Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: Think ProgressSuper Bowl viewers in 40 cities across the country will see graphic ads featuring images of bloody, aborted fetuses. The ads are being paid for by fringe anti-abortion candidate Terry Randall…
Terry, who has spent a year in jail and been arrested 50 times for his anti-abortion efforts, is using a Federal Election Commission loophole that ensures ads for political candidates cannot be prohibited within 45 days of an election. Apparently, primaries count…
Without a doubt, this is the most crass, tasteless and inhuman act of exploitation ever conceived by a demented mind.
this is the most crass, tasteless and inhuman act of exploitation ever conceived by a demented mind.
Which is all one can expect from this whack job. Interesting to see how this plays in Peoria, but I have a strong feeling this is NOT going to be welcome or accepted by those watching the Super Bowl. I hope this stunt backfires big time.
I doubt this will be shown during the superbowl..
I will believe it when I see it......
This is a brilliant move on Randall's part (not). Having this kind of information front and center during a non-partisan event like the Super Bowl will introduce unexpected provocation against the effort. These people learned nothing from government's forced intrusion in the Terry Schiavo effort.
I'm donating to get these ads ran...people need to see the truth about abortion!
A brilliant move. Look at the attention it's getting already.
NO surprise that the Republican evangelicals are bringing these issues up now right before elections again only to rally those votes. They don't give a sh1t about these people or their problems. But they sure know how to use idiots that like the idea of forcing others to give up rights not knowing that their own right to choose is under attack also.
And another side of the coin should show these sponsors to condone and instigate rape, incest and the deaths of mothers who can't take the pressure from groups telling her that she has to have a bastard child whether she likes it or not!
I'm donating to get these ads ran...people need to see the truth about abortion!
You and a couple of pallies had better look for higher-paying jobs. You can't pay for what that's going to cost on tips alone.
And when it doesn't air? You may as well set up a rocking chair by the mail box waiting for that refund.
Joe,
I usually don't agree with you, but in this case I soooo completely agree!!! While our reasons might differ, the plans to air these images are wrong.
First, the Superbowl shouldn't have political ads (it's FOOTBALL!!!!) Don't ruin a good thing. It is for laughing, cheering your team on and having fun.
Second, kids watch the Superbowl! I don't want my son seeing those! He is 6, (almost 7) and has no concept of that yet.
Ugh.
E
So this ruling means all the same sex marriage advocates can run ads showing same sex relationships in a good light for their political agenda as well right? Can we see some cheerleaders making out, a couple of football players as well? Perhaps a few adopted children in the mix hugging their same sex parents in the stands. A transgender coach to lead the charge?
If they are allowed to expose our children to graphic images of abortion, we can expose their children to graphic images of same sex relationships. Isn't it time for America to see the truth about LGTB issues?
If they are allowed to expose our children to graphic images of abortion, we can expose their children to graphic images of same sex relationships.
Or Janet Jackson's breast?
Isn't it time for America to see the truth about LGTB issues?
Absolutely! I'd rather have my children seeing people in love exhibiting kindness instead of all the murder, revenge, and hate that's being shown on TV.
Terry Randall is a lying piece of shyt. The photo being shown probably isn't even an aborted fetus, most likely it's a miscarriage or still born.
The photo being shown probably isn't even an aborted fetus, most likely it's a miscarriage or still born.
All had better be fully clothed or he should be charged with distributing "child" pornography.
"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. " Mother Teresa
"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters"
And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign." Mother Theresa
People need to see the good, the bad and the ugly. Pro abortion groups sugarcoat the inhuman practice of abortion and people never see the real thing. I hope it make think twice to people before go to bed without protection. President Obama went to the extreme to support the killing of babies born alive as a product of a late abortion in the state of Illinois.
And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?
Wake up, it is illegal in America for mothers that kill their children. Google Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, or Darlie Routier.
"There are two victims in every abortion: a dead baby and a dead conscience." - Mother Teresa
“All who are genuinely committed to the advancement of women can and must offer a woman or a girl who is pregnant, frightened, and alone a better alternative than the destruction of her own unborn child” ~ Mary Ann Glendon
Mother Theresa died in 1997. Her good works live on, but many of her philosophies are no longer applicable in the very different world of today.
"There are two victims in every abortion: a dead baby and a dead conscience." - Mother Teresa
Wow, well said Mother Theresa, but I still think abortion should remain legal until the baby is viable, it's a sad and disgusting evil but sometimes is necessry.
The ads are not going to change anyones mind with regards to this issue. So ! If this nut case wants to throw his money away he is a fool. Plus it is in bad taste. So beware and let the station that will air them put a warning out before running the ad. Still don't understand how you can force a private TV station to air this. And NO I am not buying into the freedom of speech, because it is privately owned.
Besides I cannot understand why this is even an issue to be discussing when there are SO many more important issues facing us as a nation ,like jobs, housing, the economy
52 million unborn children have been killed in abortion since the Roe decision, in America alone...Lord have mercy on us!....This is not what I would call a civilized society...This is a symptom of a society that will eventually collapse into chaos and war!
Perhaps Mother Theresa should have consulted the worlds greatest abortionist before she made that comment. Afterall, God aborts 20-30% of all early pregnancies before the mother to be even knows she's pregant, and another good size % of established pregnancies for the end of the first trimester......
Only 30 to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.[14] The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception,[10] and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners have the ability to detect the presence of an embryo.[15] Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[16]
worlds greatest abortionist
Worlds "greatest" abortionist? Isn't that kinda like being the "tallest" midget?
Pro abortion groups
there's no such thing.
there are people who want to keep abortion legal and people who are against its legality; NOBODY is in favor of abortion.
saying people who believe we should have the right are in favor of killing babies is akin to saying people who believe in freedom to worship are in favor of theocracy. It's an unfair characterization of the issue.
fumler:
"All who are genuinely committed to the advancement of women can and must offer a woman or a girl who is pregnant, frightened, and alone a better alternative than the destruction of her own unborn child" ~ Mary Ann Glendon
on this we agree totally. It's why I vote Democrat.
great (grt)
adj. great·er, great·est
1. Very large in size.
2. Larger in size than others of the same kind.
3. Large in quantity or number: A great throng awaited us. See Synonyms at large.
4. Extensive in time or distance: a great delay.
5. Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent: a great crisis.
6. Of outstanding significance or importance: a great work of art.
7. Chief or principal: the great house on the estate.
8. Superior in quality or character; noble: "For he was great, ere fortune made him so" (John Dryden).
9. Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West.
10. Eminent; distinguished: a great leader.
11. Grand; aristocratic.
12. Informal Enthusiastic: a great lover of music.
13. Informal Very skillful: great at algebra.
14. Informal Very good; first-rate: We had a great time at the dance.
15. Being one generation removed from the relative specified. Often used in combination: a great-granddaughter.
16. Archaic Pregnant.
n.
I'll go with #3 - Large in quantity or number
So given the numbers I'll stick with greatest....
ERich, good point - but for another reason
I usually don't agree with you, but in this case I soooo completely agree!!! While our reasons might differ, the plans to air these images are wrong.
First, the Superbowl shouldn't have political ads (it's FOOTBALL!!!!) Don't ruin a good thing. It is for laughing, cheering your team on and having fun.
Second, kids watch the Superbowl! I don't want my son seeing those! He is 6, (almost 7) and has no concept of that yet.
Now that people have been warned, they may not watch the Super Bowl for the very reasons you listed. If the ads result in lower viewership, the SB will never let ads like these, or other 'political' ads run again. That's a good thing.
I like the suggestion of running pro-LGBT ads with explicit affection. Not sex: that doesn't belong on the Super Bowl, but the same affection you see on every Viagra or coffee commerical- with loving intimacy and sex implied. Or maybe an ad showing lumps of cancerous tissue removed: I mean, if you want to gross people out with the thought of removing living tissue from the body, let's do it. Now, let's bet on how many of the fetuses shown on the pro-abortion commercial will really be first-trimester fetuses of the kind normally legally abortable.
If one of these commercials show up on my TV while my daughter and I are watching the super bowl I'll shut the TV off and cancel my cable immediately. I emailed Comcast to see if my area is one of them and informed them I will cancel my account if any pictures of dead bloody fetuses comes across my screen.
It takes a sick and selfish person to ruin a family event for millions by showing commercials like this.
dead bloody fetuses
I keep seeing "dead" applied as a descriptor in these comments. And it's being used by people who claim to be pro-choice. The very same people who claim this "lump of tissue" isn't "viable" to begin with. Isn't it impossible for something to be "dead" that you don't consider to be alive in the first place? Pro-choicers often compare fetuses to tumors. Funny thing...I never seem to hear them use the phrase "dead, bloody tumor".
Kinda of looks to me like they question their own accuracy on the issue.
They were unaware of this development. I have emailed them the story links so they can look into this.
I'm donating to get these ads ran...people need to see the truth about abortion!
The two parts of your statement do not correlate. The 'truth' will almost certainly not be included within these ads.
If you want the truth, stop getting your information from advertisements.
Those of you PRO-LIFE people who condone this type of campaign need to understand what kind of damage it can do.
Many years ago after my SECOND miscarriage I as on my way from the hospital and my husband and I happened upon a pro-life demonstration and a STOP light. I was quite traumatized, I badly wanted a baby, more than anything in the world, I had just endured the death of my second child, and a person who felt they were saving babies felt it was their right to come up to my car window and push a large color photo of a dead supposedly aborted baby in my face. I had been crying, I was now sobbing. Did this stop them, NO!!!! it encouraged it, they kept the picture there though I was weeping and my husband was yelling at them, but we were stuck in traffic. Perhaps they thought "Oh joy we have an aborter and her conscience is getting her and our mission is accomplished". I will never forget or forgive that. My baby died. From that day forward I will NEVER support any group that condones cruelty of that sort , the ends do NOT justify the means. I was already upset that day, this added many, many, many tears. I cannot convey the trauma it caused.
When a commercial is streamed into homes or signs are held up on public streets you never know who or what circumstances the people you reach are in. Those on the right claim to hold all these family values and rail against violence and porn etc and have no qualms about this? Disgusting.
...Perhaps Mother Theresa should have consulted the worlds greatest abortionist before she made that comment. Afterall, God aborts 20-30% of all early pregnancies...
You gotta be kidding me... I assume you are attempting a feeble excuse for sponaneous and completed abortions in first trimester pregnancies, and if you are then I would have to inform you that none of those pregnancies were going to term... the mother's body "aborted" the fetus because the fetus was either dead or so deformed that it was going to die before making it the entire pregnancy.
Saying abortion is okay because God causes most of them is pathetic and makes those of us who support pro-choice look stupid. If God causes natural disasters that kill hundreds of thousands of people, then does that make murder okay? Does that make starting wars over oil or money okay?
No wonder pro-life folks think we are ignorant killers of children!!! sheeesh!!!
kim......
I feel badly that you had to go thru that ordeal and then have to put up with the idiots in traffic. Thanks for sharing your story....
the truly brilliant part of the Randall plan is not that he is exploiting a campaign loop hole to air the anti-abortion ads: he's running as a democrat while presenting the abortion information
the truly brilliant part of the Randall plan is not that he is exploiting a campaign loop hole to air the anti-abortion ads: he's running as a democrat while presenting the abortion information
Equating dishonesty with brilliance is not sitting well with me...
What a waste of money in an effort to stir up hate and discontent. This guy will run anti-Obama adds showing graphic images, and for what? Does he think that he will sway more evangelicals who have been calling President Obama the anti-Christ to vote against him? Does he think that any pro-choice voter will switch because he disgusts them with these images? No, all it will do is raise the false outrage on behalf of those who are already the angry right. Just more tearing down instead of building up.... /sigh
the most crass, tasteless and inhuman act of exploitation ever conceived by a demented mind.
And what are the odds that the same people who think this ad being deliberately placed is a good idea were among those wanting to go jihad over the "wardrobe malfunction"?
You know how you can get almost as much advertising as a Super Bowl ad, without having to pay a dime?
Just say you're going to place a controversial ad on the Super Bowl. Don't actually do it, mind you. Everyone, both pro and con, will spread the word for you. For example, well... here we are.
I wonder if the guy running Ashley Madison knows about the loophole. They've endorsed a candidate and have been using getting blocked from Super Bowl ads for publicity for years.
Without a doubt, this is the most crass, tasteless and inhuman act of exploitation ever conceived by a demented mind.
Ok so what is the difference from showing a medical procedure vs adds against Tobacco companies showing graphic results from smoking..
My guess would be, that you are in favor of abortions, and want to get rid of smoking.
so what is the difference from showing a medical procedure vs adds against Tobacco companies showing graphic results from smoking..
I think it's an excellent comparison. To me, and it's just an opinion that's neither here nor there, the reason is simply bad taste. But the FCC allows a lot of stuff on TV and in televised advertising that a lot of people consider bad taste. That's the beauty of our Constitution. It's not supposed to limit or control morality or taste. It controls the limits to which government may interfere in our personal moral decisions about behavior and taste. There's a lot in society that many consider to be immoral and quite distasteful. That's preferable to a society with less freedom.
For the record, I am rabidly pro-choice, and a libertarian when it comes to smoking. I don't care one jot if others smoke as long as their second-hand smoke doesn't infringe upon my right not to breathe it. Otherwise, smoke away.
The very same people who claim this "lump of tissue" isn't "viable" to begin with. Isn't it impossible for something to be "dead" that you don't consider to be alive in the first place?
Pat, pro-choicers do not necessarily consider a fetus to be a non-living organism -- however, it is legally considered to be a non-viable, living organism during the first trimester; it is not considered a human being. That is why labeling it as "dead" is proper in this case.
We seem to have forgotten that there is an "on/off" switch on the television. I, for one, will turn it off at first glimpse of such an ad. But what's worse: sitting in a bathtub on the beach knowing that you are waiting for "you know what!" Smoking ads pale by comparision. The people smoking already know it is killing them.
Pat, pro-choicers do not necessarily consider a fetus to be a non-living organism -- however, it is legally considered to be a non-viable, living organism during the first trimester; it is not considered a human being. That is why labeling it as "dead" is proper in this case.
It's not dead, it's a living organism that is being biologically supported by its mother.
You know, there are a substantial number of people who disagree that "fertilized egg/embryo/fetus" is the same thing as "baby/person with rights." We see a gulf between "potential person" and "actual person."
Pro-choice supporters leave the belief to the individual and their conscience; Pregnancy Enforcers want to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
This is why we are in conflict.
It's not dead, it's a living organism that is being biologically supported by its mother.
It's dead when it has been removed from the uterus (in the first trimester).
BTW, the law does not consider any fetus to be a "person" until it emerges from the womb and breathes on its own.
Super Bowl Viewers Will See Graphic Anti-Abortion Ads with Pictures of Bloody Fetuses Not if they're getting a beer, making a sandwich (how I missed Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"), taking a leak or passed out drunk !!!
Sad fact is for LIBERALS the truth hurts......They are uncomfortable with seeing the results of their veiws and can't come to reality with the horrors of their ways.
Pat, pro-choicers do not necessarily consider a fetus to be a non-living organism -- however, it is legally considered to be a non-viable, living organism during the first trimester; it is not considered a human being. That is why labeling it as "dead" is proper in this case.
All that does is reinforce what I'm saying. A tumor is a non-viable living organism as well. And I frequently hear pro-choicers comparing fetuses to tumors or other such nonsense. I have never heard a pro-choice person refer to a removed tumor as a "dead, bloody tumor", yet they refer to an aborted fetus as a "dead bloody fetus" rather frequently. If the two are viewed in the same light, why the discrepency? They only thing I can think of is because the people who use the word "dead" in conjuction with an aborted fetus, aren't so sure about their belief that it isn't a baby. They have some speck of nagging doubt.
Pat, that's what I'm trying to tell you: a fetus is a living organism -- it's just not a baby. Therefore, it can die (and it does if it is removed from its host, also known as the woman's uterus). A tumor is not a living thing; it is simply a growth of cancerous cells.
I have no "speck of nagging doubt" that a fetus is a fetus, and that it is living. But that does not make it a viable human being -- at least in the first trimester.
"......all join hands
and block the clinic
now block that clinic
with a great big shout
hand them gory little pictures out
join the militia
in your town
party in your bunker underground....."
The Rev Billy C Wirtz "Right Wing Round Up"
I frequently hear pro-choicers comparing fetuses to tumors or other such nonsense. I have never heard a pro-choice person refer to a removed tumor as a "dead, bloody tumor", yet they refer to an aborted fetus as a "dead bloody fetus" rather frequently. If the two are viewed in the same light, why the discrepency?
The comparison between tumors and fetuses really has no significance in my opinion other than for the fact that both are attached to a person. And when tumors are removed or fetuses are aborted and someone uses the word "dead" to describe them, it really doesn't logically prove any kind of "statement" about either one or about the confidence of the person using it.
As a pro-choicer, I can certainly understand the difference in emotion one might have to a fetus as opposed to a tumor. As a pro-choicer, I in no way consider them "equal" in definition, but only in the similarity they both have in being attached to a person. They are different, but that doesn't mean that the fetus is a person under the law. The fetus is anything you want it to be outside the law, and that includes a full-fledged human being entitled to all the rights and privileges of a person under the Constitution. Problem is, the current interpretation of the Constitution is in disagreement with you, and that's the one that counts, and those who feel that way can't explain or justify how or why the fetus's rights and privileges trump those of the woman carrying it. And until the pro-life side can do that, then, sorry, but no sale.
They only thing I can think of is because the people who use the word "dead" in conjuction with an aborted fetus, aren't so sure about their belief that it isn't a baby. They have some speck of nagging doubt.
You're drawing a conclusion that may seem logical to you, but in reality, there's no proof of any such thing. I, as just one person, have not one speck of nagging doubt, and for that reason I'm in no way inhibited or intimidated by those who want to make their case against abortion rights and try to convince me. I'm open to it. I'm not afraid of it. But, until then, I'm quite comfortable and confident in my position and the logic and reason I've used, as well as my understanding of the civil nature of our Constitution, in coming to that position.
BTW, the law does not consider any fetus to be a "person" until it emerges from the womb and breathes on its own.
Really? If you kill a newborn baby who is given oxygen, it is murder.
Not in every state, CC. And not according to the Supreme Court.
In the U.S. most people are pro-choice, that doesn't mean pro-abortion, it means people believe in other people making their own choices, not anyone elses.
The good thing about these ads is most people will see just how vile and contemptible a lot these pro-life wackos are.
This ploy will backfire on Terry and his 'operation rescue' as more people are turned against them.
In the end, freedom of choice will win.
fetus's rights and privileges trump those of the woman carrying it.
do you know what constitutional rights the mother should be protected by?
The right to control her own body, which derives from the right to privacy that the SC has ruled does exist.
As a pro-choicer, I can certainly understand the difference in emotion one might have to a fetus as opposed to a tumor. As a pro-choicer, I in no way consider them "equal" in definition, but only in the similarity they both have in being attached to a person.
I think you're an anomaly then. Here's why.
Lets imagine two couples. One wants a baby...one doesn't.
Couple #1: The man comes home from work. The lights are dim. He smells awesome aromas coming from the kitchen. His wife is on the verge of giddiness. They sit down at the kitchen table and she looks at him and says with excitement: "We're having a baby!"
Couple #2: The man comes home from work. The lights are dim. His wife directs him to the kitchen for leftovers so she can go back to the couch and recuperate. She says to her husband..."The procedure went well today."
Two women. Same medical situation. Same condition of health. Except in one case, it's a "baby" and in another case, it a "procedure".
How is it that it's only a "baby" if it's wanted? When it's not wanted, its a wad of tissue. The emotion behind the issue has nothing to do with what it really is.
yes, privilege has nothing to do with protecting the mother or the baby.
and CC babies who have had a chance to develope longer in the womb do have human rights.
Sad fact is for LIBERALS the truth hurts......They are uncomfortable with seeing the results of their veiws and can't come to reality with the horrors of their ways.
Nice try. How about we run another commercial before this abortion bit depicting the incestual rape of a thirteen or fourteen year old girl who is then forced to carry the child to term like the "good old days" before RvW? Or are you "conservatives" uncomfortable with seeing the results of your views and coming to reality with the horrors of your ways?
A friend of mine was raped at a young age and ended up pregnant. Her description of the event was that of a parasite the rapist had infected her with and she was grateful to have the option of having it removed. Pregnancies due to rape are not "God's will" they are the "rapists will" and it in no way should be "your will" what is done with the victims body after such a tragic event.
midwesterner-742861
Sad fact is for LIBERALS the truth hurts......They are uncomfortable with seeing the results of their veiws and can't come to reality with the horrors of their ways.
You make it sound so very very obscenely nasty that we Liberals would cringe; no - it's biology and medical technology. It's nasty-looking if you are not used to it. Sticky fluids, clotted tissue, slicing, sectioning, sewing, draining... Whether it's an abortion or a bowel resectioning. Hey, I'd gag if I saw a hunter gutting a deer because it's not part of my experience, but I'd eat the venison.
As for "the truth hurts;" YOU most certainly are not the one who gets to determine "The Truth." Rather imperial of you, in my opinion.
How is it that it's only a "baby" if it's wanted? When it's not wanted, its a wad of tissue.
There is no rule or law that says any such thing either way, wanted or unwanted, baby or wad. But I think the circumstances are such that in terms of how we understand English and use it, it's not unusual that the first woman said "baby" and the second one didn't. But is it officially a "baby," or not a baby? No. There is no such arbiter of language. It's whatever you want to call it, or whatever these two women in your example want to call it. If you want to call the fetus a baby in any kind of pregnancy, wanted or unwanted, that's absolutely your call and subject to how you see things and choose language to communicate it. Same goes for me and everybody else. But it doesn't prove anything.
The emotion behind the issue has nothing to do with what it really is.
You're right. I agree. You described it well with your examples. However determining with metaphysical certitude "what it really is" is unknowable and undoable. We as humans have the right to assign whatever words we choose to use to describe "it" as we perceive it, but that's quite different from what is considered a "person" under the law, and that is absolutely knowable and doable. That's the difference is the moral realm (unknowable) and the civil realm (knowable, based on criteria we have to measure such things).
How is it that it's only a "baby" if it's wanted?
it's not. the Phrase "we're having a baby" means it's coming in the future,or that it's in the process of becoming, not that it's here now. When we had each of our two kids, I stopped saying "we're having a baby" only once it was already had
She says to her husband..."The procedure went well today."
this doesn't refer to the incipient baby, it refers to the procedure that aborted it.
two different medical situations. One refers to a condition, one refers to a procedure. Like the difference between a tumor and a lumpectomy. The procedure going well just means that what was intended to be done was done and there were no complications or nothing unexpected happenned. Like "the pregnancy went well" or "the c-section went well"
I have never heard fetuses referred to as tumors??? That is just crazy right wing gibberish.
I have heard conservatives say that the government needs to stay out of our health care.
BUT they demand that they scan your uterus. The wingers do not make sense.
What ever promotes their failed ideology usually takes away individual rights.
"There are two victims in every abortion: a dead baby and a dead conscience." - Mother Teresa
Wow, well said Mother Theresa, but I still think abortion should remain legal until the baby is viable, it's a sad and disgusting evil but sometimes is necessary.
I actually agree with you Sammy, well said!
I have never heard fetuses referred to as tumors???
Neither have I. And if you go back and actually READ, you'll see that I stated they compare them to tumors. Not refer to them as tumors.
Uhhhhhhm Tunmors can be dead too. As a matter of fact, tumors are often referred to as being dead when they are dead. Anyway, those ads always make me so hungry.
OMG OMG OMG skin cells die too and everybody refers to them as Dead Skin Cells when they are indeed dead. This must mean they are babies!! LMFAO
Oh, I followed it perfectly and it's a flawed and ridiculous argument as my mockery of it demonstrates.
So this ruling means all the same sex marriage advocates can run ads showing same sex relationships in a good light for their political agenda as well right? Can we see some cheerleaders making out, a couple of football players as well? Perhaps a few adopted children in the mix hugging their same sex parents in the stands. A transgender coach to lead the charge?
If they are allowed to expose our children to graphic images of abortion, we can expose their children to graphic images of same sex relationships. Isn't it time for America to see the truth about LGTB issues?
As far as I'm concerned, you can take out whatever ads you want. I believe in freedom of expression. So go right ahead. I would lay down my life in defense of that right.
But as for your children, the only one exposing them to anyone is you. You -- not the government, not the TV network, not the NFL, and certainly not me -- but you, are solely responsible for determining what is acceptable viewing for your children.
If this sick, twisted sh1t really believes what he says, why doesn't he put his money where it would do some good like helping people to avoid pregnancy in the first place? Or food programs for mothers who had their babies and now can't afford to feed them? Morally I have a problem with abortion but I don't want some right-wing crazy trying to make that decision for me. And I wholeheartedly support a woman or child's right to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest. I know there are those who have made it through these situations and had the baby but many others simply can't. What about the 12 year old, raped by her father? Do you really want to add the trauma of giving birth to that baby to what she has already endured? And what about the chances that the baby will be born with serious birth defects? What about the woman with and ectopic pregnancy? Trying to carry that pregnancy to term could kill both the mother and the fetus. What is right about that?
But as for your children, the only one exposing them to anyone is you. You -- not the government, not the TV network, not the NFL, and certainly not me
Except sports events are marketed to children not just adults. Yes parents have control over what their children watch, but that doesn't mean people don't have a right to give their opinion of what is shown. I'm sure the networks and the NFL and whoever would much rather hear feedback from viewers about the content or proposed content than the alternative which is to cancel subscriptions or not watch at all.
Pat N ( partial )
Lets imagine two couples. One wants a baby...one doesn't.
Couple #1: The man comes home from work. The lights are dim. He smells awesome aromas coming from the kitchen. His wife is on the verge of giddiness. They sit down at the kitchen table and she looks at him and says with excitement: "We're having a baby!"
Couple #2: The man comes home from work. The lights are dim. His wife directs him to the kitchen for leftovers so she can go back to the couch and recuperate. She says to her husband..."The procedure went well today."
Two women. Same medical situation. Same condition of health. Except in one case, it's a "baby" and in another case, it a "procedure".
How is it that it's only a "baby" if it's wanted? When it's not wanted, its a wad of tissue. The emotion behind the issue has nothing to do with what it really is.
TYPICAL, very sloppy, feeble attempt at propaganda. Women # 1 is a good wife. Women # 2 is a lazy slob.
Do you think people are stupid and don't notice the difference in your comment.
Nice try, NOT.
"But as for your children, the only one exposing them to anyone is you. You -- not the government, not the TV network, not the NFL, and certainly not me -- but you, are solely responsible for determining what is acceptable viewing for your children."
Geek, so what you are saying is that kids don't get to watch things like the Super Bowl because you think freedom of speech gives some sicko the right to run anything they want and parents alone are responsible for making sure they don't see this crap? How is a parent supposed to know when this offensive material is going to air? You are as foolish as the man who wants to run the ads.
TYPICAL, very sloppy, feeble attempt at propaganda. Women # 1 is a good wife. Women # 2 is a lazy slob.
If you read that type of sexism into my comment, it says quite a bit about you, actually. Did it ever occur to you that I was communicating that wife #2 was RECUPERATING after a surgical procedure? Oh wait. Gee. I even actually said that.
Apparently you're the type of guy that thinks a wife should be on her feet and cooking after surgery. Nice.
Geek, so what you are saying is that kids don't get to watch things like the Super Bowl
I'm trying to figure out why pro-choice think letting their 6 year olds watch a bunch of grown men bash each other, break each others knees and throw each other to the ground is OK, but if those same 6 year olds should happen to see a 30 second ad about a procedure they actually APPROVE of, it's bad.
Isn't that sending the exact opposite message you want to send? Violence = Good, Abortion = Bad?
Pat N ( partial )
Lets imagine two couples. One wants a baby...one doesn't.
Couple #1: The man comes home from work. The lights are dim. He smells awesome aromas coming from the kitchen. His wife is on the verge of giddiness. They sit down at the kitchen table and she looks at him and says with excitement: "We're having a baby!"
Note the future tense, also. At the time of that fake conversation it's just a fetus, a parasite, if you will. No thoughts, no viability, no emotions, just a fetus. Of course, in most situations it's, "Good Gawd! I'm pregnant. What will we do? We haven't planned for this. We can't afford it. I'll have to quit my job and I don't want to move in with your family." Followed by, "THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT! I TOLD YOU THOSE CONDOMS WERE TOO OLD!"
Have you ever heard anyone who is pregnant without children in the home claiming "We HAVE a baby?" They'd be locked up as delusional.
I'm trying to figure out why pro-choice think letting their 6 year olds watch a bunch of grown men bash each other, break each others knees and throw each other to the ground is OK, but if those same 6 year olds should happen to see a 30 second ad about a procedure they actually APPROVE of, it's bad.
Isn't that sending the exact opposite message you want to send? Violence = Good, Abortion = Bad?
Pat N,
I know you to be smarter than that comment.
Pat N, whether you like it or not, football is a sport that men participate in voluntarily and yes, they get hurt sometimes, but it doesn't compare to what is being described as being in these so called commercials. For you to try to equate the two is silly.
Pat N, whether you like it or not, football is a sport that men participate in voluntarily and yes, they get hurt sometimes, but it doesn't compare to what is being described as being in these so called commercials. For you to try to equate the two is silly.
I was attempting to make a point an apparently failed. I'll rephrase it and be more literal this time, since it seems that's what's required.
People approve of abortion. People know what abortion involves and still approve of it. Many of those same people have no problem with schools discussing abortion with our children. Many of those same people think it's fine if a 17 year old needs a note to get out of gym class, but doesn't need a note to get an abortion.
If people know that abortion involves the termination of human life, which I believe can be classified as "violent", then why is allowing the kids to see one kind of violence OK, but not the other? Especially when both are violence that the parents apparently approve of?
You say football is a sport that men participate in voluntarily. Isn't an abortion a voluntary, elective procedure as well? I don't think I've ever heard of a woman (in this country, anyway), being forced to have an abortion.
That wasn't the point you made at all. The voluntary part I'm talking about is kids watching the result of an abortion. If they watch a football game they are watching just that, a game. People may get hurt but not every game and the sight of blood and gore is truly kept to a minimum because there really isn't that much blood and gore to see. If, during that broadcast, a commercial comes on and that child witnesses it, that is completely involuntary and is seriously more violent than a football game. Whether or not a person is pro-choice or not hasn't got a darn thing to do with it. And don't forget, the children of parents who are pro-life will be seeing that same commercial. Do they deserve to be traumatized as well? And you are still trying to equate the violence of a football game with the violence of an abortion. Are you serious? Whether or not I approve of abortion, I acknowledge that it is a violent procedure, both for the mother and the fetus but for you to compare that with a football game is way beyond ridiculous.
I suppose you can request to know the sequence in which the commercial will air, or a whole bunch of you can request that the network air a warning first ("The following may be offensive to some viewers," or something along those lines), and turn off the tube or send the kids to the potty when it airs. I think given the nature of the commercial, either of those would be reasonable requests that the network would probably honor.
Somehow, however, I don't think that would satisfy you.
I'm not sure why this is so offensive to you, though. There's plenty of gore and guts on television, especially on cable / satellite. I don't own a TV at present (haven't in years), but even back when I did I saw gunshot wounds, surgical procedures, horrible accidents, burn victims, the aftermath of suicide bombers blowing themselves up, combat footage... There's basically no end to the gruesome stuff that one can find on television. In fact, I used to be an EMS volunteer, and some of the stuff I saw on TV made even me squeamish.
If abortion is merely a surgical procedure like any other, then why should abortion footage or "results" be any more gruesome than, say, gall bladder surgery?
Whatever the case, I believe in freedom of expression, which Liberals also believe in -- at least when it comes to, say, pictures of Jesus in a vial of urine. You know, that sort of thing. So it seems to me that we should be in agreement about this: The fact that something may be offensive doesn't mean that it should be censored. Freedom of expression means occasionally being offended, because that freedom is more important than any particular instance.
Or is my reverence for that freedom even deeper that that of most Liberals?
What the...
How could that be?
One thing I'm learning on the Vine is that a lot of people who claim to believe in freedom of expression, are actually full of manure. They believe in freedom of expression as long as what's being expresses is not something that they find offensive, which means that they really don't believe in it all. I do. As I've said before, I swore to lay down my life defending it, if need be; and I would still do so today.
TYPICAL, very sloppy, feeble attempt at propaganda. Women # 1 is a good wife. Women # 2 is a lazy slob.
If you read that type of sexism into my comment, it says quite a bit about you, actually. Did it ever occur to you that I was communicating that wife #2 was RECUPERATING after a surgical procedure? Oh wait. Gee. I even actually said that.
Apparently you're the type of guy that thinks a wife should be on her feet and cooking after surgery. Nice.
I should have realized you're unable to read what was written. It has NOTHING to do with sexism, but your so-called comparison with 2 different scenarios. If you make a comparison, BOTH must be the same. Not different like you wrote.
Like I said, nice try.
Don't lie. Go read your ORIGINAL post, you know the one YOU wrote.
"They only thing I can think of is because the people who use the word 'dead' in conjuction with an aborted fetus, aren't so sure about their belief that it isn't a baby. They have some speck of nagging doubt."
Nah. People who have doubt don't call themselves pro-choice. They will tend to say things like they are "on the fence" about abortion, or that they consider it a "necessary evil", as has happened on this very thread.
Nice try, though. 8)
The good thing about these ads is most people will see just how vile and contemptible a lot these pro-life wackos are.
I wholeheartedly disagree with these ads and I certainly would not want my children seeing them while watching the Superbowl. However, I do have a few questions about the above statement. It is obvious that everyone is offended by the pictures of dead, bloody fetuses. But who caused the dead, bloody fetuses to exist? It wasn't the prolifers! All they are doing is showing you a picture of something that someone who is pro choice (an abortionist) caused to exist. They are showing you a picture of something they want never to see again and also for you never to have to see again. If people who are pro choice are completely okay with abortion and know all about it, then you know that it produces dead, bloody fetuses. Why are you so offended by these pictures and why do you call prolifers "vile" for showing them to you, as if the prolifers were the ones who caused the fetuses to be dead in the first place? It's like blaming the US soldiers who liberated the concentration camps and took pictures of the prisoners for the conditions in the camps because you find the pictures so appalling. Of course you wouldn't blame the soldiers because they took the pictures to reveal to the world what had been going on and what the Nazis had been doing! If the pictures are vile, blame the ones who caused the situation, not the ones who took the pictures to reveal what was happening.
Some of you have no problem recommending that people watch disgusting video about meat packing plants to discourage them to eat meat or that they watch movies about dolphins or baby seals being slaughtered to raise consciousness about those atrocities; but when someone shows you a dead, bloody fetus you scream that they are vile and crazy. They are just showing you something that someone else caused that they don't like, just as those other media are. If a fetus isn't really a person, then why are you so sensitive and bothered about it? If it's just part of a woman's body that she has choice over, then why the fuss? If it's just a potential person, then what's the big deal? Why is someone vile if they show it to you? Would you be vile for showing me a bloody video about cow slaughtering and meat packing?
Having said all that, I have no respect for Randall Terry or his tactics; and this should not be shown during the Superbowl-any more than a meat packing or dolphin slaughtering video should be! And FYI, I have volunteered to help women with unplanned pregnancies and their kids at a center that provided free parenting classes and videos with free babysitting through which clients earned points with which they could "purchase" new strollers, cribs, etc; diapers; formula; clothing up to 4T. They could go through the classes as many times as they liked. We also helped them with government assistance if they needed it, made sure they had a place to stay, and even gave them cash for bus fare if they needed to go somewhere for a safe place to stay. We also offered free ultrasounds for confirming the pregnancy and the due date. In fact, all our services were free. I had one client who came to me without being pregnant to begin with-it was unusual, but she had been a former client and she and her kids had fallen on hard times. Another client called me at home for advice after her baby was born when she became overwhelmed. I frequently gave out my home phone number.
ERich-356044, comment # 1.9:
"I usually don't agree with you…"
No worries, 'E'… Disagreement is the beginning of learning. You're always welcome here.
"…the plans to air these images are wrong."
In more ways than I can possibly say here in a civil tone.
"…the Superbowl shouldn't have political ads…"
Agreed! Some things should be…<scratch that>…MUST BE neutral at all times.
L'EMPEREUR du POLE NORD, comment # 1.60:
"…pro-choice…doesn't mean pro-abortion…"
Excellent observation, EMPEREUR, one that is constantly being skirted. One does not automatically equate to the other.
Hi Joe, most people are pro-choice like me, but not necessarily pro-abortion, like me also.
The pro-lifers refuse to accept that. Actually they refuse anything but 100% pro-life. That is where a lot of their problems begin.
They refuse ANY exceptions, like rape, incest, life of the mother, or a medical issue. That is why MOST people do not support them.
This stunt by Randall Terry will indeed come back to bite him in the butt.
I really hate that the anti-choicers claim to be pro-life when in reality they are just anti-choice. They could give a cr@p about the lives they want to force women to incubate once the fetus has erupted out of the vagina and needs food, housing, clothing and (eventually) an education.
The pro-lifers refuse to accept that. Actually they refuse anything but 100% pro-life.
They refuse ANY exceptions, like rape, incest, life of the mother, or a medical issue
(sigh.....)
See what happens when you use a broad brush and don't read all the comments in a thread? You end up sticking your foot in your mouth.
Here. Click on it.
Don't care here. I don't watch these stupid and overrated games.
Comment collapsed by the communityIf this sick, twisted sh1t really believes what he says, why doesn't he put his money where it would do some good like helping people to avoid pregnancy in the first place?
Because it's not really about that. If the anti-abortion crowd were really out to eliminate the procedure's existence, they'd spend at least as much time and effort promoting comprehensive sex ed and making contraception easier to acquire. Instead, they push "abstinence ( should be "ignorance" )-only" sex ed and support pharmacists who want to use religion to excuse them not doing their job in a way that would get anyone else fired.
They want to legislate their version of sexual morality and keep women "in their place."
Or food programs for mothers who had their babies and now can't afford to feed them?
Because they don't care about the living, breathing human beings already in the world.
So we see responses from a bunch of people who are fine with the actions they take just as long as they don't have to see the results of their actions......COWARDS
Tell ya what, Truett. How about if any state actually passes the "no exceptions" rules the extremists want, you sign up to be the one to tour the hospitals telling the children left motherless because of "no exception for the life of the mother" that it's better that their mommy died, and be the one to go to young girls who were raped by a relative that it's best that they "make lemonade", as Sharron Angle put it, because there's no exception for rape or incest, and be there to cheer up couples whose fetus isn't developing properly and will die within minutes of birth because there's no brain since they'll have to continue dealing with the pregnancy, and the risk of damaging effects on the woman's health, because the law forces them to do so despite no hope of a living child at the end of it. Will you sign up for all that?
Seriously, Truett, if you won't sign up to face the results of the actions you're trying to push on people, then you have no place accusing anyone of cowardice.
I spend many hours each week working in the hospitals, working with orphaned children, working with the homeless, etc... Where have I supported a "no exception" there are exceptions to most everything but the abortions performed because of risk to a woman'shealth are less than 2%....The rest are performed because of the inconvenience of a child, or the lack of responsibility of two people.
Whining about abortion? Don't be a hypocrite.
Sign the pledge or shut your mouth.
USDA slaughter stats 2008
Cattle: 35,507,500
Pigs: 116,558,900
Chickens: 9,075,261,000
Layer hens: 69,683,000
Broiler chickens: 9,005,578,000
Turkeys: 271,245,000
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/FactoryFarm/USDAnumbers.htm
TruettCollins
So we see responses from a bunch of people who are fine with the actions they take just as long as they don't have to see the results of their actions......COWARDS
Are you trying to argue the women who have abortions don't see and/or deal with the results? Horrible argument.
The rest are performed because of the inconvenience of a child, or the lack of responsibility of two people.
There are 7 billion of us on this planet right now. A few less children is fine. Further, Humans are becoming more of an inconvenience to the planet.
How about this - since we won't exactly when these vile ads are coming on we just boycott all the ads for the Super Bowl?
If we can get a list of the advertisers we can let them know in advance that we'll not be watching their million dollar ads because of these sick commercials in order to protect our households from this crap.
Let the other advertisers place the pressure on the NFL to pull these ads.
the abortions performed because of risk to a woman'shealth are less than 2%....The rest are performed because of the inconvenience of a child, or the lack of responsibility of two people.
I see. So the rape and incest cases are still because of the "lack of responsibility of two people" category in your mind. I'm glad you're not also counseling rape victims.
I also notice that you didn't mention anything about the idea of reducing the demand for abortion with comprehensive sex ed or making birth control more readily available. So much for doing anything necessary to reduce the demand until or unless such a time comes that it's banned or made obsolete.
Where have I supported a "no exception"
You're right you didn't. Where did anyone state that they are fine with getting abortions "just as long as they don't have to see the results of their actions"? They didn't, yet you made that generalization. I guess I may have done the same. Thanks for the reminder to consider what I say more carefully, lest I begin to resemble those I disagree with.
I'm writing to the NFL. RIGHT NOW.
If they intend to show these ads...we won't be watching the superbowl.
BOYCOTT
If millions of women wrote to the NFL that they will be boycotting the superbowl in their own homes....REGARDLESS of hubby's attitude (seems to me hubby-type people might need to back us up on this one).
yeah, they might notice that.
Thanks for the link, Colodomom. Easy enough to send a message to the NFL. I just did.
So we see responses from a bunch of people who are fine with the actions they take just as long as they don't have to see the results of their actions......COWARDS
@ TruettCollins
Your right. Since Terry is running as a Democrat I think it is clear the only reason he is registered is so he can misuse the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which was the right's intention all along. So I think we should have someone run commercial of Iraqi civilians being murdered by Black Water and American Troops or maybe some Abu Ghraib prison photos. And remind America that this is what our tax dollars were used for. And now they want to do it all over again in Iran. Or maybe you don't want to see the results of your actions.
Or perhaps we could follow a post from the actual article and get Larry Flynt to run and show porn or seductive commercials during the SB. That might stir up Mr. Terry a little.
I'm writing to the NFL. RIGHT NOW.
If they intend to show these ads...we won't be watching the superbowl.
Ummm..,..you DO know that it's the various stations and their affiliates that will be showing the ads and not the NFL, right? Had you read the article, you'd know that the individual has bought the first of 40 spaces he intends to buy in 40 cities.
The NFL doesn't sell advertising and they have nothing to do with the ads that are shown. But I'm sure they'll get a good chuckled out of your note to them.
So we see responses from a bunch of people who are fine with the actions they take just as long as they don't have to see the results of their actions......COWARDS
ALL PEOPLE pass feces, I DO NOT want to see feces splattered all over my television screen!
ALL WOMEN at one point in their lives menstruate, I DO NOT want to see menstrual blood splattered all over my television screen!
ALL PEOPLE are born, I DO NOT want to see the placenta all over my television screen.
If the NFL was going to allow a commercial showing feces, menstrual blood or placenta, you bet your ass I'd be writing the NFL so I don't see a problem with people writing the NFL over this particular commercial. You can always write the NFL and tell them you'd like these ads aired. Go for it!
I should have realized you're unable to read what was written. It has NOTHING to do with sexism, but your so-called comparison with 2 different scenarios. If you make a comparison, BOTH must be the same. Not different like you wrote.
Like I said, nice try.
Don't lie. Go read your ORIGINAL post, you know the one YOU wrote.
LMFAO, I know. Horribly weak attempts to use analogy, particularly in context of the attitude with which they are presented and irrationally defended after being sorely demeaned and diminished.
If the NFL was going to allow a commercial
The number one thing I've learned in this article is that a lot of people don't have a clue as to how advertising marketing works and thinks the show that's being aired is the one that sells the advertising and owns the time slots.
America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men.
Nothing has deforme a great nation. The reality is that there are some small groups on both sides opposing each other. Most people don't care either way.
Pat N. - while I agree with your statement, I do feel that the NFL has a great deal of influence (influence=money) over the entire content of what is aired. The licensing fees alone are staggering and the NFL gets their cut. If it came down to it, the NFL/Superbowl could take their business to another network and subsequently, that network's affiliates.
We've seen so many about-face decisions by big businesses recently, which might indicate that the little guy has more of an influence than ever before.
Now, on a side note, had this Terry Randall guy really been interested in making a statement with his imagery, it would have been sprung on an unsuspecting public. Most Superbowl commercials are kept under wraps as you probably know. People stop talking about the game way before they stop talking about the commercials. For him to release the info that started this discussion? I'm only speculating that he peed his pants when he found out that the cost of 30 seconds of air-time during the Superbowl was in the millions. So he backed up, counted his pennies, and chose...Plan B. (I haven't decided if there is a pun intended)
That would be my own humbled opinion.
Pat N. - while I agree with your statement, I do feel that the NFL has a great deal of influence (influence=money) over the entire content of what is aired.
Yes...they have a great deal of money. No...they have no control over what's aired. That's like saying the creators of Two and a Half Men have "control" over the advertising CBS and it's local affiliates sells.
People writing e-mails to the NFL shrilly complaining about the commercials is silly. The NFL is nothing more than the league that is an umbrella over all of the teams. It doesn't have jack to do with the advertising contained in it's games.
No more silly than making weak and silly analogies that hold no water.
Since the Super Bowl is a huge ratings draw for NBC, and the high-profile commercial slots are sold by NBC, it would follow that NBC would like to keep the Super Bowl on its network. Therefore, if the NFL were to contact the powers that be at NBC to let them know that the NFL had been flooded with e-mails and phone calls protesting such ads, I'd think NBC might listen to them.
EriNJ - I think if it was obvious that large numbers were going to boycott the SB and it's sponsors it would have a greater impact. You know the old saying "money talks".
As I stated previously...it's obvious some people don't have a clue as to how advertising works. The NFL isn't even a TV program like American Idol or Two and a Half Men. It is the governing body of the teams.
What you're saying is like saying that the creators of Two and a Half Men have some kind of "control" over whether or not my local CBS affiliate decides to run a commercial for a local hardware store during the program.
I'm not sure how many different ways this needs to be explained to you, but the ads are being purchased in 40 LOCAL MARKETS. The LOCAL AFFILIATES of NBC are selling the ad time. Not NBC corporate and not the NFL.
Pat I don't know if you were commenting to me or not. If you are you probably misunderstood my comment as I was basically agreeing with you. I was saying that if people boycotted watching the SB and threatened to boycott others who are going to run commercials during the SB it would put pressure on the network that is showing it. Really not having anything at all to do with the NFL. This has been successful for people boycotting syndicated radio.
And those "local affiliates of NBC" would also quite likely listen to the NFL, as I'm sure they would not want to risk losing future broadcast rights to such a huge event.
Terry Randall may be purchasing ads in 40 different markets, but that does not mean that NBC itself does not sell ad time -- think of all the Coca-Cola ads, Bud Light, E-trade, etc. Those commercial slots are purchased from NBC, and are run as part of the program by its affiliates.
And those "local affiliates of NBC" would also quite likely listen to the NFL, as I'm sure they would not want to risk losing future broadcast rights to such a huge event.
Obviously, you have no desire to learn anything about marketing/advertising and are just going to operate on how you believe advertising should work, rather than how it really does.
Terry Randall may be purchasing ads in 40 different markets, but that does not mean that NBC itself does not sell ad time --
What part of LOCAL AFFILIATE is so difficult to understand here?
think of all the Coca-Cola ads, Bud Light, E-trade, etc. Those commercial slots are purchased from NBC, and are run as part of the program by its affiliates.
Yes...large corporations do indeed run ads through NBC corporate. No, those commercials are not run by the affiliates. They are NATIONAL ADS. They appear in EVERY MARKET the show is on.
When you're watching a show, you will see maybe four commercials in a break. Two might be for nationally recognised brands like GEICO or Coca-Cola. One might be for a local furniture store and one might be for a local car dealership. GEICO and Coca Cola are NATIONAL ads, put out there by NBC corporate. The car dealership ad and furniture ad do not run nationwide and the ad time was owned by and purchased through the local AFFILIATE, NBC corporate has nothing to do with it, and the ads are SHOWN LOCALLY ONLY.
That's what's going on here. He is buying ad time in 40 LOCAL MARKETS. Not national advertising. NBC corporate can't tell the local affiliate that they can't sell an ad in a timeslot that they own, as long as that ad falls within FCC guidelines. Likewise, the NFL can't go to a local station and say: You can't run this ad" since the broadcast itself is fed through NBC Cororate and merely distributed to it's affiliates.
Gee, Pat, that's EXACTLY what I said (but in far fewer words).
And I did not say that the NFL would try to say that an affiliate (or NBC) could NOT run a particular ad -- please point out where I did, if you saw it. I said that NBC AND ITS AFFILIATES would likely take any type of complaints passed on to them by the NFL from its fans quite seriously, and might give consideration to NOT running such an ad.
I do know how advertising works, having been a paralegal for law firms that did many types of contracts, including advertising and broadcasting.
Obviously YOU have decided that YOU are the only person who is qualified to have any opinion on this subject. I'm done with you.
Pat N,
You lost the discussion on Abortion, now you're trying to derail the article to a discussion on 'advertisements'.
DON'T DERAIL THE TOPIC.
"Hello? Top NBC guy? Yeah, listen. This is your pal, NFL Commisioner Roger Godell, over here at the football place. Listen, my wife and her friends and a few viewers are all upset over some sort of commercial nonsense ruining their parties on Superbowl day. Can you help me out? Now, you can say no and I'll respect that. But we were the deciding factor on the 'rotating network' agreement...if you catch what I'm sayin', good friend. So, let's not have a bloody mess unless it's on the field, alrighty? I would hate for NBC to miss out on the next billion-dollar-earning Superbowl opportunity. Are you feelin' me there, good friend? Now you have yourself a nice day and be sure to tell your wife (and her credit cards and vacation houses and multiple cars and a personal house staff of 12) we all said hello."
It happens every day, though probably not with such large numbers at stake.
now you're trying to derail the article to a discussion on 'advertisements'
LOL! That's rich. Wait a sec. Let me check the title of this article....(checking)....HEY! Lookie there! It's about....an advertisement! And it's about the very advertisement we're discussing! Gee. How 'bout that?
Hate to break it to you, but ads ARE the topic of this article.
seen, the graphics Randall likes to show are inaccurate. Pro-choicers like me object to obvious lies pro-lifers like Randall spread. Most abortions happen in the first trimester. The aborted fetuses pro-lifers like to show are ones usually from third trimester abortions that are restricted to threat to the mothers health or health of the fetus. He is preying on traumatic times for women to push his cause. Honesty is enemy of pro-lifers.
Is anyone planning to answer my questions?
I'll do my best.
1. Your question: ...who caused the dead, bloody fetuses to exist?
My answer: I think it's pretty obvious who and what caused the existence of the fetus in the first place: the union of a sperm cell with an ovum, either through sexual intercourse between a male and a female or through outside means in a laboratory. If I'm correctly inferring what you're getting at, I will say this: Fetuses are not created exclusively by pro-choicers or pro-lifers. Obviously. Granted, they are usually, but not always, aborted only by those who consider themselves to be pro-choice, not pro-life. Usually, probably, but not always.
2. Your question: (a) Why are you so offended by these pictures and (b) why do you call pro-lifers "vile" for showing them to you, as if the prolifers were the ones who caused the fetuses to be dead in the first place?
My answer: (a) I'm not as deeply offended as you might think. I only think they're in bad taste in this particular venue (the biggest televised sporting event of the year). Taste is one of those subjective things. Just because I find it in bad taste doesn't mean that I should demand that it be removed from the air ways.
(b) I don't call anybody "vile" except for certain criminals and/or those who would take measures to deny rights to others. I also consider rude, ill-mannered and disrespectful people rather vile, but I try to refrain from saying so unless I'm really provoked. :) But I digress.
A pro-lifer is absolutely not inherently vile at all, imho, nor am I, a pro-choicer. What's vile are those on either side who would deny what is the birthright of all of us persons under the law in America, which is a free secular country, not a morality-based theocracy, and it is this: our constitutionally guaranteed rights to do certain things, whether all of us like some or it or approve or not.
There are a lot of things that a lot of folks consider to be immoral. Adultery is a pretty common example. But it should not be illegal or unconstitutional. The civil claims that married persons might have in such cases are just that: civil claims, not criminal ones. It is not against the law to cheat in marriage, but I would imagine most of us would consider it "immoral" when it comes to our own personal moral code of conduct. That's morality, but what's civil in the secular realm of rights and law is something else entirely.
More coming...
Not a question, but a comment you made that I would like to respond to.
You said: It's like blaming the US soldiers who liberated the concentration camps and took pictures of the prisoners for the conditions in the camps because you find the pictures so appalling.
I say: Not only as a Jew but more importantly as just a person who sees the fallacy in logic of that statement, I say, no, it's not like blaming US soldiers. You're correct about placing blame where it's obviously and rightly due. American soldiers didn't exterminate 6 million Jews, gypsies, gays, etc. systematically so and with government sanction. German Nazis did. Americans liberated them, with the help of others, and rightly documented what they found, not only for historical purposes, but also to remind the world of the horrors of such human rights violations--the most basic of rights imaginable: the right to be free to live one's life as he sees fit and without discrimination on the basis of religious or ethnic, sexual or class orientation. It was a case of slavery, imprisonment and then extermination without due process.
So, if you want to draw some parallels from that to abortion, then I can see what the more obvious parallels are, and I'm sure you would disagree, but I see a parallel of (a) conscripted pregnancy (forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want to continue), which is (b) tantamount to slavery, (c) not allowing the pregnant woman to enjoy and defend her own freedom and liberty (with an abortion; call it "justifiable homicide" if you insist that it's murder), and (d) preventing her from exercising her liberty and freedom with the force of law behind it. Pretty vile.
Yes, abortion is bloody. Yes, fetuses are living things. Yes, it's not a pretty sight. Yes, we must sometimes have images around us that we would prefer not to. But we have a choice. We don't like it, don't look. We don't want an abortion. Don't have one.
A final note about the above:
I prefer not to invoke Nazism and the Holocaust in these kinds of discussions, because I believe it diminishes the moral importance of it, which should never be forgotten. But if anybody insists on drawing parallels to the denial of liberty and freedom and the imposition of slavery, with the force of government and the law behind it, I think you can see whom I reluctantly compare that to: those who would make abortion illegal in this country. I would prefer to keep the Holocaust out of such analogies. Just my opinion.
I appologize for invoking the Holocaust. I really did not mean to equate the two in the way most prolifers do-it was the first example that came to mind of someone taking pictures of an atrocity and documentation. Truly. Please accept my appology, especially those of you who are Jewish.
TruettCollins:
"So we see responses from a bunch of people who are fine with the actions they take just as long as they don't have to see the results of their actions......COWARDS"
Newsflash: Abortion is a legal, medical procedure. Shall we begin showing graphic pictures of heart bypass surgeries during the World Series? How about appendectomies during the Olympics?
Your comment was inflammatory and does absolutely nothing to win people over to your cause.
So much for judging not lest ye be judged...
*Sighs and shakes her head*
3. Your question: If a fetus isn't really a person, then why are you so sensitive and bothered about it?
My answer. First of all, a fetus is not a person under the law. If you choose to consider it a person and call it a person outside the law, then you're perfectly free to call it that or anything you like. A fetus simply does not qualify for personhood under the 14th amendment.
Moreover, a fetus requires the life support of another human being in order to survive. We do not require any person in this country to use his/her body against his/her will in order to keep someone else alive or save that person. IOW, we do not require you to be taken against your will to a hospital, strapped down in the OR and relieved of one of your kidneys because someone will die today without it. It's your choice, not the dying person's choice or the government's. Yours. Same goes for blood donations, bone marrow and, upon death, organ harvesting.
Secondly, as I said earlier, I'm not as outraged by the grotesqueness of these images as you might imagine. Generally speaking, I am just a rather squeamish person and prefer not to look at such things, such as videos of surgery on the Discovery Channel, for example. I'm not saying they shouldn't be shown, I just personally don't like to look at them. It physically bothers me. Same goes for any kind of imagery pertaining to cruelty to animals, which are obviously not persons. Something doesn't have to be a person in order for me to be bothered by it.
4. Your questions: (a) If it's just part of a woman's body that she has choice over, then why the fuss? (b) If it's just a potential person, then what's the big deal? (c) Why is someone vile if they show it to you? (d) Would you be vile for showing me a bloody video about cow slaughtering and meat packing?
My answers: (a) For the purposes that matter under the law, it IS just part of a woman's body, which she does have choice over. The fuss pertains to what many perceive to be a bigger and more important issue than just the mere First Amendment rights of Terry et al. to show such images on national television, and that would be Terry's and others' presumptuous desire and commitment to end a woman's right to have choice over her own body and that part of it, a pregnancy and a fetus. We're not so stupid and gullible as to believe that this is only a First Amendment/editorial issue. People are offended by what Randall Terry represents. This Super Bowl ad, if it comes about, is really irrelevant to the larger issue.
(b) It is just a potential person as far as the Constitution and the law are concerned. See (a) for what the real "big deal" is about. And, frankly, I don't think it's a big deal at all in a manner of speaking for this important reason, and I'd love to hear your argument:
The pro-life side is, so far, incapable of justifying why a fetus's "rights" trump those of the obviously real, full-fledged person carrying it. Even if the fetus were declared to be a person under the law, its rights still don't trump those of the woman. And the absence of an argument is not because the pro-life side is stupid. It's because they know as well as anybody else that there is no argument in the civil realm, which is the only one that matters that can justify it. They remain in the moral/religious/theocratic realm, which is totally moot and, thank goodness, isn't doing their case one iota of good.
(c) I don't consider them vile for merely showing me a picture--only if they force me to look against my will. Then I consider them quite vile. Force is pretty ugly. But having the picture and making it available, even on TV, is fine. I don't have to look, and you have no right to force me.
(d) If I had a video to show you about animal slaughtering, you would have every right to consider me vile if I forced you to watch it when you didn't want to. But you have every right to make the video, keep it and seek to show it on national TV. And if you meet the FCC's criteria for such things, I say, more power to you. I have the right not to watch and will assume that you won't be offended. Same goes for Randall Terry. I don't have to watch his ad on Super Bowl Sunday. But he has the right to do whatever the law and the Constitution allow. It's just that denying some women the right to control their own bodies is not among his rights. And it would behoove him to understand that.
I appologize for invoking the Holocaust. I really did not mean to equate the two in the way most prolifers do-it was the first example that came to mind of someone taking pictures of an atrocity and documentation. Truly. Please accept my appology, especially those of you who are Jewish.
Thank you, but no apology necessary. I know what you were getting at, and I drew my own parallel in the context of what I understood you were getting at. IOW, no problem.
For all of you, I am not in the least against a woman exercising her freedom and liberty, nor am I against a woman's right to choose with regards to her own body. The question is, do any of us get to choose about someone else's body? Yes, the law says what it says; the law used to say that owning a slave was okay. It comes down to this: What is that cluster of cells in the woman's uterus? Is it really part of her own body? If so, then why does it have different DNA and maybe even a different blood type? If it is not part of her own body, then don't pretend this debate is about a woman's right to choose regarding her own body. It's about a woman's right to choose about that cluster of cells in her uterus, whatever you choose to call it. Whatever you think it is. If it is really not a person or something other than a glob of cells, then why is it such an agonizing decision whether or not to get rid of it? Why the trauma? Why should anyone care if someone yells at them if they are just removing a glob of cells?
No one wants to get down to the nitty gritty because millions of people across this country have either had abortions themselves or have had close friends, sisters, girlfriends, daughters, wives, etc, who have had them. The dark underbelly of abortion that is absolutely never discussed is the thousands of women who regret their abortions or are traumatized by them. And don't try to tell me they don't exist because I have met many of them. And they aren't all prolife, either. One lady told me she had had three abortions and simply could not go through with the fourth. Some of these ladies were tough as nails otherwise. Others were marshmallows. They came from all walks of life. I was one of them. My abortion was the result of incest-unfortunately I was not given a choice about either. Once we faced the situation, we all found healing together.
I am perhaps not typical in that I am not for abstinence only education; however, I do think that kids should be made aware and it should be emphasized that abstinence is the only 100% foolproof method that prevents pregnancy and the spread of STD's when practiced correctly all the time-that is if we are truly serious about preventing pregnancy and the spread of STD's. Obviously if all you tell them is "don't do it" it's not going to work; I approached it as a matter of telling my daughter that sex was a beautiful thing between two people who truly cared about each other but also telling her about having self respect and respecting yourself enough not to settle for someone who just wanted to satisfy their sexual curiosity or to put a notch in their belt but who didn't care about you for who you were and didn't care about your happiness-no matter what magic words they said. She was really turned off by the idea of someone just using her to satisfy their curiosity or racking up "scores," whether everyone else was doing it or not. Now she is telling me about her friends who are hooking up and how unhappy they are when the relationships don't last and the guys don't call them afterwards-and this is today's normal kids, the Millennials, in 2012 at a secular university.
I told my daughter about birth control options as well (over her objections, as she had received abstinence-only education; and, as I said, I don't agree with that. Even the most optimistic person about abstinence has to realize that every kid is not going to follow abstinence even with the best explanation and reasoning.); I certainly did not just put a box of condoms in the bathroom with no instructions as I've heard some people do. Each to his own, I guess. Anyway, so far sex education has not decreased abortions; but perhaps teaching about self respect would help. When I volunteered with girls who suspected they had unplanned pregnancies and we discussed abstinence, you would be surprised how many of them seemed relieved to discover that they could say no to sex. They felt like they had to do it because everyone else was doing it. Now that was empowering women with choice over their own bodies!
The pro-life side is, so far, incapable of justifying why a fetus's "rights" trump those of the obviously real, full-fledged person carrying it. Even if the fetus were declared to be a person under the law, its rights still don't trump those of the woman. And the absence of an argument is not because the pro-life side is stupid. It's because they know as well as anybody else that there is no argument in the civil realm, which is the only one that matters that can justify it.
If a fetus were declared to be a person under the law, then aborting it would be destroying it. Destroying a person is normally considered murder according to the law. Would not its right not to be murdered or destroyed supercede the woman's right to privacy, which is what Roe v Wade is based on? Or does the law normally allow murdering or destroying a person as long as you can't see them?
I think we should view this in an objective and reasonable fashion.
The problem with treating abortion as a right to choose is the predilection for abortion for the sole purpose of convenience. If convenience were truly that important there would be no mandatory child support. There are cases where the right to choose is pertinent, irresponsible sexual activity isn't one of them. The argument that a woman will do it anyway and hurt herself or a woman will be unfairly prosecuted doesn't hold much water. I won't legalize a junkie's habit simply because he's going to kill himself cooking meth anyway, and technically I can be imprisoned for jay walking and getting a blow job... though incredibly unlikely to the point of disbelief. The argument that a fetus cannot survive on its own is illogical when compared to the fact that a newborn cannot survive on its own either. The understanding that you ARE ending the development of human life must be presented. While it's true that a zygote is no more human than a sperm or ovum... Once a fetus has achieved electrical brain activity there is no denying the presence of life. Should circumstance be truly screwed beyond belief, should full term pregnancy result in death, should full term pregnancy result in the absolute likelihood of detrimental life defects... The right to choose should be present. Simply because you just don't want it is an unfeeling, cold and inhumane attitude. While I am a liberal, this issue is to me is a prime example of why, just like the right needs to be held in check by the left... The left must also be tempered by the right. In a situation where a fetus and a mother are in perfect health, it is not a matter of "women's health". It is by definition simply a matter of "do you end life, or not". And just like the left will present absolute, rare and even mostly impossible worst case scenarios to defend their belief, the same can be said for the opposite. In that if you dehumanize an obviously human life, where does it end? Do we then question the right to life of an underprivelaged, unhealthy, mentally handicapped or unwanted person? And if the law can see the difference between pre-natal ending of life and murder, why then is it impossible to believe the law can't see the difference between necessary and irresponsible abortion? Are we not as a society capable of making distinctions? Personal responsibility must be taken into account. A balance that accounts for personal liberty and right to life must be achieved. And just like we of the left use the government to force the 1% into responsible decisions, there is nothing obscene about forcing a person into responsible personal decisions.
Well Dr. the fact is the woman is an actual living independent person. A newborn can be cared by anyone. A fetus is solely dependent of on the women. No person by law has to give up their body for someone else to live. There is no forced organ donation. Your opinion whether abortion is moral or not is irrelevant. Almost 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester when the fetus can not feel, think, or viable. It is part of a woman's body. If a woman chooses to have a 100 abortions, it does not change that fact that it is right to do so. Her reasons or lack of reasons are none of your business. She is one that has to deal with any consequences with giving birth or an abortion. I would rather have dead fetuses than dead women. Pre Roe vs. Wade was a time that women died all the time from illegal abortions. We will not go back to those times. The best way to lower the statistics of abortion and unwanted pregnancies is accurate comprehensive sexual education and affordable birth control. Shaming women will only put abortion back in the hands of monsters like Dr. Gosnell.
"The best way to lower the statistics of abortion and unwanted pregnancies is accurate comprehensive sexual education and affordable birth control."
Indeed...isn't it stunning that so many of the people who want to outlaw abortion entirely refuse to even -consider- the best methods of prevention, education and birth control? You almost have no choice but to wonder what their true agenda is...
Well put Dr. Reid. Far better than I could ever hope to.
I agree with you, Dr. Reid, that there must be a balance. I am not arguing for no abortions ever. Sorry if I gave that impression. I would certainly not be against an abortion where the mother's life was in danger. I would be for weighing the situation when the fetus has serious defects that will affect life. Honestly, while I couldn't really be consistent in my position that a fetus is a human and to destroy it would be to kill a person even in cases of incest or rape, it would be hard for me to judge a woman who did not want to carry such a pregnancy to term. (And I've been pregnant as a result of incest-though I had abortion forced on me as in literally being drugged and forcibly taken there. It was quite traumatic for me, though I realize my experience was certainly not typical.)
In my volunteer work with women experiencing unexpected pregnancies, I saw women in many desperate situations such as those who felt they could not afford another child, who feared their parents would kick them out, whose parents had literally threatened to kick them out or who had had siblings who had been kicked out for getting pregnant, who were very young and not prepared to have a baby, who didn't have a place to sleep that night, and so forth. I saw one who was just escaping from a dangerous situation. So I've seen many of the the difficult choices women face when considering abortion, and I've seen their suffering. I'm not trying to sit in judgment on anyone on this forum, believe it or not. I'm only trying to present a position that I believe is true. And, like Dr. Reid, I believe there can be a balance that respects both women and the unborn. (I hate to put everything in terms of left and right because it's so polarizing, and I really don't come down completely on one side. In other words, I hate being labelled like that because as soon as you try to label me as conservative or whatnot, someone immediately thinks I have certain viewpoints that I don't have at all-for example, I call myself prolife; but I don't agree with a lot of the so-called "right wing agenda.")
The best way to lower the statistics of abortion and unwanted pregnancies is accurate comprehensive sexual education and affordable birth control.
That is actually, exactly my point. If Pro-Lifers are really Pro-Life, then they will shift away from trying to win a symbolic victory, such as the overturn of Roe V. Wade (which will do nothing to decrease the about of abortions, and just put more women in danger) and will instead focus on supporting measures that will help decrease the unwanted pregnancy rate and actually save more lives, which was the group's original goal in the first place.
People tend to forget that the some women do not want to be pregnant period. They do not want to go through the pain of pregnancy or child birth. Not all women are in difficultsituations. I won't make excuses for women on why they chose abortion. Whether women have a million reasons or none at all is beside the point. Her bodily autonomy is most important thing. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, she will ultimately find a way not to be. The real question is whether she will have somewhere safe and sanitary or a "coat hanger." I chose a medical facility. No more women dying in septic wards from botched abortions. F*ck that!!!
If a fetus were declared to be a person under the law, then aborting it would be destroying it.
Right. It doesn't have to be declared a person under the law for abortion to destroy it. We can stipulate that abortion destroys the fetus.
Destroying a person is normally considered murder according to the law.
Homicide. And some homicide is considered justifiable, making that person not culpable or liable.
Would not its right not to be murdered or destroyed supercede the woman's right to privacy, which is what Roe v Wade is based on?
No. Apples and oranges. For example, in some states capital punishment is legal. And capital punishment is "homicide" under the law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with privacy. Two diffferent issues.
Or does the law normally allow murdering or destroying a person as long as you can't see them?
I'm not going to argue disingenuousness or the absurd. If you remain serious, I will too.
The issue you're avoiding is that of one person not being required to use his body against his will to save another person or keep him alive. Trying to spin the semantics of the word "person" is not going to take you to the end-goal that I think you're striving for. As I've said before, for the sake of argument, I'll be happy to stipulate that we can consider the fetus a person under the law and base our argument on that if you like. It doesn't change anything.
The conundrum you're facing is how, in our Western, civilized society under the current Constitution, you can justify making one person use her body against her will to keep another "person" alive. If you codify that kind of thing into law, then you've set a precedent in motion in terms of the state doing with your body as it sees fit, not as you see fit, and it wouldn't necessarily be confined to innocent little fetuses. And, no, that's not science fiction; that's the nature of "precedent" in law.
The problem with treating abortion as a right to choose is the predilection for abortion for the sole purpose of convenience.
It's actually not a problem at all, considering the privacy nature of Roe v. Wade. Because of the privacy issue, no woman is obligated to give her motivations or reasons for abortion to anyone except perhaps to her doctor. Therefore, convenience or sheer selfishness is absolutely legitimate. It may not be how you would conduct your life or how I would, but our constitution protects the rights of all manner of what you or I might consider to be irresponsible or immoral behavior.
Therefore, your premise is flawed at the outset.
If convenience were truly that important there would be no mandatory child support.
Wrong. Child support is not an issue of privacy or certainly not convenience. A child is a person under the law and a person that the law considers to have all the rights and privileges of a person under the constitution, but it is not allowed to make its own living, provide for its own care, enter into contracts or be held accountable for certain crimes. Parents and guardians are legally obligated to provide for that child (child support) until he's of age.
Again, I'm afraid your premise is flawed. Apples and oranges.
Simply because you just don't want it is an unfeeling, cold and inhumane attitude.
Quite possibly true. But our government doesn't regulate or prohibit bad attitudes. Our Constitution is a civil contract, not a moral bible. Subjective opinions about attitudes and motivations are irrelevant to what we're discussing here.
The nagging thing I have in the back of my head is that not all that long ago, blacks and even women (to some extent) weren't considered "people" under the law, either. And just as people are saying now about an unborn child, people then were saying: "Well...if the law says a black man isn't a person, then it must be true". The reliance on "what the law says" as opposed to the moral issue...(the fact that a fetus is a human life)...is a little unnerving to me.
It's OK to consider a fetus to be human, living, and even for the sake of argument, a person under the law. The pertinent issue, however, is slavery--conscripted pregnancy. Just as we no longer consider it OK to subjugate blacks to the will of whites on the plantation, just as we no longer withhold the right to vote to women, we also don't consider it OK to require a person to keep another person alive or to save another person through the use of one's body.
Look at conjoined twins. Parents have the right to have conjoined twins surgically separated if one can live on its own without the other twin using its vital organs to stay alive and knowing full well that the dependent twin will die. Yes, these are sad, wrenching, emotional situations, whether it's separating conjoined twins or deciding to have an abortion. That's a given. Nobody's denying that.
we also don't consider it OK to require a person to keep another person alive or save another person through the use of one's body.
Isn't a parent required to take care of his or her kids and keep them alive, with their body if necessary? If a parent abandoned their kids and bodily left the house, wouldn't they be charged with neglect? I certainly had to use my body to keep my daughter alive after she was born! When an embryo is created by in vitro, it does not require its own mother to survive either. It can be frozen or put into a surrogate. Therefore technically an embryo does not always require its own mother to survive.
You will say that a normal pregnancy is different-apples to oranges. That is true. However, only in the instances of rape and incest is the woman forced to get pregnant-i.e., forced to have intercourse (and this is 2% of abortions). Should a teen or woman who is unaware that intercourse can result in pregnancy be engaging in intercourse in the first place? Shouldn't a person know all possible consequences of a particular action and be willing to deal with them before taking that action? So where is the idea of the "slavery of forced pregnancy" coming from? As stated before, no one is forcing the woman to have intercourse EXCEPT in cases of rape and incest. The woman is making a choice, and anyone making a choice naturally faces the consequences of their choice-whether it is pregnancy or an STD or no significant consequences. It's about being an adult and taking responsibility. Therefore using the idea of "forced pregnancy" as a reason for abortion is a very weak argument unless you are speaking of the 2% of cases involving rape and incest.
BTW, I am all for comprehensive sex education, but I think everyone should know that abstinence is the only 100% foolproof way to prevent pregnancy or the spread of STD's WHEN practiced correctly all the time. I said before that abstinence based on "don't do it" is not likely to be effective at all; instead, I used the approach with my daughter of self respect and whether she wanted to give herself to guys who were just experimenting or putting notches in their belts as opposed to someone who truly cared about her for who she was and cared about her happiness. Do we want to decrease unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STD's or not? I am not trying to deny anyone their sexuality or sit in judgment on anyone-it's just that reality is reality, and people need to face it.
Of course, I can't expect people whose minds are made up to listen to reason. I think so many people have had abortions or have been close to someone who has had them that it is too scary to deal with the real issues, so they dance around them with things like "privacy" and "choice" and "what the law says" and the like-when the real issue is exactly what that group of cells in a woman's uterus is, and what happens when it is sucked out. Of course it is gut wrenching to make that decision because it's not just a ball of cells, and everyone knows it. The sad truth is that many women suffer in silence after having abortions because that aspect is NEVER, EVER discussed. I'm not saying that all women do, just that many do. I've met some of them. I was one of them. As I said, I'm not here to judge anyone; and if there is pain it can be healed.
seen, believe it or not I hear what you are saying and to some degree agree with you. Where you and I differ is that I understand that mistakes happen, birth control fails and when it does a woman who had NO intention to have a baby finds herself pregnant. Yes that is a risk that women have had to deal with forever. But I also know that women are smart enough to know if they are ready to parent the fetus they are carrying. They know if they can handle pregnancy and child birth at that stage in her life with the circumstances shes in at the time she gets pregnant by accident or mistake or what ever. If she cant mentally/emotionally or financially handle a child and cannot fathom adoption...do you really think that she should have no other choice?
I believe all children should be born to parents who are prepared to handle it. In those cases where a woman just isn't for what ever reason...we need a safe, legal way to remedy it. It is unconscionable to me to try and force a woman to bring a child into the world that she had no desire to have. It is certainly not the best circumstances for a child to have to be born to a mother who didn't want them or was not in a proper situation to raise one.
As for adoption...it just isn't the solution for every one out there. I believe all kids have a right to know where they came from and who their biological parents are. I applaud those that can do it, but I just simply am not that person.
I also think that the embryo in the first trimester and most certainly in the first 9 weeks has no soul, no brain and no awareness whatsoever, and thus is a potential child...not an actual one.
So we see responses from a bunch of people who are fine with the actions they take just as long as they don't have to see the results of their actions......COWARDS
TruettCollins, don't call everyone 'COWARDS'. You know the rules.
You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
...
No one had any comment on my timely Ashley Madison comment? :(
Tyler - I was only able to up that juicy tidbit once (comment>suspension). I'm giddy anticipating any and all fall-out...and on a Friday, too.
Tyler, comment # 1.151:
"…any comment on my…Ashley Madison comment…"
"I saw it but was speechless…" (MJL-3, comment # 1.152)
So was I, especially when it came to their using Newt Gingrich as their latest de-facto 'spokesman'. Damn…
What's the old saying…'Any publicity is good publicity' or something like that?
Nice curveball, Tyler, you sure know how to pitch 'em.
formerstew, comment # 1.153:
"…and on a Friday…"
Not just any Friday, either…but Friday the THIRTEENTH!!!
It's actually not a problem at all, considering the privacy nature of Roe v. Wade. Because of the privacy issue, no woman is obligated to give her motivations or reasons for abortion to anyone except perhaps to her doctor. Therefore, convenience or sheer selfishness is absolutely legitimate. It may not be how you would conduct your life or how I would, but our constitution protects the rights of all manner of what you or I might consider to be irresponsible or immoral behavior.
Therefore, your premise is flawed at the outset.
You are 100% correct, but only in a legal sense. If the law were to change, you would be wrong.
But I am not arguing about the law says, while it is obvious that we will not agree on whether constitution protects a right to Abortion on the basis of privacy or not. We both know that Roe V. Wade says you are right in the legal sense as long as it stands. Similarly, we probably disagree, on whether Fetuses are, according to the Constitution, entitled to rights. Now regarding that, the law states that they have some, as seen through the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, but I interpret the Constitution to give the fetus rights equal to its fellow humans due to the principle of equality under the law. But that is only my interpretation of the law, as yours is your own.
The Law just happens to agree with you right now, but the law can change.
I am certain we both disagree with the Citizen's united decision and yet we can still debate about campaign finance reform's constitutionality despite it being technically already settled, because we disagree with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s ruling is not permanent, nor is it infallible, it serves only to apply the consistent law.
To be clear, it is obvious that as of now, because of the Roe v. Wade as well as Griswold v. Connecticut decisions, the right to privacy was created and now exists. And thus abortion is a constitutionally protected right, but so are Superpacs, which are protected under freedom of expression.
But that is not the issue, no one is going to debate whether the Roe V. Wade establishes that abortion is legal, I am debating that the law should treat everyone equally. This would require a chance in the law, which is something I would actually be against, until it would be objective, and not symbolic to do so. For now, I am happy supporting policies that would work to decrease the amount of unwanted pregnancies, and thus the amount of abortions performed. In my opinion, this is doing justice for women and the un-born children.
Wrong. Child support is not an issue of privacy or certainly not convenience. A child is a person under the law and a person that the law considers to have all the rights and privileges of a person under the constitution, but it is not allowed to make its own living, provide for its own care, enter into contracts or be held accountable for certain crimes. Parents and guardians are legally obligated to provide for that child (child support) until he's of age.
Again, I'm afraid your premise is flawed. Apples and oranges.
I disagree, child support is inherently inconvenient, and mandatory child support infringes on the privacy of either one, or two individuals. Yet the law still stands as like you said a child is a person under the law. I, like everyone, know that the law currently does not consider a fetus a person under the law, and so a fetus is not entitled to these rights, but if the law were to change, the fetus would be entitled to such. I am not debating that the fetus is entitled to such as the law stands now, I am advocating a change in law, when it is objective to do so.
Quite possibly true. But our government doesn't regulate or prohibit bad attitudes. Our Constitution is a civil contract, not a moral bible. Subjective opinions about attitudes and motivations are irrelevant to what we're discussing here.
I agree, morals or morality are irrelevant, but the law is, and while the law does not exist to enforce morality, it does exist to establish justice, and everyone is entitled to the same amount of justice.
Just to clarify, my goal is to save lives, I understand that overturning Roe V. Wade, or adding an amendment that establishes personhood at conception or implantation, would do nothing to save lives, and those babies would be aborted anyway. I call myself Pro – Life because I advocate lowering the statistics of abortion and unwanted pregnancies through accurate comprehensive sexual education and affordable birth control. Regardless, of whether we disagree that abortion is killing a person, I can safely assume that we both agree that less abortions is a good thing.
Well Dr. the fact is the woman is an actual living independent person.
The only difference between her and an unborn child is dependency, and equality of the law protects all regardless of this.
A newborn can be cared by anyone.
Not necessarily. And the Law still requires the Child to be properly cared for by who it is dependent on. No one argues the constitutionality of this because the law is restricting the rights of one to protect the rights of another. For example the law restricts the right of a mother, to neglect her child, in order to protect the rights of the child.
A fetus is solely dependent of on the women.
Not the fault of the fetus is it? And science will eventually solve this problem as well, (artificial uterus) should the law consider a fetus a human then?
No person by law has to give up their body for someone else to live.
Correct, but if the law were to recognize the fetus as a person, this would still not change. The law will never force anyone to become impregnated. But if the state, were to hold a fetus on equal terms as the mother, the rights of the fetus would take greater precedent. The right of the fetus to live is greater than the right of the women to take it away.
But I view the argument above as irrelevant, No person, by law has the right to take away the life of another, by action, or inaction. I am only wish for equal application of the law. According to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, the fetus already has rights, but only some, and not all. The partial, uneven application of the law makes little sense logically.
There is no forced organ donation.
And other than rape, there are no forced pregnancies.
I believe the phrase is Apples to Oranges? If a women is 100% certain, she does not want a baby, why not practice 100% abstinence, or undergo tubectomy. Don't blame the fetus for the failure of the mother.
Your opinion whether abortion is moral or not is irrelevant.
I could not care less about morality, I care about equality, and equality only exists when it is upheld by the law. I want the law to uphold equality.
Almost 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester when the fetus can not feel, think, or viable.
I thought you said this was not a moral issue? Regardless, the second part of your statement is actually outright wrong; other than being viable the fetus can do all these things well within the first trimester.
But again, you are the one who is unknowingly making this a moral rather than a logical one. But I will respond to this concern anyway. You can attempt to claim that human beings are not "persons," until some threshold is crossed, such as viability, or the capacity to feel pain, we can debate the merits of such notions, but it is clear that the Clear that they are not based on science but rather on ideology, philosophy and or belief.
It is part of a woman's body.
A womb is part of a woman’s body. And the government has no right to tell what women can do with her womb. But the fetus is a unique organism that came into existence. The Fetus possesses human DNA and is the offspring of human parents, it can legitimately only be described as human life. The government has the right to protect the rights of human beings.
If a woman chooses to have a 100 abortions, it does not change that fact that *she has the* right to do so.
That right exist, only because the law made it so, but Abortion is not a natural, or inalienable right. By contrast the right to life exist whether the government sanctions it or not, everyone has the right to live, period.
Her reasons or lack of reasons are none of your business. She is one that has to deal with any consequences with giving birth or an abortion.
Unless rape, incest, or danger to the woman’s life is a factor, I could care less about her reasons or lack of. My priority is equality.
I would rather have dead fetuses than dead women.
Agreed, but I would rather no one died at all.
Pre Roe vs. Wade was a time that women died all the time from illegal abortions.
Which was why, I disagreed with the constitutional basis, but I agree with the ruling on a pragmatic level. Roe V. Wade saved lives, and I am against overturning it until overturning it will save lives as well.
We will not go back to those times.
I agree.
The best way to lower the statistics of abortion and unwanted pregnancies is accurate comprehensive sexual education and affordable birth control.
I agree 100%. I believe all Pro-Lifers should advocate the above, before thinking of advocating the overturn of Roe V. Wade.
Shaming women will only put abortion back in the hands of monsters like Dr. Gosnell.
I believe that any society, that has even one unwanted pregnancy, has done a disservice to its women, it failed to either protect, educate, that women or failed to make contraceptives easily accessible. Even if the woman engaged in willing unsafe sex for some odd reason, society still failed to do its part in teaching the necessity of being safe.
The conundrum you're facing is how, in our Western, civilized society under the current Constitution, you can justify making one person use her body against her will to keep another "person" alive.
It is unfortunate that such may be a resultant of the government recognizing and protecting the rights of the unborn, but the justification lies right there, the government is recognizing and protecting rights, most importantly, the right to live. We may never agree on whether or not, a fetus is a human being. And science will probably never prove that one of us is right, and the other, wrong. But I am sure that is was proven that a fetus was a human, and you believed the proof you would agree that a fetus is entitled to the rights of very other human being, because a human is a human. I recognize that neither of us can be 100% certain, but if we can't be certain, is is better to err on the side of recognizing rights. You keep on bringing up right to privacy, but such is irrelevant. If a fetus is a human, abortion now involves two individuals, and thus abortion is no longer a private matter. It involves someone else.
In addition law would not be retroactive, women would be aware of the existence of the law, and be safer. If pregnancy still occurs, the women willfully took the risk. So she is not forced to care for anyone. She had a choice, a choice to be safe.
equality of the law protects all regardless of this.
Absolutely not true. Dependency in terms of care-giving is an entirely different concept from dependency in terms of subservience of one's actual physical body and its parts.
Until you and "seen too much" recognize that difference--not just the legal difference, but the actual human rights (constitutional) difference--then your premise is flawed.
There is a difference in the legal obligation that parents and guardians have in terms of providing for the needs of a newborn and under-age children (as well as that of caregivers for the mentally and physically sick and infirm), and that of unwilling and forced subservience of one's physiological body in the service of others.
It is a violation of the most basic of human rights for one's body to be usurped by you, or Seen or the government for any reason, whether it's blood donation, organ donation, tissue typing or human incubating, without the express consent of the human who owns and occupies that body.
If you want to insist that this kind of caregiving extends to a pregnant woman in "caring" for her fetus, then you have yet to make your case for how the fetus's "rights" trump those of the woman carrying the fetus but who does not want to carry it. That's what you're not addressing.
so - I'll cut to the chase here - I'm anti-abortion (I don't like it as fail safe birth control - I've said before that it indicates abrogation of responsibility on the part of the participants in the dance of the bedspring boogie); I'm "pro-choice" - any woman who wishes to terminate a pregnancy at whatever point in time established by the legal beagles SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. Also any woman who wishes to CONTINUE a pregnancy SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
now - regarding EITHER "decision" ("choice", if you wish) - I cannot make that decision - AND NEITHER CAN YOU (unless you are the fertilized woman) so let's stop the histrionics, arm waving and palm grinding. It's an entirely MEDICAL decision (the mental health aspect is also a part of that MEDICAL DECISION). Let's STOP trying to impose WORTHLESS RELIGIOUS BASED IDIOCY onto what is a PERSONAL dilemma.
If you want to insist that this kind of caregiving extends to a pregnant woman in "caring" for her fetus, then you have yet to make your case for how the fetus's "rights" trump those of the woman carrying the fetus but who does not want to carry it. That's what you're not addressing.
No the problem is, you are missing the point. If the fetus is ruled a human then the rights of the fetus would not "trump" the rights of anyone else. If they come into conflict with the rights of another, the government must settle it in an objective way. The problem with your premise is you conclude that there is some sort of precedent for this issue, when there is not. In this case the fetus had no hand it it's own creation, while (excluding rape) the mother willfully, engaged in activities that gave the possibility that she might get pregnant, no body forced her to get pregnant, she had a choice. The rights of the fetus take over because the mother suspended her own when she got pregnant. And one again, such a law would not be retroactive, women would be aware of the consequence, and if they truly were not willing do give up their right to not have a baby, they would not engage in risky behavior.
I have great respect for you truth, but you must understand, there is no precedent for what we are discussing.
until viability, a fetus is a PARASITE (generally a WELCOME parasite, but a parasite nevertheless)
Scientifically false,
Maternal malnutrition results in a poorly developed fetus but the fetus does not cannibalize the mother.
http://www.endotext.org/pregnancy/pregnancy3/pregnancy3.htm
True parasitism disqualifies genetic kin from the equation.
If you consider the Selfish Gene (that we are merely vehicles for our genes to get around in, whether we are willing or not), parasitism does not apply, since the gene's goal is to propogate itself, meaning the relationahip definitely works in favour of the gene attempting to get itself replicated.
Please cut the rhetoric and be a bit more objective. This is a discussion, not an argument.
If they [rights] come into conflict with the rights of another, the government must settle it in an objective way.
D. Reid, if so-called "rights" (or actions or behaviors) conflict with the "rights" of another, then they are not considered "rights" under our Constitution. The presumption otherwise--that there is some kind of "balance" between the "rights" of some and the "rights" of others--does not exist, constitutionally, in this country. What you're basing your arguments on is a false assumption that the government has any claim whatsoever to one's body. It doesn't; only certain behaviors, and then only if they infringe upon the rights of another (I'll get to the part about a fetus being this "another" in a moment).
If we respect the individuality, autonomy and self-determination of all human beings, then there is no balance between that autonomy and what others would like to use your body for in order to help another, advance science or simply gratify their sexual urges. Even if you are a perfect match for someone who WILL die today without your kidney, there is no justification, rationalization or "balance" that some judge can claim that would force you to be taken, against your will, to a hospital, be strapped down in the OR and relieved of one of your kidneys whether you like it or not.
I suspect you're probably the kind of person who would gladly volunteer, or agree if asked, for such a thing (I probably would too), but can you at least understand the philosophy that compels us as a civilized people not to take control over your body withour your permission, whether it be to literally save another human life or gratify our sexual urges or strap you down in a surgical theater for others to observe invasive experiments on your body (because after all, saving others and "balancing" others' rights [always dangerously and politically subjective] is what you're trying to make this about). is what it's all about). With all of that in mind, if we have to make a choice--granted, a tough choice--between pregnant woman and fetus, common sense about the nature of that kind of right over one's body compels us to "side" with the pregnant woman. Otherwise, if you don't, you have to provide an answer as to how and why you have decided that her fetus--her property, her body--is more important than she is in terms of constitutional rights. So, that is your challenge: Make your case as to that specific quandary.
Before we go any further, can you understand the philosophy we're talking about, and that even judges have no precedent or even constitutional authority, if we're to remain a civilized society, to even consider having the state have any kind of jurisdiction over your body? I didn't say over certain actions you may take in life, but your physical body.
Let me know if we're at least on the same page. It helps to know that we're talking about the same things.
In this case the fetus had no hand it it's own creation, while (excluding rape) the mother willfully, engaged in activities that gave the possibility that she might get pregnant,
Agreed.
no body forced her to get pregnant, she had a choice.
No, in many cases, she absolutely had no choice. For example: There are many moral, righteous, monogamous, married women who practice the most effective methods of birth control on the market, each and every time, without exception. Sometimes they get pregnant. The reason is because there is no birth control method that is 100% fool-proof except abstinence and hysterectomy. Even tubal ligations and vasectomies have a small failure rate.
So, in that circumstance, the woman absolutely chose NOT to get pregnant. There was NO choice in the matter other than to abstain from sex forever or try to find a doctor that would perform a hysterectomy for birth control reasons.
So, sorry, but a flawed premise once again.
The rights of the fetus take over because the mother suspended her own when she got pregnant.
She did no such thing in the example I gave above. Her intentions not to get pregnant were obvious, and her "morality" and responsible practice of birth control were as well. Also, the subtext of your remark is that of "punishment"--that because she engaged in this "risky" behavior, then therefore, she must suffer the consequences. "Punishment" is irrelevant. The woman has done nothing illegal, and we don't mete out punishment for things that are legal and certainly without due process. And we certainly don't deprive anyone of their rights because unforeseen and unwanted events happen over which they had no control (other than, of course, lifetime abstinence or hysterectomy).
Let's say you are a safe driver, licensed, insured, registered, and obey all the rules of the road. Someone darts in front of your and is killed. Should we deprive you of some of your constitutional rights because of this accident, for which you were not responsible (except for the decision to get behind the wheel and drive), or should we be honest and acknowledge as the accident it obviously was. Or, should we expect you, from now on, never to drive again, because if you have an accident, despite your most careful efforts, the state will punish you severely.
And one again, such a law would not be retroactive, women would be aware of the consequence, and if they truly were not willing do give up their right to not have a baby, they would not engage in risky behavior.
IOW, what you're really saying is, that the kind of women I'm speaking of in the example above should never have sex unless she fully intended to accept that tiny remote risk of getting pregnant, or, alternatively, she should have all of her reproductive organs removed for prophylactic purposes, unfortunately rendering her unable ever to have children at a time when SHE wanted, but only when YOU want. Please comment.
I have great respect for you truth...
Thank you, and the feeling's mutual. It's a pleasure discussing actual issues without defensiveness--a rarity it seems when it comes to these kinds of issues.
Isn't a parent required to take care of his or her kids and keep them alive, with their body if necessary?
No. They're required to perform certain actions such as feeding them, clothing them and sheltering them and the like, but there are no requirements, legal or otherwise, for a parent to hook his or her child up to his/her body in order to keep them alive, although I imagine that 99.999% of parents would do it in a heartbeat, voluntarily, if it meant the life or death of their child. You're misunderstanding physiology and behavior. Behavior obviously requires judgment, will and the physical exercise of one's limbs in one's environment, but that's quite different from physiological, bodily systems and functions.
If a parent abandoned their kids and bodily left the house, wouldn't they be charged with neglect?
Of course. As they should be. That's a physical action, not a biological or physiological function.
Why am I suspicious that this guy is among those bitching the loudest about porn in broadcasting, and any "loopholes" that allow it.
#2 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:43 AM ESTWhat I would find interesting is could we get an advertisement consisting of bloody coathangers running after this?
Just to kind of run the point home as to what Randall Terry and his ilk would like to return us to.
We have to remember Randall Terry doesn't care about "life" he cares about notoriety and power.
He is a cowardice pig!
I love your suggestion thisbusymonster!
I think Terry Randall subscribes to Oscar Wilde's theory of publicity....There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is NOT being talked about.
#3 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:23 AM ESTInteresting that he got around that, because last week, they were telling him no. Threats of lawsuits possibly?
I think what's interesting here, is that he is a Republican running as a Democrat against President Obama, just so he can run his ads.
#4 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:45 AM ESTThey should include an ad covering the birth of a baby born to a drug addicted mother. Then do follow ups on homeless children. I'm pro-life, but also know that not all life should be brought into this world using the most advanced medical treatments.
#5 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:51 AM ESTOh, oh,ohhhhhh
I almost forgot, here's a gem. Vermin Supreme sprinkling "fairy dust" on Randall Terry to turn him gay, because Jesus commanded him too. At end of clip.
Vermin Supreme: When I'm President Everyone Gets A Free Pony
#6 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:56 AM ESTThat they would want this type of commercial for the Super Bowl, is dumbfounding.
#7 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:58 AM ESTRandall Terry is a fundamentalist Christian mullah who wants the United States to be a theocracy in no uncertain terms.
#8 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:31 AM ESTJeff Jefferson-912478
Sounds like a description of Rick Santorum
I suspect that they would get along famously.
Actually, it sounds pretty much like most of the GOTP candidates....
Happily,
I agree, I think this is going to backfire big time. Throwing cold water on millions of people partying and enjoying the game is going to piss them off.
#9 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:56 AM ESTExactly!
It would be nice to have a few hours on one day where families and friends can put these issues aside.
Philip Grant, comment # 9:
"…I think this is going to backfire big time."
And considering the market the Super Bowl has for Sports Bars around the country, I wouldn't be surprised if this finally ends the debate once and for all in favor of women's health and forces Terry and his followers to permanently go 'underground' as a pariah and national disgrace.
Super Bowl viewers in 40 cities across the country will see graphic ads featuring images of bloody, aborted fetuses.
I guess I don't see why this would be a big deal or considered a scandal to people who are truly pro-choice. I mean after all...it's just a "lump of tissue" and not a baby, right? No different that showing a commercial with a removed tumor, from what some people tell me.
Excellent comment, Pat! It's just an "unviable mass of tissue."
No big deal....
Excellent comment, Pat! It's just an "unviable mass of tissue."
No big deal....
That's what they always tell me, anyway. So this shrill nonsense about how "horrible" this ad is doesn't make any sense.
Unless of course, a shadow of a doubt lingers in the back of the pro-choice brain that maybe...just maybe...they're wrong.
I don't choose for my family to view blood and gore and television, and don't want it forced upon us when a commercial appears - there's no pre-warning and no time to change the channel. I have a hard enough time getting to the television before our six-year-old breaks down in tears when the ASPCA commercials come on. That's why it would be a big deal if they air it during a family event such as the Superbowl.
I've not heard of a single woman whose mind has been changed about an abortion because of graphic, bloody pictures shoved in her face. This is about sensationalism, not really about preventing abortion.
I don't choose for my family to view blood and gore and television,
Really? So you're actively campaigning to have shows like CSI and other popular dramatic TV programming taken off the air?
come on Pat, not a fair comparison. Those are scheduled shows that can be blocked or avoided.
So those with small children should now NOT watch the super bowl just to avoid a 30 sec commercial.
BTW, there are some pretty ugly pictures of later term abortions that these fools like to use. Like on the sides of panel trucks in rush hour traffic or flying banners over said traffic.
These people of sick for wanting to do ads during a national TV event. I hope they don't air them.
CCArm,
If Liberals want to allow the choice of late term abortions, people should be educated about what that looks like.
You can't have it both ways.
When I'm watching the Super Bowl most people don't want an anti-smoking add showing diseased lungs, throat cancer, or stomach cancer. In a tampon add they don't want to see a bloody tampon. It's not overly pleasant viewing. A six week old fetus is not even close to being a person, but to see an evacuated fetus is on par with seeing any other bloody mass of tissue - not exactly appropriate for family programming for most people. Personally I find surgeries fascinating to watch and I know exactly what a fetus looks like as well as understand the limits of its anatomy, but if I had a six year old kid the Super Bowl is not really the time I probably want to be explaining the ins and outs of human sexuality, which is what this type of add would necessitate.
Hey, the government mandated pictures of diseased lungs on cigarettes and pictures of diseased lungs where cigarettes are sold.
CCArm,
If Liberals want to allow the choice of late term abortions, people should be educated about what that looks like.
You can't have it both ways.
Could you say the same thing re war?
If we support a war, then we should be exposed to graphic photos on primetime TV showing civilian families blown to pieces by errant Predator drone missiles, right?
The Media is NOT permitted to show our service members who have been blown up by IEDs or any other serious bloody injury they have sustain in the name of WAR!
If you come up to an accident that has a fatality, the body IS covered with a sheet to prevent anyone from seeing such a tragedy.
Allowing this type of "commercial" during the Superbowl is just another example of the hypocrisy that has become so prevalent in this country. Pardon the crassness, but it is bullchit to the extreme!
Pat,
Read my comment above.... I am pro-choice and I don't approve of the ads being run.
My reasons are stated above. I also agree with Andrew's view.
E
Brian,
We saw plenty of blood and guts during the Vietnam War on the evening news.
When I'm watching the Super Bowl most people don't want an anti-smoking add showing diseased lungs, throat cancer, or stomach cancer.
This administration is advocating for graphic pictures of just that thing being displayed everywhere. http://www.dnainfo.com/20110621/manhattan/fda-announces-graphic-new-antismoking-campaign
MANHATTAN — The FDA will be introducing a graphic new anti-smoking campaign in September 2012, with images like a person smoking through a hole in their throat and a close-up shot of a diseased lung.
And I don't see the "pro-choice crowd caterwauling about it.
It's not overly pleasant viewing.
Not everything in life is pleasant.
A six week old fetus is not even close to being a person, but to see an evacuated fetus is on par with seeing any other bloody mass of tissue - not exactly appropriate for family programming for most people.
Since when did the pro-choice crowd become a bunch of puritans? Now, suddenly, seeing that which they advocate for is "innappropriate"?
but if I had a six year old kid the Super Bowl is not really the time I probably want to be explaining the ins and outs of human sexuality, which is what this type of add would necessitate.
Why? It's not a baby, remember? It doesn't have to lead to a discussion about sex. All you have to say if a kid asks is: "Oh. That? That's a good thing. It's championing the right we all promote. Women having the choice to get rid of an icky chunk of unwanted nastiness found in her body that could eventually become a person if left to mature naturally."
Besides, 6 year olds were asking what "oral sex" was during the Clinton admin and his supporters didn't think that was any big deal. Why would pro-choicers then consider it "bad" if 6 year olds asked what an abortion was? If you don't think it's wrong...why wouldn't you want the kids educated about it?
Pat N,
I'm somewhat with you on this... I am pro-choice, but hiding behind the facts and pretending "no one" is harmed or in pain or suffers during an abortion is living in a fantasy. Pro-choice is a good thing, but ignorance or refusing to acknowledge truths is not only irresponsible and selfish, but just plain stupid.
Abortion is a tough decision for women and many times it's not a choice but a medical necessity.
Conservative Conspirator
Late term abortions are for the safety of the mother or the viability of the child and in both cases the decision is torture for the woman and the family IN MOST CASES.
and no, we don't need to see the result of any abortion. It is not necessary and only shows the sick nature of the anti choice crowd.
I bet this never happens.
Hey, the government mandated pictures of diseased lungs on cigarettes and pictures of diseased lungs where cigarettes are sold.
Haven't seen any such adds in family programming, which is what the Super Bowl is for many people. They'll probably be Go Daddy adds, condom adds, and plenty of beer adds, so it's not like this will be the only questionable advertisement during the Super Bowl though.
"Oh. That? That's a good thing. It's championing the right we all promote. Women having the choice to get rid of an icky chunk of unwanted nastiness found in her body that could eventually become a person if left to mature naturally."
Damn right it's a good thing if the woman is unprepared for parenthood, but the explanation of that tissues anatomy and what differentiates it from a baby requires a rather detailed and complex explanation. I have no problem giving that explanation to a child, but it will take longer than a thirty second commercial break. Some parents also obviously don't want to give that explanation, including many conservative parents whose sex talks consist of telling their kids to simply be abstinent until marriage. I would imagine you'll actually get more outrage over this from those conservative parents than many liberal parents.
Some parents also obviously don't want to give that explanation
"Don't want"? Awww. The poor things. They "don't want" to have to explain something to their child at a time they consider *inconvenient*. Yet they want abortion to be legal in all instances. They *want* that same child's friends to be able to get that exact same procedure without notifying their parents. They *want* that procedure to be available as a means of birth control. They *want* women to be able to get abortions as a matter of convenience.
CC Arm:
"Late term abortions are for the safety of the mother or the viability of the child and in both cases the decision is torture for the woman and the family IN MOST CASES."
WILL SOME LIBERAL stand up against late term abortions when the child is viable and there is NO safety issue for the mother?
Maybe you two should check your facts about what Randall is actually showing. I'm not going to post the link to his website because the ads truly are disturbing. And I'm warning anyone right now who chooses to watch them. Even from a conservatives standpoint the images are disturbing. Terry Randall makes the Westboro Baptist church seem tame. Do a little research into how hateful and horrible this man is, and your opinion of the ads may change.
The images presented are not anywhere on par with CSI or any other police/crime drama on TV. HBO and Showtime don't even "go there" Plus these are Television shows I can control. If I choose to watch Dexter or Game of Thrones, or whatever, my child is not around because I'm well aware of the graphic nature of those programs. However, the Superbowl is a sporting event that has always been suitable to be viewed by anyone. I would imagine 25% of the viewers only watch it for the commercials. If they choose to air this commercial, it should be held to the same ratings standards as all other television, and the whole Superbowl will have to be rated MA. Not that it's going to stop children from watching it.
"Most of the images show very late term fetuses and the vast majority of abortions (88%) occur within the first trimester. Further, women who abort late in their pregnancies do so because of a heartbreaking set of circumstances that interferes with a wanted pregnancy. No one just skips on into the abortion clinic at 20 weeks, giddy with excitement and glinting with bloodthirsty anti-baby rage; no one enjoys having an abortion at all. And whatever stories are behind the images Terry plans to use are undoubtedly complicated and sad."
If you're pro-life, good for you, but this doesn't need to be seen by children. Or the women who have been trying to have a baby but has instead suffered a tragic miscarriage. Do you really want to flash this in front of someone who's already mourning? These commercials aren't going to prevent abortions from happening, as a vast majority of them are not done "just because" But that's obviously a point almost all Pro-life people simply can't grasp.
WILL SOME LIBERAL stand up against late term abortions when the child is viable and there is NO safety issue for the mother?
Sure this liberal will as soon as you come across a woman wanting a late term abortion when the child is viable and there is NO safety issue for the mother.
I know it's probably very hard to believe, especially when you believe such anti-choice nonsense, women don't wake up in their 7th month of pregnancy and want an abortion so they can go out the next weekend.
"Don't want"? Awww. The poor things. They "don't want" to have to explain something to their child at a time they consider *inconvenient*. Yet they want abortion to be legal in all instances. They *want* that same child's friends to be able to get that exact same procedure without notifying their parents. They *want* that procedure to be available as a means of birth control. They *want* women to be able to get abortions as a matter of convenience.
Aww straw-men. Always so much more easy to attack than the actual facts. Conservative not liberal parents have the strongest issues with graphic programming. As many conservatives will be upset by this as liberals. No liberal I've ever met is in favor of abortion in all cases. No liberal I've ever met thinks abortion should be used as birth control - which is why liberals support comprehensive sex-education unlike conservatives, they of course want women to be able to get abortions conveniently - because they are time sensitive procedures and they want a woman who wants one to logistically be able to get it done as early as possible so it doesn't become a late term abortion issue and they aren't forced to do it in a back alley. Conservatives who create road blocks that delay abortions, like 72 hour waiting periods, required ultrasounds, etc. are in fact making the resulting abortions more dangerous and insuring the fetus is more developed when it occurs, that sure make sense.
WILL SOME LIBERAL stand up against late term abortions when the child is viable and there is NO safety issue for the mother?
Sure this liberal will as soon as you come across a woman wanting a late term abortion when the child is viable and there is NO safety issue for the mother.
Lola,
Since this NEVER HAPPENS (BS!), you shouldn't object to a law against it, since it will never be enforced.
I don't want bloody tissue paraded on my TV, whether it's an aborted fetus for an anti-abortion ad, or cancerous tissue removed for a Cancer fundraising ad. The SCC this week again insisted that network TV's cannot show human anatomy or broadcast common curse words. To me, those are much more natural things than tissue removed from a body, which is normally immediately disposed of by medical standards. Speaking of natural, would you like to see some natural human anatomy having sexual intercourse during your Super Bowl? To make it more fun, I request it be same gender sex. Or maybe a film of some guy getting electrocuted down in Texas for an anti-death penalty ad. That would be pro-life, now wouldn't it. Some things are not appropriate.
you shouldn't object to a law against it,
There are already laws against it! Thirty-six states have late term abortion bans. There are federal bans on partial-birth abortion. Only 1% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. After 24 weeks that drops to .08% - . Late term abortion is not used as birth control, it is used to address the mother's health.
Why have a law like that then? It's a waste of time and tax payer money. CC supply some proof that women wait until the last trimester to abort with no health issues.
I don't want bloody tissue paraded on my TV,
Well gosh. Lets make sure all commercials and TV programming centers around what CMI "wants". To hell with that pesky 1st Amendment.
Guttmacher defines a late term abortion as 16 weeks or later...
Well,PAT N,if we're going the first amendment route why ban any images or language on the airwaves?
To hell with that pesky 1st Amendment.
Ugh, the first amendment argument actually falls on the side of the network being allowed to choose what is allowed on their airwaves. The government forcing them to display political adds is a far more questionable first amendment violation than private censorship, which is clearly allowed.
Chitowny is right, but Pat N is also right: it's not about what I want. I expressed myself poorly. The point is, that we each want different things. And if we don't agree to set some boundaries acceptable to all, we will get more than any of us want. Pat you defend the guy who wants to show aborted fetuses. But what will be your basis after that for objecting to other images that you do find objectionable? Or are you ready to allow ANYTHING on TV? As one poster suggested, perhaps Larry Flynt could find a way to fund a commercial for another fringe candidate. Imagine the possibilities...
Well,PAT N,if we're going the first amendment route why ban any images or language on the airwaves?
Golly. I dunno. FCC regulations, maybe? If you can show me where the FCC says this ad violates said regs...I will gladly join your resounding chorus that the ad should be pulled. What I refuse to do is demand the hypocrisy of: "I want this procedure to be legal in all instances, but I don't want any visuals of the procedure presented to the general public".
So then you can't use the First Amendment argument can you?
What I refuse to do is demand the hypocrisy of: "I want this procedure to be legal in all instances, but I don't want any visuals of the procedure presented to the general public".
so, masturbation is legal, you think it's hypocritical to want to keep it so and yet not allow images of a person whacking off in a commercial?
first of all, it's not about "want." It's about believing the legality of abortion to be necessary in a society that values the equality of women with men. If there's a better way, I'm all ears.
...and there are plenty of medical procedures (most of them in fact) that I'd find distasteful during the superbowl. I don't want to see someone's bloody kidney during a transplant, nor even their tonsils after removal. That doesn't make me a hypocrite for wanting these procedures to remain legal.
"I want this procedure to be legal in all instances, but I don't want any visuals of the procedure presented to the general public".
First of all "all instances" is not the stand of most people right or left. Second, presenting graphic images of procedures is already allowed on billboards, trucks, flying banners and just about everywhere the graphic sicko's want to put them
NOT ON OUR TV'S AS ADS!!!!
first of all, it's not about "want." It's about believing the legality of abortion to be necessary in a society that values the equality of women with men.
If you were so concerned about equality of men and women, men would not have NO reproductive rights.
My post# 10.20 - "Sure this liberal will as soon as you come across a woman wanting a late term abortion when the child is viable and there is NO safety issue for the mother."
Conservative Conspirator - Since this NEVER HAPPENS (BS!), you shouldn't object to a law against it, since it will never be enforced.
I believe Andrew-1162039 corrected your comment in his post# 10.24 with:
"There are already laws against it! Thirty-six states have late term abortion bans. There are federal bans on partial-birth abortion. Only 1% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. After 24 weeks that drops to .08% - . Late term abortion is not used as birth control, it is used to address the mother's health."
Guttmacher defines a late term abortion as 16 weeks or later...
Is a fetus viable at 16 weeks? Who knew! Reread my post# 10.20, I believe we were talking about viability, yes?
Gee, CC and Pat, should some people then be allowed to show pictures/films of children being sexually abused by priests or other "men of the cloth" who rail against abortion when they're not with their altar boys??
If Liberals want to allow the choice of late term abortions, people should be educated about what that looks like.
You can't have it both ways.
Kind of like having the caskets coming through Dover being televised, amirite? If chickenhawks are going to send us into unneeded wars for political/personal ambition/gain, then they should be forced to see what happens to us.
I love how the x-tian taliban is really big on telling you what you can and cannot do with your body but they don't care what happens after said fetus is born. If someone wants to have an abortion it is their business, not yours. Not mine, not my dog's, not my 1SG's, not my post commander's.
One of my Soldier's came to me stating he needed help because his wife was pregnant and they knew they couldn't afford to take care of the baby after it was born and we were getting ready to deploy and he didn't want her going through it alone. So I helped him find an abortion clinic close enough to our base (which was difficult enough on it's own), set up the appointment, put the paperwork in to get him a four day pass for the procedure, and went down there with them because they were young and worried about being harassed at the clinic. Instead of being so judgmental of situations that don't impose upon you any financial or emotional need, you should see things from the side of the person in need of the abortion.
It really amazes me, the gall of some people who assume to control the lives of people they don't know, will never meet, and who owe them nothing. Simply because of some idiotic religious superstition. What you people need is a job or a hobby that doesn't involve sticking your nose in the uterus of people who don't want you there.
Gee, CC and Pat, should some people then be allowed to show pictures/films of children being sexually abused by priests or other "men of the cloth" who rail against abortion when they're not with their altar boys??
After all it'd be factual.
That's what I thought, therefore the 1.5% of abortions performed after 22 weeks are for when the child is not viable and/or there is ARE safety issue for the mother.
Lola,
What should be done if an abortion is done on a viable 22 week old fetus when the mother faces NO health issues, hence, this is purely an elective procedure?
CC
Unless of course, a shadow of a doubt lingers in the back of the pro-choice brain that maybe...just maybe...they're wrong.
You wish. All I have to do to remind me of why abortion should always be legal, safe, and rare, is to imagine some bloody coathangers discarded in an alley.
Next to the corpses of the young women who went to Dr. Coathanger in desperation.
The thing is, banning abortion is not going to stop abortion. Something you pro (HAHAHAHAHAHA)"life" people never ever bother to accept as a blunt, hard fact that will never go away.
If you want to stop abortion, you make it LEGAL, you make contraception EASY TO GET, you make fatherhood an OBLIGATION, you make dna testing CHEAP so that the father can be found, and you make deadbeat dads into CRIMINALS who spend time in JAIL.
That will reduce abortion to a necessary medical procedure which by the way is none of your business. But until contraception is easy, and fatherhood is as harsh a legal, financial, and moral obligation as motherhood is, abortion will continue whether you "allow" it or no.
My mother was a nurse for over 50 years. She saw a woman AND her fetus die after a car accident because the woman's weakened body couldn't support both, when she could have survived if an abortion was possible at that time. She also witnessed a doctor in the days before Roe v Wade was legal perform a "therapeutic dilation and curretage" on a 15 year old girl who wanted to keep her baby, but her wealthy parents didn't want to be "embarassed and humiliated."
During her time working in the Emergency Department, she saw women die from botched "back alley" abortions or infections from desperate women using coat hangars on themselves. There were even a few who were lucky enough to survive, but were rendered sterile.
My grandparents blamed my brother and sister-in-law when one of their twins died right before their scheduled c-section, saying God did it because my brother and sister-in-law had "lived in sin" before they got married, 2 YEARS before they even got pregnant. People like that cannot be reasoned with, ever.
I will not tell someone who they can love, what form of religion (or not) to believe in, or what their politics should be, whether or not they can practice birth control, or whether or not they can have an abortion. I know what my choices are/would be, but I have no right to impose my beliefs on someone else.
That's code for "do nothing"
Any abortion, all the time!
You got it! I trust women and their doctors to make the best reproductive decisions for themselves and their patients.
OK, busy...if no doubt lingers, then why all the freaking out about the ads? There was recently a texting while driving commercial that was extremely graphic. Very bloody. And that was even a PSA. I don;t remember anyone from the pro-choice crowd getting bent out of shape about it. A glob of tissue is a glob of tissue, right? And that PSA had a glob of brain on a windshield.
If it's "Any abortion, all the time," spare me this talk about viability. You obviously don't care about that....
Yes I do and that's why I trust women to not terminate their pregnancy when the fetus is viable and there is NO safety issue for the mother. You on the other hand believe the anti-choice propaganda of "they're killing viable babies" and "the sky is falling".
The sole purpose of these ads is not to educate. The sole purpose is to inflame.
And the 40 cities? No doubt Dew, Arp, Mistletoe, Karg, Bleeth, Muleshoe, Cranston, Kilgore, etc.
The sole purpose of these ads is not to educate. The sole purpose is to inflame.
That's probably true. But I don't think he's looking to win over any converts. And as long as the ads fall within the bounds of FCC guidelines, they are protected free speech. Something everyone should be grateful for.
The 1st Amendment wasn't put into place to protect the status quo and mainstream, majority viewpoint. It was put into place to ensure the minority voice gets heard.
So regardless of your views on abortion...these ads are a free speech issue. He has the rigt to run them and everyone else has the right to either support or condemn them as they see fit. What they DON'T have is the right to tell him he can't run them
I agree, the man can run all the ads he wants to, as long as he's allowed by the FCC and can pay for them. I have the right to not watch them or expose my child to them, and I also have the right to write to the television stations broadcasting the advertisements that I don't want to see them and will turn off any program they run such an advertisement on.
As awful as television shows and news programs (I miss Walter Cronkite!) have become, I'm just going to throw the thing out. Idiot Box, indeed!
That's probably true. But I don't think he's looking to win over any converts.
Understatement of the century. Terry is a classic moral scold, who in his haughty regard of the rest of us has no inner gaze to his own sins.
And as long as the ads fall within the bounds of FCC guidelines
I doubt they do, but because it comes from the right, pretty much anything will be allowed, I'm sure.
Pro "Lifers" have been talking past the facts for so long that they have utterly lost the ear of anyone who isn't in the pro-life cult. They ignore the responsibilities of the father, demonize the mother, ignore the practical result of their activities (which is to make abortion MORE prevalent, not less), insist that birth control not be practiced at all, and in every way make it plan that the real goal of the pro-life movement is to enslave women.
Period.
I don't think he's looking to win over any converts.
I agree. And I am inclined to think that, unfortunately, that extends to most folks on both sides of the issue. If we were serious about actually being persuasive and trying to change people's minds with facts, logic and reason, we wouldn't see articles, headlines and comments full of insults of the other's viewpoint. The objective there is obviously to demonize the opposition, not to challenge their beliefs and logic and change their minds. I prefer the latter--challenge and change with a little respect in the process.
I have the right to not watch them or expose my child to them...
Right. And when we make it known to broadcasters and advertisers that we intend to not watch ads that are intended to be inflammatory and shocking rather than rational and in a proper venue for such things--not a fun sporting event--then it kind of makes the millions that are spent on such ads sort of wasteful. The whole idea is viewership.
If Liberals want to allow the choice of late term abortions, people should be educated about what that looks like.
By the same logic we should probably televise a colonoscopy just so everyone is educated.
I'm not necessarily opposed to either. However, I think the venue of one of the most exciting, fun events on the sports calendar is probably not the most conducive to the import of those procedures actually sinking in. It's sort of like having an embalming demonstration at a birthday party. Sure, it's do-able, I suppose, but is there a better time, place and focused audience for such things? Probably so.
Well, Katie Couric allowed a TV crew to follow her colonoscopy on the Today Show. She was draped in a way so her privacy was protected, but it was otherwise about as live as it gets.
Yes I do and that's why I trust women to not terminate their pregnancy when the fetus is viable and there is NO safety issue for the mother.
Yeah, ALL women can be trusted. Just like ALL MEN can be.
TRUST is not a plan.
Gee, Pat, why no comment about allowing messages pointing out pious clergy abusing children? The "viability" of using kids for that purpose goes a lot longer than 22 weeks...
The whole idea is viewership.
In the case of programming it is. But not in the case of commercials. Networks don't care if you watch the commercial or not. They've already gotten their ad revenue. Telling a station you refuse to watch a commercial they run isn't going to effect them one bit. Only telling them you refuse to watch a program will hit them where it hurts.
Gee, Pat, why no comment about allowing messages pointing out pious clergy abusing children? The "viability" of using kids for that purpose goes a lot longer than 22 weeks...
1) Because this little thing called "life" became more important than getting a response to you in the time frame you required. Although I AM flattered that you were apparently sitting there, waiting with breathless anticipation for my response.
2) Because it's a ridiculous comparison. Pedophelia is illegal. Abortion is legal. Pedophelia involves the victimization of children. Abortion, according to pro-choicers, is nothing more than a wad of tissue.
Could you have possibly picked two things that have less in common with each other?
Pat, 10.62. You're right. Good points. But I would hate to be that advertiser spending those millions of dollars for an ad that the very people they want to "educate" are turning away, turning off or walking out of the room in protest. There's really no need to spend millions to preach to the choir. :)
Davy, I don't think anybody would try to defend pedophilia by the Catholic clergy, but the absence of a comment about anything does not logically equate an endorsement of whatever that may be.
But I would hate to be that advertiser spending those millions of dollars for an ad that the very people they want to "educate" are turning away, turning off or walking out of the room in protest. There's really no need to spend millions to preach to the choir. :)
Like I said, I don't think he's out to educate anyone. If I were a network and he wanted to give me $1,000,000 for a Super Bowl ad...I'd let him, as long as the ad was legal. That's just business.
People really need to remove the emotion from this. As a pro-lifer, the way I see it is that if people want abortion to be accepted in the mainstream and want it to be legal, then they should be OK with dissention. Allowing equal time for dissenting opinion is part of what makes this country great.
Personally, I don't think this is the best way to promote a pro-life stance. But I also see the irony in people calling a fetus "just a lump of tissue" and then getting all bent out of shape over a 30 second spot that will show on one program one day out of the year that actually shows the thing that's nothing more than a "lump of tissue".
I don't think he's out to educate anyone...
Well, then, what's he selling in this ad, and who is the prospective "buyer"? It's obviously not a public service announcement; they're free. I think this is paid advertising we talking about.
As a pro-lifer, the way I see it is that if people want abortion to be accepted in the mainstream and want it to be legal, then they should be OK with dissention.
Agree 100%.
Allowing equal time for dissenting opinion is part of what makes this country great.
It's been a long time since I was in journalism school and making a living as a journalist/editor, but I believe using advertising on the public air ways for editorials is against FCC regulations. There is a time and place for editorializing on the people's air ways, but it's not via paid advertising.
But I also see the irony in people calling a fetus "just a lump of tissue" and then getting all bent out of shape over a 30 second spot that will show on one program one day out of the year that actually shows the thing that's nothing more than a "lump of tissue".
I think a lot of pro-choicers get bent out of shape about it due to what they think is the bad taste of it, the inappropriate venue for such a serious statement, and what they know is the disdain for the American constitutional rights of women that they know Randall Terry has demonstrated via his words and actions. I think that's what's really bothering folks about this, NOT the fact that good and decent people happen to be pro-life.
I'm going to have to agree that the ads SHOULD BE RUN, if they tell the truth...no lies and no propaganda. Now, I'm a staunch pro choice supporter. I honestly believe this will benefit the pro choice side of the debate.
In the last several years something like 64 anti choice laws have been passed around this country, this debate needs to be had in full. No more dancing around the issues...BRING IT ON. This will not result in the desired outcome of the Forced Birth crowd. State mandated rape in TX and OK...that's ok with you pro life women? Is it really ok that a woman has to have a metal probe shoved up her vagina because she decides for what ever reason to have a legal medical procedure?
Oh and while we are at it, lets also eliminate birth control, have abstinance only education and defund Planned Parenthood. Hey while we are having so much fun with this...why don't we also ban nursing in public, eliminate prenatal health coverage, do you like your maternity leave??? Let's do away with that too. Let's make sure that every woman has NO rights, no say in HER OWN REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES. LETS DANCE.
Then when right wing women have NO choices...we'll have this dance again.
I'm sick and tired of the attacks on a womans rights to choose what is best for her. So explain it to your kids prior to the super bowl, cuz if this @!$%# can do it, SO CAN WE. Is this really how you want to play it?
As a woman, mother, grandmother...the 3rd in 5generations of first born women...I say bring it! We won last time and We will win again. fireryone is fired up!!!
I'm sick and tired of the attacks on a womans rights to choose what is best for her.
Good post. You know I don't agree with a lot of it, but I genuinely appreciate the way you laid it out, in detail and without soundbites or "chiken-little-the-sky-is-falling" melodrama.
The only thing I really want to respond to is the above part that I quoted.
I get where you're coming from. But by the same token, the pro-life side is sick of every little thing being shrilly referred to as an "attack of women's rights". While our sides reaction may sometimes be over the top (like these ads), I think a lot of it is borne of frustration from the extreme pro-choicers screaming: "You hate women!!!" Whenever we propose something sensible like parental notification for minors or teaching abstinence alongside safe sex in high school.
A good resent example is the case that recently made it all the way to the TX Supreme Court. Pro-choicers dragged a case that far because of a law that stated every woman wanting an abortion had to get a sonogram and the Dr. had to explain it to her. The "chicken-little" melodramatic crowd claimed that it was trying to "talk women out of getting an abortion". Which is a ridiculous claim. Dr's are bound by the law to Informed Consent laws. There isn't a surgery on the books that you can get where the Dr DOESN'T have to legally tell you precisely what's going on inside you and explain both the pro's and con's of the operation you're about to undergo.
If we saw less drama out of the 'choice' crowd, we'd likely see less drama out of the 'life' crowd. Battles need to be chosen wisely.
the ads SHOULD BE RUN, if they tell the truth..
When it comes to the kind of "truth" that's called for in the abortion debate, that's impossible, my friend. There's a huge difference in truth in advertising, and metaphysical truth pertaining to moral issues. There is no "truth," per se, in political opinion. Subjectivity is the very nature of political opinion. Objectivity is the nature of science and civil law (and measures pertaining to truth in advertising).
What makes the ad constitutionally acceptable, imho, is the fact that it falls within the guidelines of those legal requirements for political ads. I don't like it and I don't agree with the premise, which has its basis in Citizens United and other prior rulings pertaining to political advertising, but it's not illegal, and if the FCC, if they're even called into the fray, deems it acceptable, then OK. I don't have to like it or agree with it for it to be constitutional or legally acceptable.
I don't choose for my family to view blood and gore and television, and don't want it forced upon us when a commercial appears - there's no pre-warning and no time to change the channel. I have a hard enough time getting to the television before our six-year-old breaks down in tears when the ASPCA commercials come on. That's why it would be a big deal if they air it during a family event such as the Superbowl.
So... are you saying that television programming should be limited to that which you believe is suitable for your 6-year-old?
I was channel surfing early this morning and a commercial came on for a nature show. There was a lion chomping on the leg of a still breathing gazelle. Buzzards were circling above. The commercial interrupted my local news. Not exactly the "appropriate venue".
I will wait patiently for the pro-choice crowd to condemn this ad as unappropriate for children and condemn the party responsible for it.
We don't watch that kind of stuff on our television - it's blood and gore and not appropriate for small children, IMO.
To clear up an accusation above, although it wasn't directed explicitly to me, I have no issues discussing sex with our child when it's age-appropriate (six-years-old is too young by any standards). However, showing a dead, bloody, baby to small children is not only a far cry from the truth about the majority of abortions, it's a completely inappropriate introduction to such a discussion.
We don't watch that kind of stuff on our television
So therefore, all programming should cater to your wishes? I imagine recovering alcoholics don't like beer commercials either. Your point?
However, showing a dead, bloody, baby
So we've gone from "dead bloody fetus" to "dead, bloody baby" huh? Interesting.
I will wait patiently for the pro-choice crowd to condemn this ad as unappropriate for children and condemn the party responsible for it.
as you've shown your judgment regarding what is and isn't appropriate for television to be suspect (to say the least) I'll refrain from condemning something based on your judgment alone. Please reference the commercial and show it interrupted so that we may see it ourselves.
Nice dance, greck. Interesting that the "blood and gore" argument is justified in one case but not the other.
Interesting that the "blood and gore" argument is justified in one case but not the other.
I didn't say it was "justified"
I said your judgment is suspect, given that you want a bloody dead child shown on the air, and shouldn't be the sole source of information.
I don't have an opinion about your gazelle carcass commercial, as I haven't seen it, nor heard of it before you brought it up. More details are needed.
Pat, nikkinala does not speak for pro-choice people when she refers to a fetus as a baby; she is just one person posting her opinion.
Interesting that you jump on that one word in someone's post.
Interesting that you jump on that one word in someone's post.
Nothing new there, yet she herself jumps all over posters for painting with a broad brush. Hypocrisy at it's best I suppose.
The biggest point between anti-abortion ads, and messages advising parents to keep their eye on priests and other clergy, is that people will see the former as their one and only righteous duty, and the latter as nothing more than criticism and distraction from that duty.
good resent example is the case that recently made it all the way to the TX Supreme Court. Pro-choicers dragged a case that far because of a law that stated every woman wanting an abortion had to get a sonogram and the Dr. had to explain it to her. The "chicken-little" melodramatic crowd claimed that it was trying to "talk women out of getting an abortion". Which is a ridiculous claim. Dr's are bound by the law to Informed Consent laws. There isn't a surgery on the books that you can get where the Dr DOESN'T have to legally tell you precisely what's going on inside you and explain both the pro's and con's of the operation you're about to undergo.
Pat, I don't think that you really understand what the lawsuit was about. The law suit was brought by Drs who felt that the government should not compell them on what to say during the procedure. They brought the suit to the supreme court as a violation of their free speech. The sonogram you mention is a vaginal sonogram. This law essentially mandates that a woman be vaginally penetrated (without medical necessity), just simply because she wants to obtain a legal medical procedure.
There are other ways to go about educating women on the status of their pregnancy (so that they know exactly what they are aborting) without going to this extreme measure. Given that they choose this method leaves one to believe that it isn't about education. I would think that those who want smaller government would recognize that this is in direct conflict of the patients rights to not have a procedure that they do not need, and it is also in conflict of a medical professionals duty to perform only those procedures which are necessary to provide good care to their patients.
Pat, nikkinala does not speak for pro-choice people when she refers to a fetus as a baby
Peachy. Can you show me where I said she did? Why do you feel the need to hastily separate yourself when I never even implied she was "speaking for all pro-choice people"?
Interesting that you jump on that one word in someone's post.
When a pro-choicer suddenly uses the words "dead, bloody baby" while the very platform of the movement is that it's not a "baby" at all...that's an attention getter.
Quite defensive, aren't you, Pat?
When ONE pro-choice person uses the word "baby" instead of "fetus," you jump on it with the implication that ALL pro-choice people think that way. And YOU seem to have the impression that ONE person is speaking for the "very platform of the movement".
What a hypocrite you are!
When ONE pro-choice person uses the word "baby" instead of "fetus," you jump on it with the implication that ALL pro-choice people think that way.
I asked you to show me where I did that. So far...you have failed miserably at proving your assertation. Can you, or can you not...show me where I even so much as hinted at the suggestion that one person using the word "baby" means all pro-choicers think that way?
I'll wait patiently for your evidence of your accusation. When you can't provide it, I'll just assume you woke up on the wrong side of the bed and are looking for a pissing match with someone.
What a hypocrite you are!
Would suggest you educate yourself re: the Newsvine CoH.
Can you, or can you not...show me where I even so much as hinted at the suggestion that one person using the word "baby" means all pro-choicers think that way?P>BLOCKQUOTE>
#78.54
And I frequently hear pro-choicers comparing fetuses to tumors or other such nonsense. I have never heard a pro-choice person refer to a removed tumor as a "dead, bloody tumor", yet they refer to an aborted fetus as a "dead bloody fetus" rather frequently. If the two are viewed in the same light, why the discrepency? They only thing I can think of is because the people who use the word "dead" in conjuction with an aborted fetus, aren't so sure about their belief that it isn't a baby. They have some speck of nagging doubt.
sorry, it should have been #1.54, and somehow the formatting got all screwy on me, here's the link, Pat N:
http://joefromflorida.newsvine.com/_news/2012/01/11/10110926-super-bowl-viewers-will-see-graphic-anti-abortion-ads-with-pictures-of-bloody-fetuses?pc=25&sp=0&threadId=3317061&last=1326388848#c61469422
Pat N, I used the word "baby" instead of "fetus" only because according to other posters who have viewed the ads (I have not and don't wish to), they contain photos of a late-term aborted fetus, which, to our six-year-old, would look like a dead baby covered in blood. While an adult would know the difference, a small child would not, and seeing - as I mentioned earlier - that even ASPCA commercials are upsetting to our son, these images would be even more so.
I don't wish to have all programming be suitable for small children; I'm a fullying-functioning adult with a remote control and access to programming guides. I object to these ads being aired during family programming.
Greck -
I'm being accused of saying that ALL pro-choicers view the fetus as a baby because one person used the word "baby" and I called them on it.
From post 10.4
When ONE pro-choice person uses the word "baby" instead of "fetus," you jump on it with the implication that ALL pro-choice people think that way
Your link does not show where I claimed all pro choice people think that way, as claimed above.
Now. Can you, or can you not...show me where I said that.
Pat,
you didn't say "all" but you did generalize well beyond one person and well beyond your personal experience
the people who use the word "dead" in conjuction with an aborted fetus, aren't so sure about their belief that it isn't a baby. They have some speck of nagging doubt.
this isn't limited to one instance, one case, one person using the word "baby" the way you would frame it now, or even keeping with the "only the pro-choicers I've heard" line.
I am pro choice it is the woman's choice and no one Else's business
I think if they are going to allow propaganda bs on tv during the bowl then I think they should have one about how their is NO GOD,
boy won't THAT create havoc.
The Religious ass's would be out in force.
It is inappropriate for this to be shown during a game that people enjoy, I contacted them and said if I see the commercial, any sponsor prior to that will get a call. Might not do much for this game, but next year they might have issues with getting sponsors.
As far as seeing it "bloody" I have seen much worse than that.
I think if they are going to allow propaganda bs on tv during the bowl then I think they should have one about how their is NO GOD
...and if Freedom From Religion or some other organization that held that belief wanted to run one, pay for it and it was within FCC guidelines, I'd support their right to do so.
ErinNJ, comment # 10.84:
Easy Erin, I don't wanna lose you… ;)
Pat N
...and if Freedom From Religion or some other organization that held that belief wanted to run one, pay for it and it was within FCC guidelines, I'd support their right to do so.
Ok so you are saying that you are infavor of the abortion adds?
All I am saying is, if it were a NON Religous add that was nasty, the Religious fanatics would be screaming.
First Trimester Abortion
A first trimester surgical abortion, which is considered up to approximately 11 weeks and 6 days from the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP), is completed by a procedure known as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).The procedure alone will take approximately 5 minutes, although the visit to the Center will take several hours.The procedure can be performed with either local anesthesia or deep sedation. If the procedure is done under sedation, you will be completely sedated and you will not see, hear or feel any part of the surgery. If the procedure is done under local anesthesia, you will be conscious and will receive an anesthetic. The local anesthetic will numb your cervix, lessening your pain, but you will still experience cramping and discomfort during the procedure.
To ensure your safety on the day of your appointment, you will go through a series of pre-operative assessments with the medical and counseling staff. You will have:
- Ultrasound - to determine the gestational age of the pregnancy
- Lab testing - to evaluate vital signs and to determine blood type as well as hemoglobin level
- Counseling - to address your questions and concerns about the procedure
- History and Physical - to review your medical history, current physical state and birth control options
- Billing - to make your payment using cash or insurance.
After your pre-operative assessment has been completed, you will be prepared for surgery and escorted to the operating room for the procedure. During the surgery there will be approximately 3-5 medical staff in the operating room with you (depending on your individual needs).
The procedure will begin with the physician performing a pelvic exam to determine the size and location of the pregnancy in the uterus. The doctor will then insert a speculum into the vagina so that he/she can view the cervix. The cervix is the lower end of the uterus, and is located at the top of the vaginal canal. The doctor will clean the vaginal canal with an antiseptic. Next, he/she will dilate, or open, the cervix by inserting a series of sterile metal rods, one by one, into the opening of the cervix. These rods, called dilators, gradually increase in width. Dilation for a first trimester abortion is minimal. Once the cervix is opened, the physician will be able to remove the pregnancy from the uterus. The doctor will insert a sterile, plastic, flexible tube called a “cannula” into the uterus. The cannula is attached by a tube to a machine called a “vacuum aspirator”, which creates a suction that removes the pregnancy. Once these steps are complete, the surgeon will clean the inside of the uterus with an instrument called a curette to ensure that all pregnancy tissue has been removed. The whole process takes about 5 – 10 minutes. After surgery, the patient will be monitored for about 30-45 minutes, or until she is medically cleared to return home.
Ok so you are saying that you are infavor of the abortion adds?
I can't really say. I haven't seen them. People are assuming what's in them based on the man's website.
What I am saying is that I care about the 1st Amendment for everyone, more than I care whether or not someone is offended.
All I am saying is, if it were a NON Religous add that was nasty, the Religious fanatics would be screaming.
That's conjecture on your part. Likely, some would. But that said...if an athiest group wants to run a "There is no God" ad, they can pay for it and it's within FCC guidelines, I support their right to do it.
If we based allowed advertising on how many people were "offended" by a given ad, there wouldn't be much advertising on TV.
That's conjecture on your part. Likely, some would. But that said...if an athiest group wants to run a "There is no God" ad, they can pay for it and it's within FCC guidelines, I support their right to do it.
Not me, it is all propaganda and should NOT be done during a game where ALL family memebers could be there.
Randal is an x republican wanting the presidency, he is a FRUIT LOOP, nothing more. He should put his money to educate people, not cram @!$%# down their throats.
Before you say you can turn the channel, No one will know when they air, so if you leave to go to the bathroom and you kid is there, and see it, too late,
It is bull @!$%#, not the time or place for this nonsense add
Not me, it is all propaganda and should NOT be done during a game where ALL family memebers could be there.
I would caution you to think twice about tossing someone else's Constitutional rights out the window on the basis that you don't like how they use them. Someone may do it to you sometime.
Lot of wisdom in this old quotation:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
The 1st Amendment should never be tossed aside simply because we don't like someone. If we allow that to happen, we may one day find ourselves on the other end of that barrel.
Randal is an x republican wanting the presidency, he is a FRUIT LOOP, nothing more. He should put his money to educate people, not cram @!$%# down their throats.
1) I'm really glad we live in a country where no one can tell YOU what you can do with your money based on whether or not they think you're a "fruit loop" or your political affiliation, MJL.
2) A recovering alcoholic night view Budweiser ads the same way. A Muslim may view a Victoria's Secret ad the same way. A Jew might view an ad featuring pork ribs the same way. Should they have the right to say whether or not those commercials can run?
Pat N
The whole point I am making is bull @!$%#, not the time or place for this nonsense add
I understand you object to the time/place of this ad. The point I'm trying to make is that his right to run the ad should be supported by anyone who claims to love the rights, protections and liberties this country affords us.
And it doesn't sound like you support his right to run the ad during the Super Bowl.
MJL, I also agree that the superbowl isn't the time or the place. That doesn't supercede the 1st amendment though. This will no doubt either not happen or it will back fire.
I'm with you on that post Pat!
Thanks, fireyone. It's like the Westboro Baptist Church people. I abhor their ideology. I abhor the way their express it. I abhor the arrogance behind their message. I abohor the things they say. But that said, I will defend their right to say them.
If Liberals want to allow the choice of late term abortions, people should be educated about what that looks like.
I want the choice of having open heart surgery if I need it, but I don't need to see it during the freaking superbowl.
And it doesn't sound like you support his right to run the ad during the Super Bowl.
If someone wants to pay for a Superbowl spot, and can afford it, more power to them.
So when can we start showing condom ads? Cigarettes?
Dennis
So when can we start showing condom ads? Cigarettes?
Exactly, Cigarette add were banned so OK lets start showing them.
Pat N
I have nothing against advertizements, but this is NOT an advertizement, it is BS propaganda
MJL, it's propaganda, but then, all advertizing is, at it's essence, propaganda. Whether it says buy this product or buy this idea really makes no difference.
The thing that gets me, though, is that they'll show stuff like this, or blood and gore on shows like CSI, but they won't show ads for condoms, or cigarettes, or a lot of other things that people object to.
Double standards suck. Either you should ban all stuff that people find offensive, or you should allow it.
Dennis -
So when can we start showing condom ads? Cigarettes?
Tell me about it. I think it was the government that decided cigarette ads were taboo. As a smoker, it drives me crazy. It's the only legal product I can think of that you can't use hardly anywhere. Either keep it legal and let business owners decide if they want their places to have a smoking section. Let Phillip-Morris decide if it wants to run an ad. Just quit subsidizing tobacco farmers to grow the stuff and then tell people they can't smoke it anywhere. That's the federal government in action for ya.
MJL -
I have nothing against advertizements, but this is NOT an advertizement, it is BS propaganda
Depends on the definition you're using. I assume you aren't using the definition that "propaganda" is official government communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion, so you must be using the definition that "propaganda" is information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm something. If that'sthe case, then ALL advertising is "propaganda".
America needs to grow up. Our priorities are really screwy. You can show all the blood and gore you want on TV, but you can't show anything even remotely sexual.
Think about it - showing a graphic anti-abortion ad is ok, but showing a condom ad - which would help prevent unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions - isn't?
The hypocrisy is astounding. Either don't show any of it, or show it all.
But you know, if someone wanted to show a condom ad, this anti-abortion guy would be one of the first people to bitch about it, even though it might help prevent abortions.
Man, I'm glad I moved to a civilized country.
Think about it - showing a graphic anti-abortion ad is ok, but showing a condom ad - which would help prevent unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions - isn't?
The hypocrisy is astounding
I agree. But you're dealing in what you believe things "should be". Bottom line is the FCC and the Constitution makes the calls. If the FCC says comdom ads are taboo, there's not much the general public can do about it. Trojan and their competitors can petition Congress to get it changed.
On the flip side of that, if the FCC says abortion ads are OK...there is nothing the general public can do about it. Pro-choice groups can petition Congress and get it changed.
Likely...(don't know for sure)..in both the cases (condoms and cigarettes)...I'd suspect that it wasd some "Mothers against___(fill in the blank)____that caused the bans.
I'll admit the hypocrisy is stupid. But you know what's downright scary? That there are citizens in this country that flat out say this guy shouldn't have the right to run the ad. That's just blatantly chucking the 1st Amendment right out the window based on someone else's "feelings".
I don't like "stupid" or "scary". But I'll take "stupid" over "scary" any day of the week.
I'll admit the hypocrisy is stupid. But you know what's downright scary? That there are citizens in this country that flat out say this guy shouldn't have the right to run the ad. That's just blatantly chucking the 1st Amendment right out the window based on someone else's "feelings".
Yeah, but so is the ban on condom or cigarette ads. People bitched and cigarette ads were banned. The condom thing- don't want to upset the puritans out there...
Here, they show TV shows and movies from all over Europe, Japan, America, as well as Turkish stuff. Primetime nudity? Not a problem. Condom ads? See them all the time. Blood and gore? Must be an American show...
I don't like "stupid" or "scary". But I'll take "stupid" over "scary" any day of the week.
Pat, nothing is more scary than stupid. Stupid scares the hell out of me.
Yeah, but so is the ban on condom or cigarette ads. People bitched and cigarette ads were banned.
Not the same thing. In the case of the cig and condom ads, groups petitioned Congress to change the law. In this case, we have people threatening the NFL (of all entities) with "boycotts" if this man is *allowed* to exercise his 1st Amendment rights.
It's the same principle in effect. People not wanting things they find offensive to be shown.
In this case people are targeting the NFL because they would be the one showing the ad in question. If these ads were shown frequently, they'd be targeting the FCC through Congress. The reason is the same (I don't like it) and the outcome is the same (so don't show it).
People seem to always want to censor the things they don't like, which to me is antithetical to the First Amendment. Nothing should be censored. Regulated, perhaps, but not censored.
It's the same principle in effect.
No it's not. The NFL doesn't have the ability to change FCC legislation. Congress does. There was a time, not so long ago, when people knew that and took the RIGHT steps to affect the change they seek, rather than the EASY way. (sitting at a computer and firing off an e mail to a "contact us" button on the NFL's website)
In this case people are targeting the NFL because they would be the one showing the ad in question.
Nope. The local NBC affiliates are the ones showing the ad. Not even NBC corporate is responsible for selling the time slots, much less the NFL.
People seem to always want to censor the things they don't like, which to me is antithetical to the First Amendment. Nothing should be censored. Regulated, perhaps, but not censored.
I agree.
I blame it on this hyper-PC society we've built around ourselves. Political correctness, as an ideology, is a grand one. However, as a social experiment....it's been a failure. We've turned into a society that wants to be based on warm-fuzzy "feelings" rather than one based on logic and law.
The NFL doesn't have the ability to change FCC legislation. Congress does.
I didn't say they did, nor that they were exactly the same. Further, that's not even an issue here. No one is questioning the legality of the ad.
I said it was the, in effect, the same principle at work.
The NFL has the ability to determine what is shown during the Superbowl, just as the FCC has the ability to determine what is shown at all.
If you want to remove something from just the Superbowl, you go to the NFL. If you want to remove it from the airwaves entirely, you go to the FCC.
Nope. The local NBC affiliates are the ones showing the ad. Not even NBC corporate is responsible for selling the time slots, much less the NFL.
You'd better check that. The NFL has the right to determine what commercials are shown by any station carrying that broadcast. That's part of the price the station pays for the privilege of airing the Superbowl. I say part of the price because they also pay a @!$%#load of money.
But yes, the NFL reserves editorial control over all advertizing during the broadcast.
But yes, the NFL reserves editorial control over all advertizing during the broadcast.
That's simply not true. This was discussed earlier. In the case of a for-profit business advertised in a national market, (Coca-Cola, GEICO, etc) they do indeed have some control (within the bounds of the FCC)...but not in the case of non-profits on a local level. This guy isn't selling anything and he's not trying to make money off of the ad. It's like a church running a commercial. Hell, he could run it as a PSA if he wanted to. And the NFL has no control over it. He is what's commonly referred to as a "non-commercial advertiser"
No, Pat. The Superbowl is an unique event in that the NFL includes editorial control in it's contract with the stations that air it. They're really strict on what they'll let be shown during the broadcast, and stations comply because the network pressures them into it. They don't want to risk losing a chance at that contract down the line.
If the NFL decides tomorrow that this ad will not be shown, it will not be shown.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not going to pour over the FCC reg to show that the NFL (or American Idol, or CSI) don't have editorial control over timeslots sold to local, non-profits or PSA's and I doubt you're going to do the same thing to prove that they do.
We'll just leave it at you thinking "King of The Hill" can nix a commercial sold on the local level to...say...a women's shelter or a church, and me saying they can't
American Idol, CSI, and King of the Hill can't do that. In those cases, you'd be absolutely correct.
Spots on the Superbowl are the most sough after, most expensive seconds of the broadcasting year, and that gives the NFL leverage to put all sorts of things in the contract, including editorial control.
During the Superbowl far less minutes are sold to local stations, and those that are come with conditions. If the local station wants to air the Superbowl, they have to agree with those conditions.
Spots on the Superbowl are the most sough after, most expensive seconds of the broadcasting year, and that gives the NFL leverage to put all sorts of things in the contract, including editorial control.
Again...we're just going to have to agree to disagree. It's your contention that the NFL can have willy-nilly, wide open editorial control over ads that appear from non-profits, regardless of whether or not they fall within FCC guidelines just because the time slots are expensive and limited, and it's my contention that the don't.
Using your line of reasoning, that means the NFL can tell an NBC affiliate that they reject an ad from the local NAACP chapter or battered woman's shelter because they don't think advertisements for blacks or women are "appropriate" for the Super Bowl.
They can. They haven't, and won't, but they can. And it's not willy nilly. They are still subject to FCC regulations, of course.
Pat, I had a whole course on the ethics of the NFL, a corporation, having editorial control over public airwaves once a year. I'm not saying I think it's right, or agree with it, but it is what it is.
The bottom line - it's capitalism. Follow our rules or we sell our contract to your competitor.
They can. They haven't, and won't, but they can. And it's not willy nilly. They are still subject to FCC regulations, of course.
You're contradicting yourself in the above statement. You're saying they CAN reject ads based on race and gender alone, but admitting that they are still subject to FCC regulations.
No, I'm saying they can reject those PSAs. They wouldn't be stupid enough to cite race or gender as the reason.
You're not going to see PSAs during the Superbowl anyway. The FCC mandates that networks an individual stations allocate x amount of minutes for public service messages, but they don't regulate the times, so the networks and stations tend to show them during off-peak hours, as opposed to during primetime or special events when ad time is more lucrative. That's just smart business.
If you have to give away time, you give it away at 3 am, not 8 pm.
The $$ behind the 'threat'. Therein lies the influence.
It will be interesting to see what really happens on game day. No too worried about seeing it in Dallas. I have a friend in Snoot, Oklahoma. I'll get her opinion.
Dennis -
There was a Tebow pro-life Super Bowl ad last year. Many people bitched that it "wasn't the appropriate venue". There were *chicken-litte-like* paranoid rants that it was going to be "graphic", even though no one had seen the actual commercial yet. This is an exact repeat of that. People repeating this nonsense apparently don't care about damaging their own credibility.
If the NFL were prone to rejecting ads because people bitch and it's a controversial topic...why wasn't that one pulled? It was aired by Focus on the Family, too. A non-profit.
We're at an impasse on whether or not the NFL has editorial license. But I still can't for the life of me, figure out why people think the best way to stop ads during the Super Bowl that they don't like is to sit at their computer and hit a "contact us" button on the NFL website. There isn't a whole lot of logic behind that. WHat are they going to do when the same ad is scheduled to run during the World Series? Or the NBA Championships? Are they just going to reactively keep following this guy around and whimper every time he goes to place an ad, hoping their whines are heard in each and every instance? That's a good way to eventually get ignored, IMO.
It's a shame that people are willign to loudly vocalize their "offense" at something. But so few will actually get off their butts and educate themselves on how to actually CHANGE something.
It's a shame that people are willign to loudly vocalize their "offense" at something. But so few will actually get off their butts and educate themselves on how to actually CHANGE something
That is an assumption on your part.
There was a Tebow pro-life Super Bowl ad last year. Many people bitched that it "wasn't the appropriate venue".
It doesn't matter what you show. Somebody is always going to bitch.
If the NFL were prone to rejecting ads because people bitch and it's a controversial topic...why wasn't that one pulled?
I didn't say they were prone to pulling ads. I said they could.
It was aired by Focus on the Family, too. A non-profit.
Who I'm sure paid a hell of a lot of money for the spot.
We're at an impasse on whether or not the NFL has editorial license. But I still can't for the life of me, figure out why people think the best way to stop ads during the Super Bowl that they don't like is to sit at their computer and hit a "contact us" button on the NFL website.
You can't figure it out, but I've been telling you the answer. They are contacting the NFL because the NFL has the power to pull the ad. If enough people complain, enough to make the NFL think it will threaten their ratings, they will pull it. The chances of that happening, though, are extremely slim, since the number of people worldwide who watch the Superbowl is so high.
There isn't a whole lot of logic behind that. WHat are they going to do when the same ad is scheduled to run during the World Series? Or the NBA Championships?
In those cases they would go to the networks, since in those cases it's the networks who have editorial control.
Are they just going to reactively keep following this guy around and whimper every time he goes to place an ad, hoping their whines are heard in each and every instance?
Beats me.
It's a shame that people are willign to loudly vocalize their "offense" at something. But so few will actually get off their butts and educate themselves on how to actually CHANGE something.
In this case, the best way would be to produce their own ad and outbid this guy. Money talks.
The issue of the Tim Tebow ad was the accuracy of it. However, when aired it was nothing.
So just like this ad from douche bag Randall, there's an accuracy issue, the fetuses he may show and the accuracy of the weeks in development that these particular fetuses were, who knows, miscarried/born/aborted? Most likely it's the whole ad will be a lie and huge exaggeration, something we're used to from this asshat. But you really can't expect truth from a rabid anti-choicer like Randal.
The issue of the Tim Tebow ad was the accuracy of it. However, when aired it was nothing.
Precisely my point. People were running around, crying wolf, talking about how "graphic" and "wrong" the ad was for the Super Bowl as well as how "evil" Focus on the Family was without having even SEEN the ad. They are doing exactly the same thing now. When people continually cry wolf, eventually, no one is going to listen.
Add to that the fact that the people who were so up in arms about the Tebow ad (and this one) obviously didn't learn anything about going through proper procedure rather than taking the easy way out. Had they truly been willing to do the necessary footwork to actually CHANGE things, they could have petitioned Congress to pass legislation to change FCC requirements rather than putting everyone else through their shrill hyserics about what an ad "might" contain, year after year after year.
So just like this ad from douche bag Randall, there's an accuracy issue, the fetuses he may show and the accuracy of the weeks in development that these particular fetuses were, who knows, miscarried/born/aborted? Most likely it's the whole ad will be a lie and huge exaggeration, something we're used to from this asshat.
"He may". "He might". "He could". "Most likely". Do you see the problem here? Like the Tebow ad, people are flipping out over an unknown. They are causing chaos where quite frankly, there is none. If you want abortion ads censored...follow the proper channels to get them censored. The melodrama of "Dammit! I'm gonna give the NFL my two cents worth!!" is (A) a waste of time and (B) annoying. I'm not sure why anyone would want any ad on any topic censored. But that said...one of the great things about this country is that it's citizens have the right to try.
But you really can't expect truth from a rabid anti-choicer like Randal.
There's an echo in here. I heard the same thing said about Focus on the Family and the Tebow ad.
The bottom line is that the FCC isn't going to allow any ad that violates it's regulations.
But that said...one of the great things about this country is that it's citizens have the right to try.
Bingo. Who cares if they waste their time, cuz it is theirs to waste. As for the annoying part...oh well. You don't have a right to not be annoyed. Don't like it, then ignore it. Less annoying that way. :)
There is a time and a place for everything....To air that during the Super Bowl would be the wrong time.
I know Randall is pro-life, but I'm curious to know if he is for the death penalty....
#11 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:22 AM ESTRandall was a Republican up to 2011, he now wants to be a democratic 2012 candidate
Flip Flop,
I think this man is pretty unstable
He would be to my interpretation somewhat of a Tea Party person. I don't know his views on the death penalty.
What causes third-trimester abortions? Reasons for them
* In 40%, an earlier test indicated that a defect existed but not how serious it was. Doctors delayed and re-tested to see if the defect was serious enough to be life-threatening. Some genetic conditions can be mild or severe, so to prevent unnecessary abortions the doctors waited.
* In 37%, an earlier test failed to find the serious defects that showed up later.
* In 18%, a diagnosis for this kind of defect can’t be made until the third trimester. This often seems to include anencephaly, a fatal birth defect.
* And in the remaining 5%, doctors or parents delayed the decision to abort. I correlated this with what I’ve read about doctors ordering yet another another test to make sure, waiting for a referral, parents not able to believe the news, having hysterics and going home, and praying for a miracle.Reference:
Dommergues M, Benachi A, Benifla JL, des Noëttes R, Dumez Y., British Journal of Obstetrical Gynaecology, 1999 Apr;106(4):297-303. The reasons for termination of pregnancy in the third trimester. PubMed ID: 10426234.If third-trimester abortions are outlawed, some parents may choose earlier abortions when it’s not certain they are needed.
Some critics mentioned club foot as a reason for abortion. Club foot means that at least one foot is turned in. It is not a reason for abortion, but it is a warning to screen very carefully for other health problems. The same goes for other deformities of the digits or limbs. Club foot is associated with spina bifida and anencephaly and other birth defects, some of them fatal.
One defect that can be missed at the second-trimester scan is anencephaly, in which the brain fails to develop. It is uniformly fatal, often before or during birth.
http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/what-causes-third-trimester-abortions/
WARNING GRAPHIC PICTURE of an Anencephalic baby in the third trimester
1st Amendment
part of the U.S. Constitution: an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that forbids Congress from interfering with a citizen's freedom of religion, speech, assembly, or petitionhttp://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+First+Amendment&qpvt=what+is+the+first+ammenment&FORM=DTPDIA
Fredom of speach is so WE can say what WE want against the government, not shove @!$%# down peoples throat,
This ad is bull @!$%#.
I can't believe how many find nothing wrong with this.
Women who get abortions ARE shown what happens they have VIVID pictures shown to them.
Bad time and place for this.
Fredom of speach is so WE can say what WE want against the government, not shove @!$%# down peoples throat,
No, MJL. Freedom of speech isn't just so we can say what we want against the government. It's so we can freely express our opinions about a multitude of opinions as long as it doesn't infringe on someone elses rights. Hence, the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Westboro Baptist Church.
And another thing to take into account is that the FCC clearly bars stations from censoring ads from federal candidates during the 45 days before a primary election in that state. This guy is a candidate.
http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/policy/political/candrule.htm
This ad is bull @!$%#.
That doesn't make it illegal.
That doesn't make it illegal.
I didnt' say it was illegal
I said it is BULL @!$%# and it is not the time nor the place. what is going to happen is people will be furious but at the network for airing it, not the ad itself.
Fine. People will be furious. So what? PETA is furious at McDonalds. Environmentalists are furious at SUV makers and *Big Oil*. The GOP is furious with Obama.
As I mentioned earlier, the Constitution guarantees it's citizens the right to free speech. It doesn't guarantee people the right to not be offended. He has the right to run the ad and you have the right to bitch about it.
it is NOT the time NOR the place
that is ALL I am really saying
It is very inappropriate.
Joe:
Saw one of the ads in HD on a dirt-cheap local New Hampshire tv station last week.
He'll piss off orders of magnitude more people than he'll persuade if he does this. But I think he won't be able to afford to do it in more than a couple of markets.
#12 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:38 AM ESTjfxgillis, comment # 12:
"He'll piss off orders of magnitude more people than he'll persuade…"
Agreed! As it stands now, he's one Moose-hair short of being seen as just another 'Eric Rudolph'… And if by any chance he does pull this off, it won't be the cops that'll be after him.
Can't have a nipple slip during the Super Bowl - bloody, dead fetus is okey dokey, though.
Ah, America!
Can't have a nipple slip during the Super Bowl - bloody, dead fetus is okey dokey, though.
You guys really aren't making any sense. I thought it was just an unwanted chunk of ick. Now y'all are applying words like "dead" to it when previously, you tell us it's not viable to begin with.
Pat Almost 90% abortions happen in the first trimester. The ads are false. They show third trimester abortions that happen only because of threat to the health of the mother . Get your facts right.
The ads are false.
WOW! You're privvy to the commercial when no one else is? COOL! Got a link?
They show third trimester abortions that happen only because of threat to the health of the mother .
so maybe if they show the bloody, dead mother who didn't have the option to save her own life because abortion is illegal and the father hiding out in another state who can't be tracked down and the kids she orphaned grieving the loss of their mother moving in with the elderly grandfolks....
we're just interested in the truth of abortion, right?
You guys really aren't making any sense. I thought it was just an unwanted chunk of ick. Now y'all are applying words like "dead" to it when previously, you tell us it's not viable to begin with.
@Pat N
that is besides the point, I guess you fail to realize that CHILDREN (those that are past the gestational age) will also be watching the super bowl, I guess its fine if you don't mind your children being subjected to that...Thats the problem I have with it. Wonder what effect that will have on the kids.
Like I said a time and place for everything.
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2011/01/18/insanity-in-the-mailbag-randall-terry-running-primary-challenge-against-obama/
This what he shows the public. That is a third trimester abortion. He is purposely lying. Most abortions happen in the first trimester.
Oh goody then Pat N,you say no one is priivy to exactly what will be shown, if they show an early abortion it will look just like an early miscarriage which will like just like a particularly nasty period. If we want to get all graphic to make a particularly nasty point, that would do it.
It does seem to be all about shock value, even during family viewing but hey its all educational and for a purpose, either way our kiddos get to learn something about the facts of life eh?
Exactly klm. I had a first trimester miscarriage and it was just a heavy period. In no way did it look like anything like a human being. It was a big clump of tissue and blood. If randall wants to be accurate, he should show an used tampon.
WOW! You're privvy to the commercial when no one else is? COOL! Got a link?
Since you apparently live in a perpetual state of ignorance, It appears you have not bothered to educate your self on the matter at hand. Just google Randall Terry. They are are right on his website.
that is besides the point, I guess you fail to realize that CHILDREN (those that are past the gestational age) will also be watching the super bowl, I guess its fine if you don't mind your children being subjected to that...Thats the problem I have with it.
And you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Although I find it odd that someone who is pro-choice would frown upon the opportunity to teach their child about a procedure that they think girls as young as 13 should be able to get without notifying their parents, yet don't have a problem with kids saying: "Mommy? What's erectile dysfunction"?
yet don't have a problem with kids saying: "Mommy? What's erectile dysfunction"?
I don't know what kids you are interacting with but I don't know of any that ask that question. If the kids you are around ask those questions then you may want to rethink the conversations you have in their presence or the people that they are around....Further more I never said if I was pro-choice or pro-life...I'm just saying that the super bowl is the wrong TIME to air such a commercial. You are right it is MY opinion, just like you have your opinion. But you seem to be trying to get everyone to see it your way. Sorry but I don't.
Although I find it odd that someone who is pro-choice would frown upon the opportunity to teach their child about a procedure that they think girls as young as 13 should be able to get without notifying their parents
If they are showing bloody fetuses to prove a point about abortion, they are trying to create a fear factor. Because live child birth is just as graphic as an abortion but yet I don't see you promoting putting that on TV to show your kids.
You know Pat N, you must be the most hypocritical and obtuse reader on Newsvine.
Perception Dominates Reality, cut it out. You know better. Way better, actually, since you parachuted from an account with its own suspension history, and you're a week off suspension, so you're suspended for a month for violating #1 of the Code of Honor. Last chance.
I would think the kids would ask why there are two bathtubs in the middle of a field, before they'd ask about ED........I mean I'm 55 and I WANT to know where to find these two tubs.....if they're just sitting in a field maybe I could get someone to bring it to my home and I put it to good use on a more frequent basis.....LOL
Pat N:
Respectively, not all people who are pro-choice believe that a 13 year old child should be making babies, let alone having to make such a soul-wrenching decision. Not all people who support the Right to Bear Arms believe that hunters need an AK47 to be able to do that. I had a miscarriage in my 9th week, even though I mourned the loss of the POSSIBILITY of a child, there was nothing in what came out of my body that resembled a human being.
While you are welcome to believe as you do and to state your opinion, please respect the rights of others to feel differently and to state their opinions without lumping eveyone who disagrees with you together. Just as you are an individual, so am I.
CC: Thank you, I appreciate it very much!
I haven't always been. I'm just as human as the next person, but have worked very hard to try to be open and to try to see from the other side (which isn't always easy!).
I assue you there are many moderates on Newsvine. Perhaps you need to look a bit harder.
Thank you meanpeoplesuck42 for your valulable input, you stated your position so well and I totally atgree.
Pat N, up there somewhere you mentioned this was a free speech issue but do you really believe that, do really want everyone to be able to show whatever and say whatever? Were you okay with the "accidental nipple slip" accidental or not? Are you okay with profanity? Nudity? Sexuallity? Many commercials that air in Europe and other countries never show in the US because of our censors, should those decency laws be changed because of free speech?
How consistant are you going to be or is it just a matter of when you agree?
Personally I think we need some boundaries but we go a BIT overboard worrying about somethings. I have friends who get wound up about their 12 year olds watching a pg13 movie because of the rating...when they would have watched the same thing themselves at that age.
Pat N, up there somewhere you mentioned this was a free speech issue but do you really believe that, do really want everyone to be able to show whatever and say whatever?
For the umpteenth time, if he can afford it and it's within FCC guidelines...he has every right to run the ad, regardless of who is "offended" by it.
How consistant are you going to be or is it just a matter of when you agree?
For the umpteenth and one time...REGARDLESS of the ad, if it's within FCC regulations and its paid for, it should run. Regardless of who it offends. I guess I value the 1st Amendment.
I can't stand the Westboro Baptist Church people and would love nothing more than to see all of them wake up one morning sans vocal chords. But under the 1st Amendment, as the SCOTUS ruled, they have a right to express their views under the Constitution, as long as they do so within the law.
It has nothing to do with my being pro-life. But on the flipside of that, I have to chuckled at the fact that pro-choice people wold love to squash this guys CHOICE to run a legal ad.
I have to chuckled at the fact that pro-choice people wold love to squash this guys CHOICE to run a legal ad.
Wrong. Not from me anyway. I find it simply foolhardy and in bad taste. But that's just my personal opinion. If he wants to waste his organization's money, and if the content of the ad is within FCC guidelines, I can't and don't complain. I'm about as staunch a supporter of the First Amendment as I am of abortion rights and reproductive freedom.
Wrong. Not from me anyway.
Yes, you've been one of the few logical voices on the issue. But you can't tell me you haven't read comments in this thread from people that would love to squash this guys right to run the ad in a nano-second if they had the opportunity to. We have people threatening to cancel their TV service if the ad runs, for chrissake.
I'm about as staunch a supporter of the First Amendment as I am of abortion rights and reproductive freedom.
And you and I are a perfect example of what "meeting in the middle" looks like. =)
I too, am a staunch supporter of the 1st Amendment, but I'm pro-life.
But you can't tell me you haven't read comments in this thread from people that would love to squash this guys right to run the ad in a nano-second if they had the opportunity to.
I don't think I've been able to read every single post, but I'll take your word for it. They have the right to try to challenge his right to run the ad, but unless they have a legal, constitutional basis to do so, they won't prevail. So, what's the problem?
We have people threatening to cancel their TV service if the ad runs, for chrissake.
I wouldn't go that far, and you probably wouldn't either, but that is their right to go that route if they want to. It's a form of protest, I guess you could say, a "demonstration," so to speak, which is their right under the First Amendment. It's also their right to subscribe to whatever TV service they like or un-subscribe whenever they like. We all have the freedom to do business or not do business with certain companies for whatever reason we choose.
I too, am a staunch supporter of the 1st Amendment, but I'm pro-life.
That's cool. But are you in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade?
So, what's the problem?
I never said there was a problem. In fact, I think I referred to it as "ironic". Oh. And as "hypocrisy".
That's cool. But are you in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade?
I'm in favor of limiting abortions to cases of rape, incest and the life/permanent health of the mother. I don't believe abortion should be used as a means of birth control.
I don't believe abortion should be used as a means of birth control...
Care to discuss why? I'm game if you are. Gotta go for awhile, but I'll check back later. I remember a while back here on Newsvine, there was a discussion about abortion and one pro-lifer actually made a rational, logical case for how and why abortion could be considered illegal and he based it on the consent concept. I didn't agree, and I gave my reasons, but I was impressed that a pro-lifer actually had a cogent case to make that had some credibility in the civil area and separate from the moral/religious one, even though I eventually rejected it. I'll share later...
I'm in favor of limiting abortions to cases of rape, incest and the life/permanent health of the mother.
Then don't have one. But that's not a decision for you to make for another woman -- which is what "pro-choice" really means.
I don't believe abortion should be used as a means of birth control.
Since more than half of the women who have abortions cite "contraceptive failure" as the reason for having the procedure, it would seem that abortion is not the primary choice of women when it comes to birth control. I would also guess that the expense, as well as the physical and mental trauma caused by such procedures, would also tend to refute that argument. But again, that's none of your business -- and YOUR approval does not matter.
But again, that's none of your business -- and YOUR approval does not matter.
LOL! This just gets more and more humorous. TS asked me a direct question about my opinion. I responded to them with a direct answer.
And the (predictible) response? Essentially.."Oh yeah? Well, well, well...I don't like your opinion! So there! Your opinion is wrong! So there! Your approval doesn't matter! So there!" Nevermind the fact that my opinion is no less valid than yours (that's what opinions are, dotchya know...) or that I never suggested my approval did matter.
Seriously, Erin..the only thing that was missing from that little rant was a "neener-neener" at the end. If you're looking for some sort of odd pissin' match, you're peeing on the wrong tree. You won't find it here. Sorry to dissapoint.
Ok, so the photos are graphic - I have seen other things just as graphic on TV. These are powerful pics of dead babies to make expectant mothers think twice about terminating that life in their wombs. Freedom of expression is for all - not just LIBs.
If someone is offended then they should simply change the channel for the duration of the commercial.
OK, y'all. Did you hear: Pat N (in post 13.24) says we're all illogical... except for the few she ordains to be logical. Shucks. I think we've all been insulted. In the meantime, Pat keeps saying that we are all trying to take away the poor guy's Constitutional rights. I've read the chain: most of us don't want the ad on the Super Bowl. Very, very few of us have said that it has no right to be there. We've just said we don't want it there. And that it is in very poor taste. And that the ad paints a deliberately deceptive depiction of the legal first trimester abortion. And most of us recognize that this guy has deceptively declared himself a candidate for the democratic nomination to the Presidency, for the sole purpose of taking advantage of an FCC loophole which restricts FCC intervention in political ads within a certain time frame relative to primaries and elections. He's a jerk, and we are free to have that opinion and to express it.
The best thing to do is put Pat N on ignore, I've dealt with her pathetic below the belt attacks and insults in the past which only confirms her irrational logic. Just move along CMlawyer, she's not worth your time in salt.
On another note I hope this ad does run during the super bowl, it would backfire tremendously and only alienate this douche bag further. (no insult to douche bags intended)
OK, y'all. Did you hear: Pat N (in post 13.24) says we're all illogical... except for the few she ordains to be logical.
Yep. It's called an "opinion". Last time I checked, they were allowed on the Vine.
Shucks. I think we've all been insulted.
Then you're accusing me of violating the CoH. Another part of the CoH is: "If you see something that's a violation, report it, rather than inflamming the situation".
So....report it if you feel I've "insulted you" personally by telling TS I found them logical.
I don't believe abortion should be used as a means of birth control...
For yourself? Fine, if that's your choice. But why not for others? Why is it allowable, in your opinion, for some things, but not for others, such as birth control?
OK, y'all. Did you hear: Pat N (in post 13.24) says we're all illogical... except for the few she ordains to be logical.
I have bad luck. After 50 years, I'm starting to think the logical ones are just rumors.
Dennis
My uncle used to say
If it weren't for bad luck, he'd have no luck at all.
Dont see a problem as long as its truthful and Im Pro-Choice. You either stick by your commitments to be pro-choice and deal with it. I see prochoice here with fear about this advertising why fear something if its factual. Its like Pro Choice people who are against the death penalty makes me laugh.
David,
You don't see the difference between the death penalty and abortion?
Dont see a problem as long as its truthful and Im Pro-Choice. You either stick by your commitments to be pro-choice and deal with it. I see prochoice here with fear about this advertising why fear something if its factual.
Ahhh. Refreshing honesty. I don't get the people here that want to keep the more controversial issues about abortion hidden away, either.
Its like Pro Choice people who are against the death penalty makes me laugh.
Which is just as funny as pro-life people who are for the death penalty and war.
Perhaps someday we'll see ads of people having safe sex and full frontal childbirth during football games, after all, why would anyone fear something if its factual?
I doubt very much that the graphic images that these anti-choice ads are planning on showing are actually aborted fetuses.
http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/truth_about_photos.html
This article is simply an example of how anti-choice activists use flawed sources and fallacious information to prove an often medically-unsubstantiated point. For example, Willke, despite outright refutes from The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the American Coalition of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, insists that abortion causes breast cancer.
If you are truly Pro-Choice it shouldnt matter if they post this. It is for what your for stand by it. If you dont like what happens in an abortion then dont stand for it. If its honest then there should be no fear.
Conservative Conspirator
No difference. Both are killing something alive. Im pro choice and I lean right on many things social issues I lean left. My GF is a complete Liberal and is against abortion. Every one sees it different. It will never not be challenged and will always divide us. I am also pro death penalty when its 100% sure...Say like a guy video tapes molesting a kid..... They have the tape. Find him guilty and put a 22 cent bullet in his head and bury him/her in a shallow grave.
A very real difference between abortion and the death penalty.
The executed criminal is AN ADULT, who has been convicted of SERIOUS CRIME, by a jury of his peers, and who has had a vigorous defense, and several appeals.
The aborted child.....
The aborted child is much like the miscarried child and many of us don't need the reminder thank you. That in itself is a damned good reason. Millions of women across this country, I venture to guess ( perhaps inaccurately but hey) have lost babies.
Tramatizing women that lost their pregnancy is revolting.
Tramatizing women that lost their pregnancy is revolting.
Less than a week ago, I had a pro-choicer tell me I "validated a crime" by having my daughter (who was the result of a sexual assault).
THAT is revolting.
David-1830107 post# 14
Its like Pro Choice people who are against the death penalty makes me laugh.
My post# 14.3
Which is just as funny as pro-life people who are for the death penalty and war.
Conservative Conspirator post# 14.5
A very real difference between abortion and the death penalty.
Yes there is, one is born and one is not.
Then they were in the wrong. Pro-choice is trusting a woman to continue or terminate pregnancy, as long as it is her choice. The reason behind it is no ones business.
Pro-choice is trusting a woman to continue or terminate pregnancy, as long as it is her choice. The reason behind it is no ones business.
Amen!
Pat N: I am truly sorry someone would ever say such a thing to you! That is abominable, just as it was abominable for my ultra-"Christian" grandparents to tell my sister-in-law it was her fault that one of her twins died in-utero because she and my brother lived together before they married. They were married for 2 YEARS before they got pregnant the first time.
There are abominable people on both sides of this issue. That doesn't mean we can generalize that everyone on the "other" side says and thinks the same thing.
Exactly meanpeoplesuck42, every woman has decide for herself what she can handle. Every woman and every situation is unique. No one has the right to sit in judgement of those very delicate and emotional situations. Pat as hurtful as that was to you ( and that was hurtful and highly insensitive and they should be very ashamed) I would think you could see that for yourself, why would you want to instill that kind of hurt upon another woman. (that is not a question but a statement)
Meanpeople even if your sister in law and brother had not been married at all their baby did NOT die because they ever lived together out of wed-lock. For anyone to think that God would kill an innocent baby to punish the parents is an abomination. I feel certain you feel that too but I felt I should clarify that for many here. Why would God kill an innocent anyone for the sins of another? These things I don't understand about religion sometimes.
I had a pro-choicer tell me I "validated a crime" by having my daughter (who was the result of a sexual assault). THAT is revolting.
Wow. I missed that earlier. Yes, it is revolting. That's obviously contradictory to the whole concept of choice. It was your choice to make and yours alone. Period. The person who made such a remark to you defies what pro-choice is all about. I think it's safe to say that person doesn't get it and is just as despicable as those on the other side who would try to impose their personal opinions about choice onto others. And needless to say, such things don't help bridge the divide.
Why would God kill an innocent anyone for the sins of another? These things I don't understand about religion sometimes.
The God I believe in would NOT do that. Just because someone said that does not mean it is true of God. People say a lot of things about God that are more about their own agenda than about what any religion really teaches about God.
My God wouldn't do those things either, I don't understand why anyone say God would do that and want to believe. That kind of fear factor is bizarre to me.
I bet that some lawyer finds a way to block these ads from airing.
#16 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:59 AM ESTIt's a shame that it might be graphic, but I do believe that a big part of free speech is being able to advertise whatever cause you want as long as you can pay for the ad space.
#17 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:59 AM ESTbut I do believe that a big part of free speech is being able to advertise whatever cause you want as long as you can pay for the ad space.
Yep. The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It does not guarantee anyone the right to not be offended.
Yep. The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It does not guarantee anyone the right to not be offended.
So Pat, you've never heard of the FCC? You really think it's ok to put anything on TV?
I think it's a good idea. It desensitizes people to blood and gore and makes it part of a normal life - it will show people that it IS a medical procedure.
I say bring them on, so children won't be afraid to get medical procedures of ANY kind when they need them.
So Pat, you've never heard of the FCC?
Sure I have. Can you show me where this ad is in violation of FCC regs?
And what does that have to do with the fact that the Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to not be offended?
Can you show me where this ad is in violation of FCC regs?
I don't know that it is in violation of FCC regs. The ads don't even exist yet, so it's hard to determine that, Pat.
And what does that have to do with the fact that the Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to not be offended?
Because the FCC regulates content on network television, among other media. Why do I have to point that out to you, Pat? Are you suggesting that we nix the FCC and let anything and everything on TV because "offense" is subjective?
A nipple slipped out during a halftime show a few years ago and, judging by the reaction of those offended, you would have thought Janet and Justin performed a hardcore sex scene in front of millions.
I think the point is, a normal part of the human anatomy of roughly half the population, causes a huge problem, as if no one has seen a breast before, but a contrived bit of sensationalized gore, or violence being perfectly acceptable viewing material at all age levels, is the thing that marks our society as a collection of derelicts, where images that ought to disgust people are OK and ones that shouldn't are not.
. It does not guarantee anyone the right to not be offended.
Which is why people who complain about sex on t.v., or gay kissing, etc., are in the wrong. These abortion ads will make it easier for people to slip such sexual content past the censors, since there is no right to not be offended. Not necessarily a bad thing. Adults need to be able to handle the idea of sexuality.
Quite a disgusting individual, this Randall. People should be ashamed of themselves for supporting this type of anti-abortion rhetoric. If you call yourself a Christian, how can you defend using these images? What do you think God would say? If he truly wants you to protest abortion, do you think this is how he wants you to do it?
Then there's the Free Speech argument. Is it OK to intentionally shock and offend, especially considering the multitudes of kids that will be watching? People like Randall don't care, I'm sure. Even if it's legal, it's in the poorest of taste. But it it's his right to do so, I can't deny him that. That's the price of freedom.
#18 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:17 AM ESTTimes Change 30 years ago Monica on friends wouldnt be naming off a list of things that will make her orgasm on channel 5 at 8pm. They show diseased lungs ect all the time on tv. PBS will show you a baby crowning a Vagina on tv there is no difference.
I am prolife, but I do not defend Randall's tactics in any way. I didn't like them way back when, and I don't like them now. I have asked provocative questions about the pictures on this forum, but I would NOT want my children or my family or friends having to see these pictures while watching the Superbowl. It is not the time or the place. Showing them then is like forcing people to see them at the worst possible time, which to me is not at all an effective way to argue a point besides being insensitive to the point of ridiculousness. I can only hope something happens to stop it.
seen to much
. It is not the time or the place.
Exactly !
wtf is wrong with people? as an adult i understand the issues about abortion, but also being a parent i feel that no child should be exposed to this kind of advertisement aired during the superbowl. i mean really, whats next? ads aired during spongebob? ads aired during courage the cowardly dog? i know lets just show them on the cartoon network, that'll get a strong showing! wtf America!
#19 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:17 AM ESTwtf is wrong with people? as an adult i understand the issues about abortion, but also being a parent i feel that no child should be exposed to this kind of advertisement aired during the superbowl.
You're right. Beer commercials with talking critters that tickle the hell out of kids, erectile dysfunction commercials and feminie hygeine commercials are sooooo much better.
You're right. Beer commercials with talking critters that tickle the hell out of kids, erectile dysfunction commercials and feminie hygeine commercials are sooooo much better.
Baseless assumptions Pat. No where does americandreamshattered state that those commercials are any more acceptable than the abortion commercial. Not that I don't agree with you, however I simply think those advertisements are simply idiotic, not disgusting. But at least they advertise something. The main point of commercials. Not that it makes them any better, mind you.
If you feel commercials, such as this, are okay to air do you also feel it's okay to air commercials showing gratuitous sex? We can start televising executions. They could start showing dismembered body parts, and soldiers being blown up by IED's. I mean, these are all realities in life we have to deal with, right? What are your thoughts?
Not that I don't agree with you, however I simply think those advertisements are simply idiotic, not disgusting.
Have you seen the Trojan man commercials? Okay while not disgusting my god they are stupid and annoying, especially when they show like 20 of them in 1 show!!!!!!! Okay over the rant now!!
Have you seen the Trojan man commercials? Okay while not disgusting my god they are stupid and annoying, especially when they show like 20 of them in 1 show!!!!!!! Okay over the rant now!!
Yeah, those are pretty stupid commercials. I find most commercials stupid for the most part. Most of the entertainment we consume in my house is through the internet, via Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc.. My kids watch PBS maybe an hour a day or so. But we rarely tune into broadcast TV anymore. And when we do, the commercials we watch are simply...
::facepalm::
erectile dysfunction commercials
Those are idiotic. Kids are going to grow up thinking sex happens between two people sitting in separate bathtubs on the shore of a lake or something like that.
Maybe I'll pass on the shrimp, cream cheese and cocktail sauce dippers this year.......don't want anyone to spit it out during the commercial.....
#20 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:20 AM ESTJust trying to bring some perspective to the conversation......approximately 88% of all abortions are performed by the 9th week. At that time the embryo/fetus is about the size of a green grape or a shrimp covered in cream cheese and cocktail sauce.
http://www.babycenter.com/slideshow-baby-size
But that wouldn't provide the shock value of a full term fetus that for most likely HAD TO BE ABORTED provides......after all it is ILLEGAL to abort a viable fetus after the 24th week. But it certainly would provide the graphic image Randall Terry wants to protray as what ALL abortions look like.....
Look, it really is pretty simple......I you don't like abortion, don't have one.....
Look, it really is pretty simple......I you don't like abortion, don't have one.....
Amen sister!!!
Look, it really is pretty simple......I you don't like abortion, don't have one.....
totally unfair! Most of us anti-choice people are middle aged men and will never have the opportunity to not have an abortion! Your approach is therefore completely not applicable for most people!
JEEZ!
My favorite bumper sticker:
77% of anti-choicers are men - 100% will NEVER get pregnant!
"All who are genuinely committed to the advancement of women can and must offer a woman or a girl who is pregnant, frightened, and alone a better alternative than the destruction of her own unborn child" ~ Mary Ann Glendon
That better alternative is giving the child up for adoption.
Have you ever given a child up for adoption Conservative Conspirator?
The alternative is there, CC. No one is taking it away, so that's a dead end unless you're just reduced to attempting guilt trips.
That better alternative is giving the child up for adoption.
Better for whom, Conservative?
I am adopted. I am also 100%, without a doubt, couldn't deny it if I tried, pro-choice. That doesn't mean that I am pro-abortion. It means invitation only.
formerstew, comment # 20.10:
"It means invitation only."
This is another thing that is completely ignored by pro-life extremists (i.e.-Terry & associates). Unless you are invited to participate (read-contribute) to the situation of the moment, you are nothing more than an interloper in a private matter that is closed to all unless told otherwise.
More than likely it will be shown after halftime when everyone is drunk and doesn't care about the commercials. If there is ever another wardrobe malfunction during the Super bowl let it be the commercials and not the halftime show or during the game itself.
#21 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:30 AM ESTSo it's OK to profit from ads placed by terrorist organizations and their mouthpieces? Why don't we just start accepting ads from al Q'aeda?
#23 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:42 AM ESTHere is a possible loophole to the commercial. Does Randall have permission from the mothers of these aborted fetuses to air them in the first place?
Pat..not everyone refers to aborted fetusesa s just chunks of tiossue or whatever term you used. Very few are going to deny the fact that abortion IS an ugly business, but, by attempting to illegalize abortion, as so many pro-lifers atre attemtpting to do, even in cases of rape or incest, what pro-lifers are saying is that once a woman becomes pregnant, all of HER rights are automatically null and void.
I put this to you as I have several times on similar threads. Would you, in all honesty and good conscience, force a child, what is the youngest we've seen, 10? 11? to bear a child conceived through rape or incest? Just becasue the child is matured enough to coneive in the first place doesn't mean that they are physically or emotionally capable of carrying a child to term. You, the general you not you specifically, are risking the death of the child (the one pregnant) or even worse, the possiblility of damaging her to the point where she may no longer bear children, simply because she had the unfortunate luck (the way some pro-lifers look at it) to be raped.
At the same time, going with an adult. A sonogram or other test indicates a fetus has gross deformities that have no hope of being repaired wither in-utero or after birth. The level highly indicates the child, if even brought to term and delivered, will have a short life filled with pain and suffering. By the pro-life mandate, an aboriton, which would be humane in this case, is out of the quesiton. They would prefer to se the child delivered and put through the agony of their issues. A similar story was posted by someone claiming to be an OB nurse. She said on of her patients knew that if she carried her child to term and delivered, the child would only survive minutes due to a lack of lung development. In true form, the mother denied an abortion and had the child, only to hold the child in her arms for the 5 minutes it took that baby to die, in horrible pain, in trying to breathe. Sure, the baby dies in in her mother's arms, but really, we are against cruel and unusual punishment that causes pain to the convicted, what do you call what was done to that child?
To make aboriton illegal would deny a mother, or parents, the ability to make the decision to keep their child from suffering. And before you bring up the argument that a fetus being aborted feels pain...doctors even now are performing in-utero surgeries to repair minor issues. Tell me, are they "operating" on these fetuses without anasthetic? Why not apply that same type of anasthetic to the fetus prior to abortion? If they ARE performing those corrections without anasthetic, I guess it is OK for the fetus to feel THAT pain since they are probably going to live?
#24 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:00 AM ESTHere is a possible loophole to the commercial. Does Randall have permission from the mothers of these aborted fetuses to air them in the first place?
They don't necessaryily have to be real, aborted fetus's. They could easily be computer generated. (CGI) I think a 30 second ad costs somewhere in the range of 11 million to run during the game. I'm not sure though. Regardless, someone like Randall Terry may have a hard time raising that kind of money. Even the most conservative of political pundits think Terry is an over-the-top extremist.
BUt see mojo...even in order to be computer generated there had to be a model somewhere which means an actual aborted fetus. On top of that, we well know that anything computer generated can be enhanced beyond the actual appearance which would make Randall's efforts even worse as he could be portraying something in a much worse light than what happens in actuality.
Now, before I get majorly flamed here, I used all that as an example. I was NOT trying to downplay the results/effects of an abortion on a fetus.
Actually Lynn Once they are thrown in the garbage just like a cop getting a Cig butt out of the garbage to get DNA it is no longer your property Just an FYI.
aborted fetuses aren't just tossed..they are disposed of as medical/biohazard waste which means they are bagged, like used medical supplies, and then, sorry for the indelicacy here, incinerated. Any hospital or clinic that disposes of them in any other way is violating policy and need to be reported.
I think a 30 second ad costs somewhere in the range of 11 million to run during the game.
How sad that this much money, or any amount for that matter, would be spent to inflame and aggravate an argument which most assuredly will not change anyone's mind. Why not spend every cent to support women who will bear children only to give them up for adoption (for whatever reason), and for support of those children? I can think of many agencies across the nation that could use that kind of financial support.
I wonder if it's really about abortion or Terry Randall's ego? I think we know the answer...
If you do not like the ads, do not watch them. Terry bought the ad space and it is his right to put controversial ads in that space. No one will be forced to watch these ads.
How are we to know when the ad comes on? It's not like it's a television program that we can make an effort to block. Is there a listing that shows what time ads will be aired?
Also, he has not bought the ad space yet, he's simply won the right to air them if he can get the money to do so.
I don't want ads from any terrorist organization. Op Rescue and Randall Terry are terrorists, make no mistake. I have direct, personal knowledge of the terror tactics having been subject to bomb threats and threats of violence. TV stations refuse ads from PETA because of their purported terrorism (even though they have never been involved in bomb threats nor any physical violence other than spreading fake blood). Why is it OK to support the evil that is Op Rescue (who have provided aid and support to murderers and do provide logistical support to bombers).
I have direct, personal knowledge of the terror tactics having been subject to bomb threats and threats of violence.
Randall Terry has never been linked with anti-abortion terrorism.
TV stations refuse ads from PETA because of their purported terrorism (even though they have never been involved in bomb threats nor any physical violence other than spreading fake blood).
TV stations refuse to air PETA ads because the ads PETA tries to show are incredibly risque. The alleged ties PETA has to green terror have nothing to do with it.
Why is it OK to support the evil that is Op Rescue (who have provided aid and support to murderers and do provide logistical support to bombers).
It has never been proven that Operation Rescue aids terrorists.
Randall Terry has never been linked with anti-abortion terrorism.
No, he's just a terrorist sympathizer with no sense of responsibility for his actions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/randall-terry-tiller-reap_n_209862.html
Speaking in a small room to a handful of reporters, Terry called Tiller, "demonic" and "diabolical," a "mass murderer" who "reaped what he sowed." But he denied playing any role in contributing to the frenzied environment that led to the doctor's shooting.
It has never been proven that Operation Rescue aids terrorists.
Or any evidence suggesting it, right?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/06/01/737712/-Number-for-top-Operation-Rescue-staffer-found-in-suspects-car
The phone number is written on an envelope with the name "Cheryl" and "Op Rescue." Cheryl is Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue's senior policy adviser, who in 1988 was convicted of conspiring to bomb a California abortion clinic. She served two years in prison.
Wait a minute. Putting aside Roeder for a moment, does conspiring to bomb a clinic count as terrorism, or does the fact that they were stopped before it was carried out make it something else?
No, he's just a terrorist sympathizer with no sense of responsibility for his actions.
He may be a nuisance, but he is not a terrorist. He is also not responsible for the killing of Dr. Tiller.
Or any evidence suggesting it, right?
Roeder had the phone number of an Operation Rescue employee in his car. That just shows that Roeder was anti-abortion, which he admitted was his reason for killing Dr. Tiller. It does not show that Operation Rescue is a terrorist organization.
I am very pro-choice, and I abhor Randall Terry, however according to FOX this will not happen...so I will withhold my views until it happens
Gotta love the conveniently ignoring the details.
He may be a nuisance, but he is not a terrorist.
I said "terrorist sympathizer", as in one who shows sympathy with those who commit terrorist acts. If someone said that the victims in the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon "reaped what they sowed" for any civilians killed in Gulf War I, would you still such a person as just a nuisance?
Roeder had the phone number of an Operation Rescue employee in his car.
An employee who was convicted of plotting to bomb a clinic. Simple question #1: Is that or is that not terrorism? Simple question #2: If anyone else who committed a sniper-style murder had the contact information of someone convicted of a planning a terrorist plot at the time they committed that murder, would you honestly say it's unreasonable to suspect that the convict was involved in encouraging the murderer's act of violence?
It does not show that Operation Rescue is a terrorist organization.
No, they just hire those who have been convicted of plotting terrorist acts for positions that include acting as a spokesperson for the organization and seem to be on good enough terms with violent criminals that they have direct phone numbers for easy contact. Nothing suspicious or worth being concerned about there.
If someone said that the victims in the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon "reaped what they sowed" for any civilians killed in Gulf War I, would you still such a person as just a nuisance?
Someone who says offensive things but doesn't do anything harmful is a nuisance. They're not a threat, they're just a nuisance.
Simple question #1: Is that or is that not terrorism?
Yes.
Simple question #2: If anyone else who committed a sniper-style murder had the contact information of someone convicted of a planning a terrorist plot at the time they committed that murder, would you honestly say it's unreasonable to suspect that the convict was involved in encouraging the murderer's act of violence?
Roeder did not commit a sniper style murder. He shot Dr. Tiller at point blank range in the middle of a church. And while it may be reasonable to suspect that an Operation Rescue employee was working with Roeder, suspicions require evidence. And there is no evidence of an Operation Rescue employee being involved in the killing of Dr. Tiller.
Is that or is that not terrorism?
The attack on the Pentagon?
No.
The attack on the WTC?
Yes.
The Pentagon is a military target. The WTC was a civilian target. 9/11 was an act of war and an act of terrorism.
Dennis, I normally agree with you and your point is taken regarding the pentagon as a valid military target, but since it was attacked with hijacked plane full of civilians it was still a terrorist act.
No, because it's the target that defines whether something is an act of terrorism. As you said, the Pentagon is a legitimate military target. The WTC was not.
Four counts of hijacking, two (three, maybe) acts of terrorism, and an act of war.
You know, I can almost understand the truthers. There's no way all of that should have worked.
I am not saying I believe the truthers, but I do understand why the official story is so hard to believe. I can say that I am pretty sure we don't know the whole story.
The biggest question for me is Where the hell was everybody? Where was the airport security? Where was NORAD? Where was the Air Force?
Four planes, the nations most populated city and the Pentagon were all left undefended on the same day? Really?
The nation with by far the most sophisticated defense, and largest force in the history of the world was caught with it's pants down?
the bas tard can waste all of his money that he wishes to waste. That doesn't mean that I'm going to watch his bulls hit presentation
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
