- Sorry, we couldn't find that question.
| Tim Tebow's Super Bowl ad telling his story (not being aborted )is... |
|
Tim Tebow's Super Bowl ad telling his story (not being aborted )is...
Click to vote
|
|
||||
|
|
Ask500
|
Login
Terry O'Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, said she had respect for the private choices made by women such as Pam Tebow but condemned the planned ad as "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning."
What in the world is she talking about???
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/25/tim-tebow-super-bowl-ad-w_n_436187.html
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
That's just the answer I expected from our local representative of evil.
Grow up.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
How is allowing evil to flourish growing up?
If you want "SHIT" off your TV just don't watch pretty much any prime time show.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyHows is hypocritical to tell your story of not being aborted? What is hypocritical is to hate someone's message just because they are Christian.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Is that your opinion? Or do you now also consider yourself the final word on religious beliefs?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
You don't seem to mind being preached at by Obammy! Isn't he your savior? :-)
The super bowl is not the medium for this ad.
Why not?
If there are others who have no idea what this is about it here is the wikipedia entry "Tebow was born on August 14, 1987 in Manila in the Philippines, to Bob and Pam Tebow, who were serving as Christian missionaries at the time. While pregnant, Pam suffered a life-threatening infection with a pathogenic amoeba. Because of the drugs used to rouse her from a coma and to treat her dysentery, the fetus experienced a severe placental abruption. Doctors expected a stillbirth and recommended an abortion according to his mother, a pro life activist. She carried Timothy to term, and both survived." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Tebow
She chose to have the baby and I guess she made the right choice for her, it is the prospective mother's choice not the doctors, not the father, and certainly not me.
Should this be advertised, I don't know, if we do then of course people might want to put up ads where the mother chose to continue the pregnancy in similar circumstances and ended up dying. Should those also be allowed?
If we force women to have the baby, should we then also have the responsibility for the life and wellbeing of the family, like housing, food, education and health?
I thought you were pro-choice. Do you only support that position if the choice agrees with yours?
What do you think this means??? "Should this be advertised, I don't know, if we do then of course people might want to put up ads where the mother chose to continue the pregnancy in similar circumstances and ended up dying. Should those also be allowed?"
I give up. What does it mean?
That I don't know if it should be put on air. I have no objection to it, but then stories where the mother ended up dead should then also be allowed. And I don't think that we should be scaring women to have babies.
When did it become scary that parents sacrifice for their children? If it does scare people, it seems to me that the sacrifice would scare them away from the fiction that loving one's child is somehow more "natural" than loving a mate.
Why wouldn't it be scary, many women are scared of the pain, the risks and the responsibility, we control the pain and risks by giving them medication in a environment like a hospital (if they can afford it) but we do not assist or educate the parents in their responsibilities other then forcing the man to pay child support if he choses to leave. Advertise that they could die because of medical complications and childbirth would drop, hell it even turns me of just thinking that sex could kill my wife and legally nothing could be done about it.
I see what you mean. I had forgotten for the moment that most people see security from pain and death as better than a chance for great happiness or gain.
I've learned over the years that no one is truly ever free from pain and death. But you can make your life more meaningful and joyful by living life as fully as you can.
Those who consider our actions (like you and I do) may draw different lines in how we are willing to live our lives, but I don't think anyone is well served by avoiding people trying to influence you. That's why I argue with some of my Methodist friends that arguing against the Gambling and Liquor industries is a waste of time. The government does a very poor job of controlling behavior. But it does a pretty good job controlling results. Smoking and drunk driving cause lots of deaths. Most people agree that those things are and should be difficult and extremely expensive. But the American people can tell you that prohibition doesn't work, and won't work with cigarettes either.
Whether pro-choice or pro-life, a large majority in North America believes Abortion is a bad birth control method. To educate mainstream America, the point needs to be made that abortion is mostly misused as a birth control method for careless or stupid women. Real women with passion and brains rarely put themselves (or get put) in the position where they have to get an abortion. Only trailer trash and little girls that have no self control get most abortions. My Christian friends are also going to have to quit hiding from the fact that rape and incest (or other criminal acts) are supported by most as legitimate reasons for abortion. But it won't change soon over whether abortion is murder. Most people just don't believe it. (though I do)
I think we ought to be advertising our beliefs in the marketplace of ideas. Put your money where your mouth is. If you don't do it in such a way as to convince people of your point of view, it's just public masturbation. But if you change minds, well, that's the purpose of any advertising.
I know plenty women who had abortions that are not careless or stupid then the other way around (none of them I slept with btw) Few women make the choice lightly or use abortion as a form of birth control, specially since there are far cheaper and less intrusive methods available.
But regardless of their intellect, the question is if this ad should be shown during the super-bowl (I think it can) my only reservation is that if we do this then we would also have to allow other ads where the woman ended up dying. Other groups who did put up the money like Man-kiss were blocked by CBS so it is not as simple as just putting up the money for advertising our beliefs in the "marketplace of ideas" either, however I agree it should be.
Regardless if abortion is legal or not, abortions will be performed. Women who can not afford an abortion in a clinic will try self abortion and then go to hospital to deal with any wounds. Costing the tax payer, or if she has health insurance, the insurance premiums will go up. Abortions in the U.S. have been falling steadily, interestingly more so under Clinton then under Bush. -- http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0099.pdf
I really don't believe most women that get abortions are stupid, but I was trying to make the point that getting an abortion is neither brilliant or brave. It is not pro-woman. It is the last resort after everything else has failed. (The belief held by most in the US) Yet according to the surveys, the vast majority were used for birth control. If we could get the attitudes to change, the women who get abortions for medical reasons would be protected while the others would be relegated to being losers in the eyes of society. This would, in turn, significantly lower the abortion rate.
This is where we disagree and I disagree strongly, women who have abortions are no more losers then women who have babies but can't support them either financially, emotionally or physically. I really do not get is this continual need to judge others by our personal standards. Lets judge ourselves by our own standards and let other people be.
To lower the number of abortions is not by making the abortions illegal (that just drives them out of sight and creates an even bigger medical and social problem) You need to have a multiprogram approach including respect for the individual, comprehensive sexual education, free availability availability of birth control (including the morning after pill) and comprehensive support for the parents in raising the children.
I forgot, for a moment that I could strike a nerve like that. I apologize for doing that.
I was actually advocating a LESS contentious way of solving the abortion problem. If I believe that most abortion is murder and women who have abortions are paying someone to murder their children; and you believe that abortion is a medical procedure to remove an unwanted tumor, we have nothing to discuss. There is no common ground. There can only be personal insults flying back and forth.
I looked for common ground and found it in the belief that abortion is for those life threatening situations where there is no other good choice. It's only a step from there to society adopting it as conventional wisdom. It does that by saying it in the vernacular enough times that it becomes "the truth" for most people.
I don't believe that any approach, even yours, will make a significant difference in abortion rates until society comes to some sort of consensus. And it obviously isn't coalescing around the current pro-choice and pro-life groups.
No need to apoligize to me, it is yourself and the women you need to apologize to if you understand why.
You are entitled to your believes but so is every one else. The point is that women will have abortions if they feel that it is the best option, regardless if we make it illegal or not they WILL still have them. I am all for making laws that are reasonable AND enforceable, making abortion illegal does not meet either of those two criteria. What is worse by making it illegal we don't give them the opportunity to discus it openly with any one who is even remotely anti abortion because they might turn them in and thus drive any discussion underground.
Best we an do is to make giving birth a reasonable alternative. But we as a society do not, we often start by condemning them for having (unprotected) sex.
We just need to change our attitudes towards people who have different opinions and values in life. A dutch comedian managed to point out when PC goes to far and people should not feel insulted, he picked on Muslims, but the religion if any is applicable for us all. -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knRLJp-nqSg
As I said above, "...the women who get abortions for medical reasons would be protected... This would, in turn, significantly lower the abortion rate."
You are still trying to pursue the old, Liberal agenda and respond to things that brought us to loggerheads. I think trying to outlaw abortion right now is probably a fools errand right now, but we can make people want to stay away from abortions without asking them to give up their values.
Sory, it is not something I am willing to budge on, I have explained why banning abortion will only make things worse for all and will require more jails (and/or gallows) to be build. All abortions up to the point where the fetus is viable (without support) outside of the womb should be a legal choice for the woman.
The ad is fine though, sadly that would make ads where the woman ends up dying also fine.