I think I am going to be a fan of Tebow and his mom now!!


hysterical to say the least... GO CBS...
Moderator: Andrew
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...
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.
Angel wrote: however, a Pro-Choice ad would also be "holding one way out as being a superior way...."
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.
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??
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~
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.
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.
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.
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~
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Red13JoePa wrote:I can see that and appreciate that aspect of it Matt but it still doesn't make it acceptable to me.
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
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.
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.
Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest