Click here to learn how to add YouTube Videos to your phpBB forum

Can you tell me what is so horrible about this commercial that woman's lib groups all over the world were so ready to boycott the superbowl over? Ridiculous!

yeah I couldn't believe the fuss was over that. Focus on the Family is a pro life orginization and that is what had some people upset. It is a pro life ad but nothing to fuss over.

Its a prolife ad with a very subtle message. Matter of fact I don't know that it was much of a prolife statement at all. Basically they were in support of family and we are to assume that she is saying that despite the difficulty of her pregnancy, she wouldn't have changed a thing. Not exactly inflammatory material there.

subtle, yes. But whoever knows a little bit about the Tebow story knows that it is a extremely powerful message.

Agreed, but not all people know his story. I didn't know his story until the hubub over the commercial came out. If I saw this commercial without all the backlash that preceded it, I wouldn't have known. I think the woman's lib groups only accomplished in making this commercial much more popular than it would have been otherwise.

The groups heard "anti abortion" commercial and went nuts. It's not like they saw the commercial and went nuts. Nobody saw the commercial, the only thing anybody knew was that CBS was going to allow a pro life group put an ad on during the Super Bowl.

_________________

The liberals only want their story told. They crucify anyone who says anything different.

_________________
PHINFEVER FACEBOOK - JOIN US!

yeah no kidding
Even if it were an overtly pro-life message, its not like that's hate speech (as many were asserting). This is another case of the lefties attempting to write the rules on political correctness. Since when is wanting to save an innocent life 'hate speech'? Call it difference of opinions at worst; claims of 'hate speech' are thrown around all too easily. Honestly the remarks coming from the woman's lib groups about Tebow and Focus On The Family were far more hateful than anything in that commercial or issued in defense of the commercial.

I have a huge problem with the ad. I believe that choosing to let an unborn child live is a terrible thing. We should abort as many babies as possible. We already have too many people.

_________________

Not only that, but the mother's health is the most important thing. Especially if she doesn't want the kid because she's a drug user and got knocked up and can't afford a baby. Kill the kid and we have one less foster child to worry about.

_________________

Wow, I bet you guys also think that minds are not terrible things to waste. lol

Its a two way street, blah blah blah. Individuals shouldnt be lumped in categories or associated with any loud mouth hard headed effectively useless "groups" just because of any single opinion or group of opinions that individual may hold.

To me if the ad is trying to change opinions than it is pointless. People who think abortion should be legal don't think abortion is good thing. They don't disagree that Tebow is a great story among many similar great stories but that is not the point of contention with them. Further more to that point making abortion illegal would do nothing to solve the problem. The problem is much deeper and can't be solved by making it illegal. Any individual or group who wishes to lower the abortion rate has the same tools at their disposal whether or not the act is legal or illegal and it involves a community effort on multiple levels.

There is a lot of truth in what you said here. As a Christian (sorry for making this sound like a religious discussion, it wasn't my intention in posting the thread here), I believe the greatest change must happen within people's hearts. That being said, I am still opposed to abortion being legal, but I agree with what you have said here that the problem will not go away even if it is made illegal.

The problem is that CBS had turned down a homosexual ad, or something like that, so now I guess they might be taken to court.

So from their standpoint it's why accept their ad, and not ours?

On what basis will CBS be taken to court?

_________________

NOW is not a homosexual organization. They were the ones doing the most griping. It's CBS' right to air whatever commercials they want. They are not obligated to show something they do not deem suitable or not good for ratings. Thats private enterprise and that's why this country is great. Take that away and you might as well live in communist China.

See what happens when you are decisive and consistent with your post?

Great post.

_________________

I do want to point out that America does protect the unborn, birds that is.

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html

Some eggs can be difficult to sit on. I think the mother bald eagle should have a choice as whether or not to allow it to be eaten by a predator.

_________________

I try ;)

if you haven't noticed it is slowly being taken away

Thanks, I was trying to pretend I hadn't noticed. Your a real drag!

Abortion seems to be an issue that nuts people up whenever it's discussed.
For me, I could care less. I am not pregnant, never have been, and am not in any way in the foreseeable future going to become pregnant. My part in the 'baby creation' would consist of an evening's not-stressful completely rewarding "work".
I wouldn't have to change my life for the next nine months.
I wouldn't get morning sickness.
I wouldn't get cramps and diarrhea.
I wouldn't add on 20-30 pounds and endure aching muscles and stiff joints.
I wouldn't endure labor for potentially hours of excruciating pain.
I'm not saying abortion should be legal (my personal opinion is that it shouldn't be available as the 'oops, let's just take care of this mistake' but should be available to victims of incest, rape, etc.);
what I AM saying is if I was a woman and guys wanted to vote on what I wanted to do with my body, then to hell with them. I know as a man if a bill surfaced about making say, vasectomies mandatory in some instances, then I would be outraged if a woman got to vote on it. She wouldn't be 'equipped' to tell me what I had to do with Mr. Happy or his friends Mo(e) and Jo(e).

Just as I don't have the Honeybun Oven to tell a woman what she can do with hers.

In my opinion this is not the same thing at all because we are talking about a human life. Just curious are you for the legalization of prostitution as well? We have voted to allow judges to make castrations mandatory in some instances.
http://www.slate.com/id/2660/

So if your wife is pregnant, it has zero impact on you?



Ever heard of sympathy pains?



You wouldn't be enduring a hormonal creature capable of causing you extremely elevated levels of stress at unpredictable times?

Just because the woman carries the baby in the womb for 9 months doesn't mean the man isn't impacted in a profound way.

_________________

No kidding, try going to court and being ordered to pay child support for the next 18 years and then tell us it has no impact on a man.



(and no I'm not advocating abortion based on a guy not wanting to pay child support)

Of course I am for legalized, medically-licensed prostitution. If someone can make money having sex, then I would say they have found the absolute most brilliant entrepreneurial enterprise in the history of humankind. There are medical risks naturally...NONE of which are any different than the risks we take with consensual, 'free' sex. They would have to take a medical exam (aids, hiv, etc.) regularly to keep their 'card'. They do it in Nevada right now.

So...having sex with a prostitute in Nevada is safer than with anyone else (hypothetically)? Who knew? Since they are required, by the state government I'm assuming, to have a card, and with said card they can solicit sex with the assumption that they are STD free? Meaning, if you were to get an STD, and could prove you got it from the prostitute (not sure how), you could win your money back and then some for false advertising?

Leave it to me to discuss the retributions of this..

_________________

[quote="Rich"]
So if your wife is pregnant, it has zero impact on you?[quote]
Well, I suppose I would have to consider dealing with the things she was going through (the stereotype 'I need Ice Cream and Spaghetti at 1 am.' stuff) as 'impactful'. I suppose I would have to consider the financial cost of raising a child 'impactful'. I probably also would have to contend with a change of schedule or sleeping habits 'impactful'. However, in my defense I offer that that is PEANUTS compared to the genetic origami that would be happening to the insides of my wife.
I have a friend (who I haven't seen in years) who's baby-daddy abandoned her once he found out she was pregnant. I stepped up because she needed a partner/coach for the classes. We learned to breathe as a team, what we needed to have in the ready-bag, etc. Right before 'graduation', they showed us a live birth on film. Then we 'graduated' and I was allowed in the OR for the birth.
Rich, I don't give a rat's a$$ how much you think pregnancy affects a MAN; when that jellyfish and the mustard comes out, brother, THAT is IMPACT.

[quote="Rich"]
Ever heard of sympathy pains?
[quote]
I have. They aren't physically-caused, but psychosomatic. In other words, brought on by emotional and/or mental stress.
I can't speak for others. I have seen many injured and several dead people in my life. I have been seriously injured a few times as well (compound fractures of multiple bones, blood loss requiring transfusions, etc.). I have never looked at someone with a bone sticking out of their elbow and felt my own arm ache. I have never seen someone's eye popped out and felt the side of my head shooting with pain. I have certainly felt sympathy for most of them, and I certainly don't enjoy the sight of my own injuries, but I have never looked at someone in great pain and joined them in agony.
Maybe I am just a cold-hearted neanderthal with little brainpower and even less human compassion.

It's okay if you want to Devils' Advocate the subject, my friend. It's an easy answer for me. NO part of what I posted said it was any safer than any other kind of sex.
IN FACT, I believe (if I remember since it was only a few minutes ago) I said they run the SAME risks as EVERYONE else having non-paid for sex.

Oh no I wasn't arguing with you. You said that they have to have a card in Nevada to say they're clean, right? So hypothetically it should be safer because they are required by law to have check ups in order to sell sex, right?

_________________

Well, the 'official' ones have medical cards. As with anything else, there are those who don't and 'caveat emptor'. The medical clearance involves std testing, although I am not sure of it's extent. I now they lose their card if they get one.

Well, the 'official' ones have medical cards. As with anything else, there are those who don't and 'caveat emptor'. The medical clearance involves std testing, although I am not sure of it's extent. I now they lose their card if they get one.[/quote]

Very interesting.

_________________

The argument wasn't whether a man was impacted as much as a woman during pregnancy. You said he wasn't impacted at all. You're demonstrably and unequivocally wrong so now you're changing the basis of your argument.

How about just admitting that your initial statement that the man is not impacted by pregnancy etc was flat out wrong?

As for sympathy pains being psychosomatic, so what? There are three major causes that can shorten your life. Genetics, diet and STRESS. Seems to me something happening in your mind can be pretty impactful... and who cares what the source is? The man still experiences the pains.

Weak argument on your part all around.

_________________

Hmmmmm. I have reread this three times now and I don't see ANYWHERE where I said a man wasn't affected at all. You quote me as saying it. You wouldn't do something like attribute words to me that weren't there, now would you? Just to try and back up your argument?


Since you attributed something to me that I didn't say, then I guess you are in the same boat as me: YOU are demonstrably and unequivocably wrong. The ONLY difference is you're trying to change the basics of what I said.


Since I didn't say it, I don't have to. I like your posts usually, and find them to be well-thought out and insightful. USUALLY. However, this time you are apparently spoiling for a fight (it is the most boring time of offseason), so I'll give you one.


As I said, I don't suffer illusory agonies just because others do. Perhaps I lack some vital human compassion component. HOW did you make a stretch from pregnancy to death??? I mean, they're kind of polar opposites, in a literal and figurative way. It has me baffled how you jumped there. Back to the point of the conversation, 'something happening in your mind can be pretty impactful', well, I suppose it can if you are one of those that suffer it. Since I don't, and I understand that it is simply the minds' response, an emotional defense mechanism, to someone in pain that they themselves cannot alleviate, I don't feel a whole heap of sympathy for it.
It's not a weak argument at all, it's simply my opinion and I'm as entitled to it as you are to yours.

Tell me what is the difference between saying you wouldn't be impacted at all and this:



If something impacts you, it causes you to change your life, even if a little bit.

Connect the dots.



The point you clearly missed was that even components that affect the brain and not necessarily the physical body can have a profound impact on the body. You dismiss the experience of sympathy pains because you call it psychosomatic, but it is still an experience and an unpleasant one at that.



Probably because you aren't listening. You are reading my words but making no attempt to digest them.



There are billions of other people in the world. You're not the only one inhabiting it.



Again, you said if your wife became pregnant, you wouldn't have to change your life for 9 months.

So, either you don't take care of your wife while she is pregnant, take her to the doctor several times, deal with potential hormonal mood swings and all the other wonderful things that come during those 9 months, or you are wrong.

If it is the first, then yes, you are missing a human component and I feel sorry for your wife.

_________________

Hilarious! "Oh what a cross we bear, to have to deal with hormonal mood swings."

Tell you what, go through the months of muscle cramps, joint discomfort, nausea and diarrhea that I alluded to in my first statement on this thread, then culminate it with what is usually a several hours-long period of intense, recurring pain, and then top it off with (substituting a shared body part here for comparison) your rectum dilating to 7-8 cm and then being ripped or cut a further 2-3 cm so as to facilitate you passing a football through it.
I realize this can be a bit of a stretch, but SOMEHOW I don't equate having to get out of bed at 1 am to go find pizza-flavored ice cream as, well, very significant at all.

One other thing I found kind of strange in what you said, here I'll quote.



Wouldn't you care for your wife anyway? I mean, does she have to be pregnant to get attention and care? I fail to see how my life would be different: I'd care for my wife if she was pregnant, injured, not pregnant, not injured...

Again you miss the point of what I am saying. You keep hopping from one foot to another as if I am shooting bullets at your feet.

I'm not arguing that the man is impacted just the same as the woman when she becomes pregnant, so you're swinging at shadows there.

I'm making the point that when a woman becomes pregnant, it does change the man's life as well.



Is that all you did when your wife became pregnant? Then consider yourself VERY lucky.



So you treat your wife the same exact way when she is pregnant as you do when she isn't?

It doesn't change at all?

The circular logic you keep using in this conversation is getting you twisted up in knots with what it is you are trying to say.

Might me time to start over from scratch.

_________________

Are you also for the legalization of all drugs/substances?

Since babies are dependent on people for food, warmth, care, etc... for life, is it ok to kill them since it is after all our bodies that are used to take care of them.

Your freedoms end as soon as they obstruct the freedoms of another. I think the debate is whether the fetus is another being or not...or rather, when it becomes another being.

_________________