifting story....It is a miracle that Tim is alive and had the chance of becoming the great person he is.

I'm not a christian, and do not care who put the ad out......If it's a miraculous story, that is what is important to me.......I want to see some good news for once. It is nice to see something like this. IMO


It is a wonderful story. However, it was Mrs. Tebow's choice and both she and her son would like to remove choice from others.

The content of the story is not the issue.

[Carol25]

www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=12182 (http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=12182)

"Focus on the Family will air a 30 second anti-choice ad featuring University of Florida football star Tim Tebow during the Superbowl. The ad will feature the story of how Tebow's mother chose against having an abortion during her complicated pregnancy contrary to her doctors advice."

Focus on the Family is a conservative Christian organization.

Do you think that such an ad should be shown during the Super Bowl?

I got so wrapped up in the controversy of "choice," that I lost sight of the initial post and whether it is best for showing during a Super Bowl Broadcast.

I believe as Details does that the topic is such a serious one and the game is surrounded by fun and frivolity that it is not the right venue for this ad. Let everyone have their fun uninterrupted for the game.

This is an emotional and controversial issue. Not right for the middle of a SuperBowl. You already have rivals in play!

[LisaM22]

It is a wonderful story. However, it was Mrs. Tebow's choice and both she and her son would like to remove choice from others.

The content of the story is not the issue.

they do not want to remove choice, they just want the government to choose for you.... EVEN AFTER BIRTH, don't have funds pull the plug, even aginst the next of kins wishes

Bush and Texas
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html

[Cooper]

I got so wrapped up in the controversy of "choice," that I lost sight of the initial post and whether it is best for showing during a Super Bowl Broadcast.

I believe as Details does that the topic is such a serious one and the game is surrounded by fun and frivolity that it is not the right venue for this ad. Let everyone have their fun uninterrupted for the game.

This is an emotional and controversial issue. Not right for the middle of a SuperBowl. You already have rivals in play!


Yes, that's another point and I agree with you.

[Tracian]

HLN is covering this tonight. Apparently Gloria Alred says that abortion was not legal in the Philippines, so she questions the ad.

5pm EST.

[crocdog1]

That would be something if that group forget to mention that small fact.

There we go again. Those pesky facts.

[RootBeer]

Just saw the commercial and it was GREAT.

NO BIG DEAL

end of story

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

That would be something if that group forget to mention that small fact.

Abortion was once illegal in the US-- did that mean the were never suggested or performed? A doctor never suggested one, EVER? PLease!? LOL


Abortion is still illegal in the Philippians but guess what they perform 400,000 some years -- all while illegal!!


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

Does that mean that people do not abuse drugs in this country-- they are illegal?

Euthanasia is also illegal in 49 states. Does that mean the doctors have not practiced euthanasia? Nope I know of doctors who have and they made national news.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Just saw the commercial and it was GREAT.

NO BIG DEAL

end of story

I would like to know who had a problem with it. Did not even mention the "A" word. :closedeyes:

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

NOW, now claims ad supports violence against women:


Tebow ad falls short of the hype

NOW president Terry O'Neill said it glorified violence against women. "I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it," she said. "That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."

:bored:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-tebow-abortion8-2010feb08,0,1153376.story

[Details]

NOW, now claims ad supports violence against women:

Tebow ad falls short of the hype

:bored:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-tebow-abortion8-2010feb08,0,1153376.storyFrom the sound of that article (had two little kids here, we didn't watch Superbowl much at all) - I see no issues there. A kid tackling his mom, especially in a no doubt scripted moment for a commercial - definitely not domestic violence.

So long as there's no advocacy for FORCING women to make one choice or the other, I don't have a problem - endorsing a woman's choice, encouraging a choice - that's just fine. It's when you want to make the other choice illegal that it becomes advocacy of one position.

[Lynden1000]

Just saw the commercial and it was GREAT.

NO BIG DEAL

end of story

I agree. I thought the ad was touching and was tastefully done.

I might not support his political position on the issue, but I support his right to make a statement about what he believes.

[crocdog1]

From the sound of that article (had two little kids here, we didn't watch Superbowl much at all) - I see no issues there. A kid tackling his mom, especially in a no doubt scripted moment for a commercial - definitely not domestic violence.

So long as there's no advocacy for FORCING women to make one choice or the other, I don't have a problem - endorsing a woman's choice, encouraging a choice - that's just fine. It's when you want to make the other choice illegal that it becomes advocacy of one position.


The PRO LIFE Movement does not give a woman the CHOICE of terminating A PREGNANCY--even if by RAPE, INCEST or even if it WOULD THREATEN THE LIFE OF THE WOMAN (or,GIRL).

PRO CHOICE does give a WOMAN (or, GIRL) the option to do so, if they so desire.

JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION [CAPS/emphasis]

[Cooper]

From the sound of that article (had two little kids here, we didn't watch Superbowl much at all) - I see no issues there. A kid tackling his mom, especially in a no doubt scripted moment for a commercial - definitely not domestic violence.

So long as there's no advocacy for FORCING women to make one choice or the other, I don't have a problem - endorsing a woman's choice, encouraging a choice - that's just fine. It's when you want to make the other choice illegal that it becomes advocacy of one position.

Ok, let's try this again. Both Tim Tebow and his mother oppose choice. They would like to remove a woman's right to choose.

[Cooper]

I agree. I thought the ad was touching and was tastefully done.

I might not support his political position on the issue, but I support his right to make a statement about what he believes.


Ok, I conceded that Tim does not have to have an abortion but then let's remember he wants to take that choice away from women.

[JohnA]

im for the females right to choose to have or NOT to have A baby simple isnt it ?


What i dont understand about is the hypocrasy of the right to life movement to the words in there motto
according to them the unborn have a right to life ,something about a soul spirit whatever religious dogma or to qualify it they say abortion is murder .

now let me ask you this if a unborn child has * a right to life * then surly a innocent child conceived by rape by incest has the same * right to life* . or does it that mean a child conceived under those circumstances has LESS RIGHTS when its born ?


thats were their argument is flawed, a fetus either has a right to life .. or it is second to the mothers wish .
its either or

.. there is no middle ground .

once you start allowing **exceptions ** that suit your beliefs its all over
one exception is just as viable as another ..

what you prolifes are really talking about is CONTROL .

prolifers will make the rules( according to there religious views) and dictate to you the mother what shall and shall not be .
JMHO

[Lynden1000]

Ok, I conceded that Tim does not have to have an abortion but then let's remember he wants to take that choice away from women.

That's irrelevant to the question of whether or not he should be allowed to air his views on the subject.

That, for me, was the issue at the heart of this thread: should he be permitted to air his opinion on abortion?

My answer was: yes indeed, regardless of the popularity of his opinion itself.

[crocdog1]

That's irrelevant to the question of whether or not he should be allowed to air his views on the subject.

That, for me, was the issue at the heart of this thread: should he be permitted to air his opinion on abortion?

My answer was: yes indeed, regardless of the popularity of his opinion itself.

RE: [That, for me, was the issue at the heart of this thread: should he be permitted to air his opinion on abortion?]

If this be so, then, IMO, other advocacy organizations should have this same right.

I'm not Gay, but I do question why a Gay Dating ad was not allowed to be shown.

Pray tell, WHY NOT?

Just My Humble Opinion

[Cooper]

That's irrelevant to the question of whether or not he should be allowed to air his views on the subject.

That, for me, was the issue at the heart of this thread: should he be permitted to air his opinion on abortion?

My answer was: yes indeed, regardless of the popularity of his opinion itself.


Perhaps you can then elaborate on why the gay dating ad was not allowed?

FYI, Tim does not ever have to have an abortion. However, he does not get to make that choice for others. He wants to.

This goes way beyond Tim Tebow's "opinion." He wants to make his "opinion" law.

[Lynden1000]

Perhaps you can then elaborate on why the gay dating ad was not allowed?

FYI, Tim does not ever have to have an abortion. However, he does not get to make that choice for others. He wants to.

This goes way beyond Tim Tebow's "opinion." He wants to make his "opinion" law.


Perhaps I should have clarified my position and said that no government authorities should intervene to prevent Tebow's ad from airing, just as no government authorities should intervene if the station had chosen to air the gay dating ad and not the Tebow ad.

In other words, it's a decision that's up to the two parties that are making the deal: the person or company placing the ad, and the company responsible for airing it.

Now perhaps others can elaborate. Should someone *other* than those parties have intervened to prevent the Tebow ad from airing?