Pro-life Super Bowl Ad: Question for RF

[Father Heathen]

So are laughing clowns! Yeah, I said it.

Actually, creepy clowns are the "in" thing with the cool kids nowadays. And he's not laughing - in the original picture he is eating cereal. So there.

 

[Storm]

By the way (and I'm going to digress from the topic again, so be warned, godischange) - I think I owe Storm an apology.

In re reading my earlier post, I think it sounds overly harsh. Storm, I shouldn't have said "Your opinion doesn't matter." That makes it all too personal.

What I SHOULD have said was, "If you see the commercial and disagree with the message it sends, it won't do much good to just talk about it - do something about it. Contact CBS, the NFL, organize a boycott, whatever - but just talking about it won't accomplish much of anything."

Sorry, Storm, for coming across so sarcastically. That really wasn't my intent - certainly not to make my comment seem so personally directed at you.

I'll try to remember this in the future. I need a reminder sometimes that words written on a screen carry different nuances than words spoken in person.

Thank you.

 

[Kathryn]

Yup. That's why if 50% or more of the "high-risk" pregnancies turn out fine, then I guess they weren't all high-risk. If you have 100 pregnancies where the life or health of the mother and/or baby is significantly at imminent risk, then at least 60 of them are going to result in the life or health of one of them is severely harmed.



Right, which would mean they are no longer very high-risk.



Sure, but with medical attention, it's not high-risk anymore.

The point is that if a doctor tells a woman she should not have the baby due to the high risk of complications that would endanger her or the baby's life, the woman shouldn't look to one example where that advice was ignored and it worked out OK. They should look at the thousands of times it was heeded and ignored.

I hate to say this, but your apparent lack of life experience is showing.

When a woman's pregnancy is designated as high risk, it is often high risk till the very, very end. In fact, sometimes things implode all the way past the point of delivery (take high blood pressure or hemorhaging as examples of that). So even with proper medical care and very close supervision, the pregnancy is high risk till it's over and mother and baby are both safe.

Diabetes, high blood pressure, placenta previa, etc are just a few examples of health issues that can quickly become deadly for mother and/or baby even with good medical care. But with the best of care, both mom and baby can do nicely.

If YOUR wife had one of these conditions and her life and your baby's life was at risk, I can bet you wouldn't rest easy till after the delivery of a healthy baby and till mom and baby were both out of the woods.

You might even ask yourself and your wife if having a child was worth the risk.

 

[DallasApple]

I hate to say this, but your apparent lack of life experience is showing.

When a woman's pregnancy is designated as high risk, it is often high risk till the very, very end. In fact, sometimes things implode all the way past the point of delivery (take high blood pressure or hemorhaging as examples of that). So even with proper medical care and very close supervision, the pregnancy is high risk till it's over and mother and baby are both safe.

Diabetes, high blood pressure, placenta previa, etc are just a few examples of health issues that can quickly become deadly for mother and/or baby even with good medical care. But with the best of care, both mom and baby can do nicely.

If YOUR wife had one of these conditions and her life and your baby's life was at risk, I can bet you wouldn't rest easy till after the delivery of a healthy baby and till mom and baby were both out of the woods.

You might even ask yourself and your wife if having a child was worth the risk.

But what about examples such as you are diagnosed with say breast cancer or melanoma or some sort of potentially deadly cancer.Thats early in your pregnancy and the doctors tell you that you can not have the treatments you need while pregnant...And that letting it go over 30 weeks will be your death sentence?

Nobody is arguing that you werent high risk.As EVERYONE KNOWS LOL!! I was at extreme high risk at 14 .

I guess what Im trying to say is all pregnancies are risky but then the level of risk can rise to a point where you are looking at trading in your life to go on with it.

What Im trying to say is those circumstances DUE to modern technology are lesser and lesser and lesser that you would even need to contemplate abortion for most of the conditions you mentioned.IOW its less and less I think a doctor has cause to encourage abortion these days.You are talking about confidence in modern technology getting you through high risk pregnancy childbirth and after care.

Im not saying its not still brave.Its just not many women with the kind of medical care we have avilable to us today are actually dying due to complications of pregnancy and childrbirth.Even though there is always a risk of that.

I guess that was my point earlier.There are more children born that are only here because the mother chose to keep the pregnancy adn have the baby that were contemplating abortions for other reasons besides risk to health.

In fact I would venture to say within the "high risk catergory" you said that coudl go on untill the actuall delivery and beyond? I think its more common for women to develop more "dangerous" or be in "more risky" pregnancies that have DEVELOPED far after abortion was even an option.

JMHO

Love

Dallas

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Apex,

I don't have a moral pronouncement to make because I think TV networks choose to run ads based on two basic considerations:

1. They get paid to run the ad.
2. The ad doesn't cost them viewers.

Like any corporation CBS will make the decision it believes will lead to the highest profits, mindlessly, like a predator selecting the easiest prey. In that sense CBS is "blameless". Any blame/responsibility comes down to the attitudes of viewers. Other people's attitudes will seem right or wrong to you depending on your personal view of the issue.

In other words, I think this eventually comes down to the abortion issue. We aren't going to reach a consensus on the abortion issue in the next 24 hours and therefore we won't resolve the issue of the Focus on the Family ad, and whether or not we feel it is appropriate, either.

 

[DallasApple]

Apex,

I don't have a moral pronouncement to make because I think TV networks choose to run ads based on two basic considerations:

1. They get paid to run the ad.
2. The ad doesn't cost them viewers.

Like any corporation CBS will make the decision it believes will lead to the highest profits, mindlessly, like a predator selecting the easiest prey. In that sense CBS is "blameless". Any blame/responsibility comes down to the attitudes of viewers. Other people's attitudes will seem right or wrong to you depending on your personal view of the issue.

In other words, I think this eventually comes down to the abortion issue. We aren't going to reach a consensus on the abortion issue in the next 24 hours and therefore we won't resolve the issue of the Focus on the Family ad, and whether or not we feel it is appropriate, either.

I did read that the network refused the ad if the word "abortion was used".

But its kind of obvious thats what its about ..

Also the ad to my understandign its a "pre-game ad"..

Love

Dallas

 

[Kathryn]

Dallas, I see your points - they're very valid by the way. Medical science has progressed so far that there are actually very, very few pregnancies that simply can't be managed without the mother dying. In that case, of course, though I would respect the mother's right to give her baby life and sacrifice her own , I would certainly not judge someone who had to make a choice to terminate the pregnancy in order to truly save her own life. Some might call that self defense.

My very point though was that even high risk pregnancies can usually be carried till the baby is at a viable age- though this often includes severe restrictions on the mother, and great sacrifice of comfort, convenience, and even to some degree her health.

I don't see anything wrong with encouraging mothers who are told that their pregnancy is high risk, to consider all sides of the matter - including the odds of the possibility of giving birth to someone spectacular - whether they're spectacular only to their mother - or world famous.

My son's twin died at about 18 weeks. To be honest, I didn't really even want to be pregnant that time, and when I started bleeding I wasn't even upset. In a way, I hoped I would miscarry - I already had 3 kids under age 6.

But I didn't miscarry - and then I saw the ultrasound and saw that though one twin was dead, my other little baby was still kicking and wiggling - and I knew I owed him a chance. Suddenly, I wanted desperately for him to live. I even felt very guilty for not "wanting him" at first, and for being so casual and unemotional about possibly losing the pregnancy.

The ironic thing was that now the doctors were saying the very words I wouldn't have minded hearing before: "Sorry, but we really can't do much to save this pregnancy. If he makes it, he makes it, but if you start having contractions, it's best to let nature take it's course."

From that point on, I did everything I could to keep from losing him - and today he's a grown man that I can be proud of, even though he's not a professional football player.

I don't see anything wrong with sharing that story, or seeing a commercial with a similar story.

 

[McBell]

Okay, here it is for real this time.

I seriously doubt if their commercial is the over four minute video you linked to.

 

[DallasApple]

I don't see anything wrong with encouraging mothers who are told that their pregnancy is high risk, to consider all sides of the matter - including the odds of the possibility of giving birth to someone spectacular - whether they're spectacular only to their mother - or world famous.

I do not belive this isnt the case for most..

If so ..doctors are the culprit..I can NOT imagine a doctor that knows that the woman with "high blood pressure " or "diabetes" that can reasonably have great chance (all be it it more work for them and the mother and at greater risk of course) would say "you should have an abortion "...

And as I mentioned many of the "high risks" will DEVELOPE later in pregancy such as gestational diabties and pre-ecamplsia..

I dont like the idea that some are suggesting that a "doctor" will say "you shoudl get an abortion' when many many high risk situtatiosn are NOT at the start..In fact I woud venture MOST are later term.

Thats why I think its curious that the "example " used in this ad had to be at least 20 years old..I mean how long ago was that dude born?

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

My son's twin died at about 18 weeks. To be honest, I didn't really even want to be pregnant that time, and when I started bleeding I wasn't even upset. In a way, I hoped I would miscarry - I already had 3 kids under age 6.

((((HUGS)))))

Love

Dallas

 

[Sunstone]

I'd rather see Janet Jackson's nipple than another super bowl ad.

 

[Sunstone]

Apex,

I don't have a moral pronouncement to make because I think TV networks choose to run ads based on two basic considerations:

1. They get paid to run the ad.
2. The ad doesn't cost them viewers.

Like any corporation CBS will make the decision it believes will lead to the highest profits, mindlessly, like a predator selecting the easiest prey. In that sense CBS is "blameless". Any blame/responsibility comes down to the attitudes of viewers. Other people's attitudes will seem right or wrong to you depending on your personal view of the issue.

In other words, I think this eventually comes down to the abortion issue. We aren't going to reach a consensus on the abortion issue in the next 24 hours and therefore we won't resolve the issue of the Focus on the Family ad, and whether or not we feel it is appropriate, either.

That's a very sensible analysis, Mr Spinkles, but it just doesn't compare to the real issue here, which is, are we going to get to see Janet Jackson's nipple again?

 

[Smoke]

Should CBS show the ad?

Maybe not this particular ad, since there is some doubt as to whether it's true, but in general I don't have any problem with allowing religious/political advertising provided other viewpoints are also allowed.

Should CBS allow other faith-based groups to buy Super Bowl ads promoting their beliefs on social issues?

Why should any distinction be made between faith-based groups and other groups?

Is a major sporting event, or a TV ad campaign, an appropriate venue for discussing such vital and divisive culture-war issues like abortion?

Absolutely not. I'd be the last person to say that good taste and manners should be mandated by law, but I think it would be good policy for CBS to avoid contentious issues during the Super Bowl. However, I'm also well aware that controversy often means profits.

 

[Smoke]

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.

I'd say that talking about ending a pregnancy is talking about abortion regardless of whether they use the actual word.

 

[Smoke]

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.

Morality changes depending on who's paying for it?

It's up to the management of CBS to determine which ads they are going to run, period.

Strictly speaking, it's not, and I suspect that social conservatives would be very unhappy if broadcasters really were allowed to broadcast whatever they wanted.

But in this case it's legal, and the question is whether it was a moral decision.

 

[footprints]

This is a question that is on On Faith which I thought would be an interesting discussion topic. I am wondering what all the RF members think about it.

I will post my thoughts latter after class as I also plan on possibly doing a blog post on all the comments I have been reading on atheist/skeptic blogs about Tim Tebow. For now my basic, and sarcastic, response is:

How dare CBS air a paid-for ad promoting ideas that are contrary to other peoples opinions!

Simply put what advertisement doesn't promote a social issue? Toyota or Ford, each is a social choice and each pushing their own cause and agenda.

Personally I do not have a problem and issue with it. Albeit, to be fair, I would have thought both sides should have been given equal air time, however, I do no know the television stations policy on this, or if it is just a simple case that according to federal legislation, all air time for commercials had already been met.

From an unbiased position, I would say the Pro-Choice movement were just out manoeuvred by the Pro-Life movement, and are now whinging and complaining because of their own stupidity.

Of course from an intelligent postion, I know the commercials will turn just as many people away from their cause as it draws to them. That they will only be preaching to the converted and perhaps those on the crest of change, albeit change can go either way. Statistics have long shown, advertising doesn't have the same effect it used to and many valid reasons for this.

 

[Buttons*]

This is a question that is on On Faith which I thought would be an interesting discussion topic. I am wondering what all the RF members think about it.

I will post my thoughts latter after class as I also plan on possibly doing a blog post on all the comments I have been reading on atheist/skeptic blogs about Tim Tebow. For now my basic, and sarcastic, response is:

How dare CBS air a paid-for ad promoting ideas that are contrary to other peoples opinions!

Lol, there are all kinds of commercials that promote things I dislike or don't care about. So what? If I don't like em, I change the channel

But if I have to see one more add of starving children with a fat white guy begging me for my money.... Well, I can't be held accountable for my actions.

 

[Smoke]

But if I have to see one more add of starving children with a fat white guy begging me for my money.... Well, I can't be held accountable for my actions.

Yes, it is deeply offensive to be both fat and white, and even more so if one solicits contributions for charity.

As for the OP, I'm in favor of anything that sucks 2.5 million dollars out of ******* up the Family's coffers, and would be delighted if they could run it all day, every day.

 

[Buttons*]

Yes, it is deeply offensive to be both fat and white, and even more so if one solicits contributions for charity.

LOL, please, feed the fat and the white.... how can we live without taking the money you give us from the starving children the money was intended for?

 

[Father Heathen]

I seriously doubt if their commercial is the over four minute video you linked to.

An obvious joke should raise serious doubts.