MR

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Wome ... ?GT1=39002

I think I am going to be a fan of Tebow and his mom now!! Love that NOW is protesting the add....showing their true colors!!
hysterical to say the least... GO CBS...

lights1961 wrote:http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Womens-groups-urge-CBS-to-drop-Tebow-Super-Bowl-ad-012510?GT1=39002

I think I am going to be a fan of Tebow and his mom now!! Love that NOW is protesting the add....showing their true colors!!
hysterical to say the least... GO CBS...

Freedom of speech is only if you support thier point of view...if not...they will shout you down by any method neccesary.

RossValoryRocks wrote:

lights1961 wrote:http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Womens-groups-urge-CBS-to-drop-Tebow-Super-Bowl-ad-012510?GT1=39002

I think I am going to be a fan of Tebow and his mom now!! Love that NOW is protesting the add....showing their true colors!!
hysterical to say the least... GO CBS...

Freedom of speech is only if you support thier point of view...if not...they will shout you down by any method neccesary.

Somewhere along the line, bedrock principles like freedom of speech/religion, separation of church and state, and individualism got turned into this fucked up "Right To Never Be Offended By Anything"

So, here's my question. If Tebow (or anyone) were doing a Pro-Choice ad, do you think this would have been their stance??

"That's not being respectful of other people's lives," O'Neill said. "It is offensive to hold one way out as being a superior way over everybody else's."

Because I have a hunch they wouldn't be protesting it, however, a Pro-Choice ad would also be "holding one way out as being a superior way...."

Good for Tebow and his mom, both for doing the ad and for following her heart instead of medical advice!!!!!!

Angel wrote: however, a Pro-Choice ad would also be "holding one way out as being a superior way...."

I don't agree with that; Pro-choice doesn't say that people HAVE to have abortions, regardless of their personal beliefs, situations, health, etc. It's in the very term - they support choice. Anti-abortionist are No-choice, and take the stance that because they don't believe that abortion is an ethical thing to do, NO ONE should have access to it, regardless of that person's beliefs, health, situation, or anything else.

No pro-choicer will tell Mrs Tebow she was wrong in the choice she made not to have an abortion; I know of very few anti-choicers who don't immediately try to lay a guilt trip on me when I confess I've had an abortion, even though they know nothing of my reasons for having had it.

RossValoryRocks wrote:Freedom of speech is only if you support their point of view...if not...they will shout you down by any method neccesary.

Interesting commentary. True, just like many topics/replies on this forum.
(Not aimed at you.)
Semper Fi.


later~

Angel wrote:So, here's my question. If Tebow (or anyone) were doing a Pro-Choice ad, do you think this would have been their stance??

I think this is very much a pro-choice ad. His Mom chose LIFE ...and that's what enrages the activist groups. The double standard from which behind they hide, called their own bluff. They use 'pro-choice' as abortion rights. And, perhaps it is. But it's also a right to choose LIFE...and that's a message they don't want advertised.


later~

Arkansas wrote:

Angel wrote:So, here's my question. If Tebow (or anyone) were doing a Pro-Choice ad, do you think this would have been their stance??

I think this is very much a pro-choice ad. His Mom chose LIFE ...and that's what enrages the activist groups. The double standard from which behind they hide, called their own bluff. They use 'pro-choice' as abortion rights. And, perhaps it is. But it's also a right to choose LIFE...and that's a message they don't want advertised.


later~

Exactly!

I will be interested to see the ad.

I will have to see the ad, but on face value, I don't get the furor. Mrs. Tebrow was exercising choice, and her choice was to have the baby. Why should the women's groups be upset? Now, if she gets on her high horse and says, "look at me...you also can give birth to a Tim Tebrow..." -- that would be unacceptable .

I'm pro-choice (albeit somewhat reluctantly) but I STILL think the furor over this ad is wrong. Voltaire said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." I've always believed in that.

Angel wrote:

Arkansas wrote:

Angel wrote:So, here's my question. If Tebow (or anyone) were doing a Pro-Choice ad, do you think this would have been their stance??

I think this is very much a pro-choice ad. His Mom chose LIFE ...and that's what enrages the activist groups. The double standard from which behind they hide, called their own bluff. They use 'pro-choice' as abortion rights. And, perhaps it is. But it's also a right to choose LIFE...and that's a message they don't want advertised.

later~

Exactly!

I will be interested to see the ad.

So will I (and I'm sure it will wind up on YouTube). The question is, and I think it's what the protesters are concerned about, will it imply that all abortion is wrong? Because that isn't choice, that's saying 'see, my choice was the right one, and it was to have a baby, therefore your choice should be the same as mine.'

It's the same line as survivors who are anti-assisted suicide; because they were the one in a million who survived end-stage terminal disease and went into remission, they insist that everyone should refuse to contemplate ending their life before the agony of total body failure kicks in. 999,999 people should die in slowly in pain, with their families watching, and with no choice about ending it, because 1 person went into a late term remission.

I'm also not so wild about having words put in my mouth, or the mouths of my similarly pro-CHOICE friends; I have no issue whatsoever with Mrs Tebow proudly saying that her son is here despite an illness during his pregnancy that was serious enough that a doctor advocated termination. It's an important thing for women in that situation to hear to enable themselves to make the right decision for themselves. But the moment there is the notion that her choice means I, or any other woman, shouldn't, then yes, I have a problem with that. Your morals, your politics, your beliefs are not mine and NO ONE has the right to tell me that I must agree with them. Any more than I have any right to tell them that they must agree with me.

X factor wrote:I'm pro-choice (albeit somewhat reluctantly) but I STILL think the furor over this ad is wrong. Voltaire said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." I've always believed in that.

Agree with you absolutely. I can understand the outrage if CBS previously refused to run an ad in a similar slot for an inclusive, liberal Church and is now taking one from an ultra-Conservative one with an equally contentious message, but I don't think the screaming is helping much.

Arianddu wrote:

Angel wrote: however, a Pro-Choice ad would also be "holding one way out as being a superior way...."

I don't agree with that; Pro-choice doesn't say that people HAVE to have abortions, regardless of their personal beliefs, situations, health, etc. It's in the very term - they support choice. Anti-abortionist are No-choice, and take the stance that because they don't believe that abortion is an ethical thing to do, NO ONE should have access to it, regardless of that person's beliefs, health, situation, or anything else.

No pro-choicer will tell Mrs Tebow she was wrong in the choice she made not to have an abortion; I know of very few anti-choicers who don't immediately try to lay a guilt trip on me when I confess I've had an abortion, even though they know nothing of my reasons for having had it.

If someone thinks abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, don't you think they would HAVE to believe that abortion is wrong? They would be a hypocrite if they didn't, wouldn't they?

By the way, I know someone from my church, whom my family is very close to, that has had an abortion and we treat her no differently than anyone else, nor does anyone else in the church that I'm aware of.

Arkansas wrote:

RossValoryRocks wrote:Freedom of speech is only if you support their point of view...if not...they will shout you down by any method neccesary.

Interesting commentary. True, just like many topics/replies on this forum.
(Not aimed at you.)
Semper Fi.


later~

Oh gee, wonder who that was aimed at... You can have free speech, but YES, I will shout you down whenever I get the chance just cause I can

Know what?
I've done some Tebow bashing (well, more the hype AROUND him than Tebow himself) but given this occurance I'm now a Tebow fan for LIFE.
Good for him and mom.

conversationpc wrote:

Arianddu wrote:

Angel wrote: however, a Pro-Choice ad would also be "holding one way out as being a superior way...."

I don't agree with that; Pro-choice doesn't say that people HAVE to have abortions, regardless of their personal beliefs, situations, health, etc. It's in the very term - they support choice. Anti-abortionist are No-choice, and take the stance that because they don't believe that abortion is an ethical thing to do, NO ONE should have access to it, regardless of that person's beliefs, health, situation, or anything else.

No pro-choicer will tell Mrs Tebow she was wrong in the choice she made not to have an abortion; I know of very few anti-choicers who don't immediately try to lay a guilt trip on me when I confess I've had an abortion, even though they know nothing of my reasons for having had it.

If someone thinks abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, don't you think they would HAVE to believe that abortion is wrong? They would be a hypocrite if they didn't, wouldn't they?

By the way, I know someone from my church, whom my family is very close to, that has had an abortion and we treat her no differently than anyone else, nor does anyone else in the church that I'm aware of.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but I'll assume you are refering to my comment about anti-choicers laying a guilt trip on me. Two things: Firstly, not everyone who is anti-abortion is anti-choice; I know a lot of people who could never have an abortion themselves and who believe it is unethical to do so, but they also believe it is not their place to tell someone else that they cannot have an abortion. Those aren't the people I am talking about. Secondly, I think all war is murder, and I am highly opposed to it; I don't refer to soldiers as murderers, I don't picket recruiting offices showing horrific pictures of casualties, and I don't try to make my friends and relatives who have served/are serving in the forces feel guilty for what they have done under wartime conditions. Their choices are not mine, and for all that I disapprove, it isn't my place or my right to judge them.

The doctors who tried to get Mrs Tebow to have an abortion should have their medical licenses lodged in their asses and have fire set to them.

Arianddu wrote:I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but I'll assume you are refering to my comment about anti-choicers laying a guilt trip on me. Two things: Firstly, not everyone who is anti-abortion is anti-choice; I know a lot of people who could never have an abortion themselves and who believe it is unethical to do so, but they also believe it is not their place to tell someone else that they cannot have an abortion. Those aren't the people I am talking about. Secondly, I think all war is murder, and I am highly opposed to it; I don't refer to soldiers as murderers, I don't picket recruiting offices showing horrific pictures of casualties, and I don't try to make my friends and relatives who have served/are serving in the forces feel guilty for what they have done under wartime conditions. Their choices are not mine, and for all that I disapprove, it isn't my place or my right to judge them.

I understand what you are saying....I am very anti-abortion, however, I do think there are circumstances when it is an acceptable option-such as in the case of rape or incest. I do not, however, believe that it should be a form of birth control. I think there should be more resources to help women to choose life. I think it is unacceptable to have an abortion because a baby would interfere with a career or other life plans or because a teenager is too scared to tell her parents she is pregnant. I think that options such as adoption should be discussed more readily than they are. As a practitioner, I will never take any part in any abortion.

OK, now, having said all of that.....when I have patients who have had an abortion do I treat them differently? No I do not, it is not my position to judge them-by the same token, if I had a patient that was convicted of a felony of some sort, would I treat her differently? No, because again, it is not my place to judge her. It is never my position to judge someone who believes differently than I do. However, I do have the right to believe that abortions and felonies are wrong, and I have the right to express my beliefs that these things are wrong. It's a matter of separating the person from the act-I can respect the person without respecting what they have done.

Red13JoePa wrote:The doctors who tried to get Mrs Tebow to have an abortion should have their medical licenses lodged in their asses and have fire set to them.

Well, now, I must say, often things are blown out of proportion....I wouldn't be so sure the "tried to get her" to have an abortion as much as told her it was an option....just speaking from what I know good medical practice to be....if they did not practice good medicine and offer all options, then yes, you are correct.

Arianddu wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

Arianddu wrote:

Angel wrote: however, a Pro-Choice ad would also be "holding one way out as being a superior way...."

I don't agree with that; Pro-choice doesn't say that people HAVE to have abortions, regardless of their personal beliefs, situations, health, etc. It's in the very term - they support choice. Anti-abortionist are No-choice, and take the stance that because they don't believe that abortion is an ethical thing to do, NO ONE should have access to it, regardless of that person's beliefs, health, situation, or anything else.

No pro-choicer will tell Mrs Tebow she was wrong in the choice she made not to have an abortion; I know of very few anti-choicers who don't immediately try to lay a guilt trip on me when I confess I've had an abortion, even though they know nothing of my reasons for having had it.

If someone thinks abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, don't you think they would HAVE to believe that abortion is wrong? They would be a hypocrite if they didn't, wouldn't they?

By the way, I know someone from my church, whom my family is very close to, that has had an abortion and we treat her no differently than anyone else, nor does anyone else in the church that I'm aware of.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but I'll assume you are refering to my comment about anti-choicers laying a guilt trip on me. Two things: Firstly, not everyone who is anti-abortion is anti-choice; I know a lot of people who could never have an abortion themselves and who believe it is unethical to do so, but they also believe it is not their place to tell someone else that they cannot have an abortion. Those aren't the people I am talking about. Secondly, I think all war is murder, and I am highly opposed to it; I don't refer to soldiers as murderers, I don't picket recruiting offices showing horrific pictures of casualties, and I don't try to make my friends and relatives who have served/are serving in the forces feel guilty for what they have done under wartime conditions. Their choices are not mine, and for all that I disapprove, it isn't my place or my right to judge them.

While I feel the same way about abortion/telling people what to do as you do, I don't think the analogy between soldiers and people who get abortions is kosher when so many people that sign up for the armed forces do so because it's their best way to get a career (eg cant afford college, come from a broken home, had problems as a teenager, even a wealthy well-to-do kid that simply wasn't cut out for college, what have you) or at least have a noble purpose like patriotism in mind.

That's not to say that no abortions are done out of necessity, because some are necessary for psychological and/or physical reasons (I don't buy the economics argument when adoption is available). Rather, it's simply to say that most soldiers don't sign up for their love of killing people, whereas a good number of abortions are simply done for convenience's sake.

Analogizing an abortion to a soldier courageously serving during war time is just disrespectful to the soldiers, whatever you feel about war. I know you didn't mean it that way, so don't think I'm offended or taking offense, but that's just how I see it in general.

Angel wrote:

Red13JoePa wrote:The doctors who tried to get Mrs Tebow to have an abortion should have their medical licenses lodged in their asses and have fire set to them.

Well, now, I must say, often things are blown out of proportion....I wouldn't be so sure the "tried to get her" to have an abortion as much as told her it was an option....just speaking from what I know good medical practice to be....if they did not practice good medicine and offer all options, then yes, you are correct.

See I am actually going by what the story says, that they suggested she get it, rather than what it doesn't claim, which is they merely mentioned it as an option.

At any rate I don't view abortion, in any case whatsoever, "good medical practice."

Red13JoePa wrote:

Angel wrote:

Red13JoePa wrote:The doctors who tried to get Mrs Tebow to have an abortion should have their medical licenses lodged in their asses and have fire set to them.

Well, now, I must say, often things are blown out of proportion....I wouldn't be so sure the "tried to get her" to have an abortion as much as told her it was an option....just speaking from what I know good medical practice to be....if they did not practice good medicine and offer all options, then yes, you are correct.

I don't view abortion, in any case whatsoever, "good medical practice."

This is one of the few areas where I'm more moderate than my solid right views usually are.

Rape, incest, and even physical threat to the mother, the chances for her to beat them or the risk never materializing notwithstanding, all justify abortion, imo. There's no way I'd want my future wife to have a KNOWN risk of dying giving birth to a kid and leaving me without her and my future/hypothetical kid without a mother.

I can see that and appreciate that aspect of it Matt but it still doesn't make it acceptable to me.
And let's face it in most cases, it's used as "birth control" IE the people just don't fuckin "feel" like having their style cramped by a *gasp* baby. 3rd world countries it's used as population control.

Red13JoePa wrote:I can see that and appreciate that aspect of it Matt but it still doesn't make it acceptable to me.
And let's face it in most cases, it's used as "birth control" IE the people just don't fuckin "feel" like having their style cramped by a *gasp* baby. 3rd world countries it's used as population control.

See my post ^^^ a couple above, indeed it it used more often than not for convenience's sake

i am pro choice! i would not have an abortion. i was faced with several factors while pregnant with my boys- my age being one of them. i was having my babies no matter what the amnio said, but i would never expect another person to do as i did, not my place to interfere.

ari, right on! i'm sorry you had to endure the experience and am glad you are brave enough to say
xoxo

As for the story, won't open for me so i can only imagine

Red13JoePa wrote:I can see that and appreciate that aspect of it Matt but it still doesn't make it acceptable to me.

But if you were a physician and you knew that the mother's life was at risk because of the pregnancy, and you didn't tell her that terminating the pregnancy would increase her chances of survival, you would not be practicing good medicine.

Ehwmatt wrote:

Red13JoePa wrote:I can see that and appreciate that aspect of it Matt but it still doesn't make it acceptable to me.
And let's face it in most cases, it's used as "birth control" IE the people just don't fuckin "feel" like having their style cramped by a *gasp* baby. 3rd world countries it's used as population control.

See my post ^^^ a couple above, indeed it it used more often than not for convenience's sake

Hear ya bro

Ok...being an independent libertarian...here is my view...

A) The whole notion that someone would try an censor another bothers me, or in this case, an organization trying to silence someone. From EITHER side.

B) While I find abortion, especially done a method of birth control, abhorrent, it is NOT my place nor the governments place to dictate to people on a personal decision like this. HOWEVER once the baby woud be fully capable of surviving outside the womb then it should be obvious that at that point it is taking a life, i.e. murder...which leads me to C)

C) Being that abortion is legal, there still needs to be some kind of limitation put on so that these late term abortions cannot be performed except in rigid and exacting circumstances, in the case of late term abortion ONLY the health and well being of the mother works as far as I am concerned. You cannot convince me that a rape victim or victim of incest would wait longer than 28 weeks to have an abortion.

RossValoryRocks wrote:
C) Being that abortion is legal, there still needs to be some kind of limitation put on so that these late term abortions cannot be performed except in rigid and exacting circumstances, in the case of late term abortion ONLY the health and well being of the mother works as far as I am concerned. You cannot convince me that a rape victim or victim of incest would wait longer than 28 weeks to have an abortion.

isn't that already the law? abortions can be performed up to certain month and after that time only of the health of the mother is at risk? i don't know tho. i still leave it as a personal choice, tho i doubt a baby able to survive out of the womb would be aborted.

Lula wrote:

RossValoryRocks wrote:
C) Being that abortion is legal, there still needs to be some kind of limitation put on so that these late term abortions cannot be performed except in rigid and exacting circumstances, in the case of late term abortion ONLY the health and well being of the mother works as far as I am concerned. You cannot convince me that a rape victim or victim of incest would wait longer than 28 weeks to have an abortion.

isn't that already the law? abortions can be performed up to certain month and after that time only of the health of the mother is at risk? i don't know tho. i still leave it as a personal choice, tho i doubt a baby able to survive out of the womb would be aborted.

It happens...read about late term abortions...if you dare...it's usually VERY graphic in detail.