Pro-life Super Bowl Ad: Question for RF

[Jordan St. Francis]

It is my understanding that the word "abortion" never even appears in this add, nor does it make any statements against "choice". Rather, it draws attention to life as a gift and that carrying the child to term resulted in something beautiful for this family.

Surely, even pro-choice people could watch this and agree with it, even without conceding their own opinions on the matter.

 

[Apex]

It is my understanding that the word "abortion" never even appears in this add, nor does it make any statements against "choice". Rather, it draws attention to life as a gift and that carrying the child to term resulted in something beautiful for this family.

Surely, even pro-choice people could watch this and agree with it, even without conceding their own opinions on the matter.

Yeah, I had heard from one source that the actual message had been so watered down and made so generic that the final ad is probably not going to make any kind of "splash".

 

[Magic Man]

It is my understanding that the word "abortion" never even appears in this add, nor does it make any statements against "choice". Rather, it draws attention to life as a gift and that carrying the child to term resulted in something beautiful for this family.

Surely, even pro-choice people could watch this and agree with it, even without conceding their own opinions on the matter.

The problem is the implication. It might never mention choice or abortion, but it's clearly saying "Hey, I had my baby even though I was at high risk, and it worked out well. You should, too". Especially considering where the commercial comes from and who is involved.

Yes, the result of this one instance was extremely positive. The problem is in thinking that that can apply to every similar situation. It reminds me of the movie He's Just Not That into You. The main character in there learns that, while it's possible that a guy who hasn't called her or who has cheated on her or whatever might turn out to be the love of her life and a great guy who loves her very much, 90% of the time, that doesn't happen. The same holds true here. It's possible that a woman with high risk of severe complications from the pregnancy could have the child and have everything work out perfectly, but 90% of the time, that's not going to happen.

 

[whereismynotecard]

I've seen a news story about that. I think, they can air whatever they want, because it won't make a damn bit of difference anyway. People who agree with them will still agree, and people who disagree will still disagree. No one's mind has ever changed about such a big issue over one commercial. Really they are just wasting their money by airing it during the super bowl.

Also, people are allowed to have opinions and to try to convince people of stuff. That's what commercials are for. There are army commercials, trying to trick people into joining that; there are McDonalds commercials, trying to sell hamboigahs; there are political commercials, trying to convince people to vote for certain people, so who gives a **** if the prolife people advertise their idea?

If you don't like it, turn the channel for a minute. That's what I do every time the progressive and godaddy.com commercials come on.

 

[lunamoth]

If it is as Jordan says I have no objection to it. My only objection would be if it did talk explicitly about abortion, because we will watch the game with our two young daughters and I'd rather not have to explain what an abortion is in the middle of a nice family afternoon.

 

[Sunstone]

I find the argument that the commerical encourages people to ignore their doctors an interesting one. Not sure what to make of that.

 

[Father Heathen]

The commercial in question has been leaked to the internet and can be seen here.

 

[Magic Man]

The commercial in question has been leaked to the internet and can be seen here.

I had a feeling it would be something like that. I only wish that was the actual commercial.

 

[Storm]

My problem is that they're being inconsistent. If just showing a same sex couple is "too political," how do they justify a pro-life ad, however mild?

 

[Kathryn]

If CBS was PBS then I would say they have a moral, and probably legal, obligation to run ads for both Planned Parenthood and Focus on the Family.

However, last time I checked, CBS was not owned by the government and tax dollars are not paying for the advertisements or programming - private individuals and companies are.

It's up to the management of CBS to determine which ads they are going to run, period. If you don't like the sponsors, views, ads, etc. it's certainly your right to boycott CBS, the Superbowl, the advertisers, etc. - AND let them know why you are boycotting them.

 

[Storm]

If CBS was PBS then I would say they have a moral, and probably legal, obligation to run ads for both Planned Parenthood and Focus on the Family.

However, last time I checked, CBS was not owned by the government and tax dollars are not paying for the advertisements or programming - private individuals and companies are.

It's up to the management of CBS to determine which ads they are going to run, period. If you don't like the sponsors, views, ads, etc. it's certainly your right to boycott CBS, the Superbowl, the advertisers, etc. - AND let them know why you are boycotting them.

But the question is whether they made the right decision. I don't think they did.

 

[Kathryn]

It's possible that a woman with high risk of severe complications from the pregnancy could have the child and have everything work out perfectly, but 90% of the time, that's not going to happen.

Wow, that's not true at all.

I had five high risk pregnancies. I had one spontaneous miscarriage at 11 weeks, four live births (and four very healthy babies), and one stillborn twin.

If I had aborted the last high risk pregnancy, (the one with the stillborn twin), my youngest son would not be alive today - all 21 years and 6'4" strapping and beautiful inches of him. The pregnancy was very difficult and I bled throughout most of it and was put on bed rest from 20 weeks on (which I didn't really stick to all that well, because I had three small children already - but I tried).

This last pregnancy was obviously high risk - since one twin died, and I hemorrhaged massively afterwards - but well worth it. I recovered (as nearly all mothers in this situation do in the US) and my son lived also. He never had a single health problem even remotely related to the circumstances of his birth, and I recovered within a few weeks.

My story is not all that uncommon. The vast majority of high risk pregnancies are successfully carried to the point that the baby and mother survive with few complications.

 

[Kathryn]

But the question is whether they made the right decision. I don't think they did.

With all due respect, your opinion doesn't matter that much unless you put some action into it in the form of boycotts. You can say all day long that you don't agree with their decision, but it won't matter to CBS or the NFL or any other Superbowl advertisers unless you hit their bottom line.

Maybe enough people will - but I doubt it.

 

[Magic Man]

Wow, that's not true at all.

Um...yes, it is.

My story is not all that uncommon. The vast majority of high risk pregnancies are successfully carried to the point that the baby and mother survive with few complications.

Then I guess they weren't exactly high-risk, were they? "High-risk" means a very good chance that something's going to go wrong that puts one or both people in danger. By definition, that means most of the time, if let go, there are going to be sever complications. If there aren't those severe complications very much of the time, then they're not high-risk.

 

[Storm]

With all due respect, your opinion doesn't matter that much unless you put some action into it in the form of boycotts. You can say all day long that you don't agree with their decision, but it won't matter to CBS or the NFL or any other Superbowl advertisers unless you hit their bottom line.

Maybe enough people will - but I doubt it.

I love how you just assume I don't do anything but talk. It's so flattering.

Why are you trying to shut down this discussion?

 

[Kathryn]

Um...yes, it is.



Then I guess they weren't exactly high-risk, were they? "High-risk" means a very good chance that something's going to go wrong that puts one or both people in danger. By definition, that means most of the time, if let go, there are going to be sever complications. If there aren't those severe complications very much of the time, then they're not high-risk.

I guess you can tell that to my doctors, who immediately designated all my pregnancies as high risk. If my pregnancies were not treated appropriately as high risk, I or my babies would have probably died or suffered severe complications. As I stated, even with the best of high risk care, I had a miscarriage and a stillborn birth. Even in the midst of a high risk delivery, with medical staff surrounding me, I began bleeding like a stuck pig and had to actually have a manual D & C with no anesthesia. It was a pretty unnerving experience - not to mention painful.

I think that qualifies the designation of high risk.

 

[Kathryn]

I love how you just assume I don't do anything but talk. It's so flattering.

Why are you trying to shut down this discussion?

I love how you assume that I assume you're only talking. What I said was back up your talk with action - and you may be doing that, how would I know? That's not assuming you're not - I'm just stating a simple truth - that if you DON'T back up your talk with action, it's pretty meaningless. Don't you agree?

As for shutting down the conversation, I'm interacting on this thread. How is that shutting it down? If I wanted to shut it down, I'd quit posting.

 

[Storm]

I love how you assume that I assume you're only talking. What I said was back up your talk with action - and you may be doing that, how would I know? That's not assuming you're not - I'm just stating a simple truth - that if you DON'T back up your talk with action, it's pretty meaningless. Don't you agree?

Whatever, Kathryn.

As for shutting down the conversation, I'm interacting on this thread. How is that shutting it down? If I wanted to shut it down, I'd quit posting.

Well, your repeated posts of "your opinion doesn't matter" come off as telling people to stop talking about it.

 

[Magic Man]

I think that qualifies the designation of high risk.

I don't. But let's just go with your idea that it is, that means that there are many, many other women who do have sever complications from it. The point is "high-risk" means high probability of something really bad going wrong. That means, if 100 pregnancies are deemd to be high-risk, by definition, 90 of them are going to go wrong. Otherwise, they weren't actually high-risk. The risk turned out to be pretty low.

 

[Magic Man]

With all due respect, your opinion doesn't matter that much unless you put some action into it in the form of boycotts. You can say all day long that you don't agree with their decision, but it won't matter to CBS or the NFL or any other Superbowl advertisers unless you hit their bottom line.

Maybe enough people will - but I doubt it.

With all due respect.

Why doesn't an opinion matter? Does my opinion that we shouldn't be at war in Afghanistan or Iraq not matter if I'm not out there protesting? Are you serious? Get over yourself.

I love how you assume that I assume you're only talking. What I said was back up your talk with action - and you may be doing that, how would I know? That's not assuming you're not - I'm just stating a simple truth - that if you DON'T back up your talk with action, it's pretty meaningless. Don't you agree?

Nice back-tracking.