Pro-life Super Bowl Ad: Question for RF

[Kathryn]

Actually - what I said before the ad aired was, "Hey this may be a novel idea, but how bout we all actually WATCH the ad before judging it one way or the other?"

Which was a pretty dang good idea. Keeps one from smearing egg all over their entire militant face.

 

[DallasApple]

Impoverished doesn't mean stupid.

However, on reflection, it occurs to me that since abortion is illegal in the Philippines, that may have been the doctor's attempt to give Pam Tebow a choice. "It's not a fetus, it's a tumor... wink-wink-nudge-nudge."

Not only stupid.But its far less "hi-tech" even in 1986 to diagnose a pregnancy than it would have been to perform a surgery to remove a uterine tumor.So being impoverished wouldnt come into play.

If the doctor was prepared with the technology to operate on her..you would think he would have pregnancy tests kits which is all you need to diagnose a pregnancy.

I had my second child in 1989.I diagnosed the pregnancy myself in about 15 seconds by peeing on a stick.Then I peed in a cup at the doctors office and they confirmed my diagnosis in about another 15 seconds.

My DIL it so happens does have tumors in her uterus and as a matter of fact she is having sugery Thursday.They have tested her for pregnancy already.But I gurantee they will run another test on Thursday before they operate even though they have visulized 5 tumors in her uterus.Just to be safe they will want to confirm again.

Love

Dallas

 

[Smoke]

I had my second child in 1989. I diagnosed the pregnancy myself in about 15 seconds by peeing on a stick.

That's what my sister-in-law did; her kids were born in 1987, 1988, and 1994. At least one time -- I don't remember which -- her ob-gyn didn't even bother to re-test her; he said the home tests were about as reliable as lab tests.

 

[DallasApple]

That's what my sister-in-law did; her kids were born in 1987, 1988, and 1994. At least one time -- I don't remember which -- her ob-gyn didn't even bother to re-test her; he said the home tests were about as reliable as lab tests.

Yes I was told that too..Not even "about as reliable" but just as reliable.About the only way to get a false positive or false negative with one is if someone else pees on the stick for you.Or if you're two stupid to read it.And its this difficult.There are two little windlows on the stick...they are both blank..After you pee on the stick (I dipped mine in urine I put in a cup just to be sure it was saturated)One window always develops a line through it whether you ae pregnant or not ..That just indicates you peed enough on the stick and the test is running...The other window if NO line develops you are not pregnant..If there is any line at all in that window no matter how faint you are pregnant.

They are so sensitive you can actually take the test before you even miss your period.There is a hormone that is in a womans body ONLY during pregnancy.That is all that test is looking for.And its only a matter of a few seconds for it to detect it.

Love

Dallas

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Which was a pretty dang good idea. Keeps one from smearing egg all over their entire militant face.

I totally agree. Honest. I didn't think the ad was a big deal then and I don't think it's a big deal now. Arguably you're making somewhat of a big deal out of the *response* to the ad....but arguably you are not.

I don't want to waste too much energy on these trivialities, I'm just genuinely curious who was being "militant", who were you talking about.

That's a fair question, especially when your comment was directed at me. Isn't it?

 

[DallasApple]

I totally agree. Honest. I didn't think the ad was a big deal then and I don't think it's a big deal now. Arguably you're making somewhat of a big deal out of the *response* to the ad....but arguably you are not.

I don't want to waste too much energy on these trivialities, I'm just genuinely curious who was being "militant", who were you talking about.

That's a fair question, especially when your comment was directed at me. Isn't it?

Mr.Sprinkles,

With all due respect if you dont realize how ape **** you went over even the IDEA of a "pro life" ad during the pre-game super bowl ads then that is only because you dont like all the egg on your face.

If you want to jump into the Nile now and do the backstroke after the **** fit you threw here instead of just realizing your army has been defeated then go ahead but you havent fooled me.

If I have to I'll quote you.

Love

Dallas

 

[LittleNipper]

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!

As long as there is room for commentaries to broadcast and TV shows to air stories from the imaginations of writers, then there should always be a place for private ideas and values --------------- secular or otherwise.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Dallas,

LOL, you're pulling my leg, right?

If I have to I'll quote you.

Please do! If that really happened then I'd like to know because I must be suffering from amnesia.

 

[DallasApple]

Dallas,

LOL, you're pulling my leg, right?

Please do! If that really happened then I'd like to know because I must be suffering from amnesia.

Yes..

Im pulling your leg out off the egg your drowning in because you are having to maneuver all kinds of swimming techniques specifically the backstroke.YOu wanted war? Not me..So I'll quote you.

Just hang on..

Love

Dallas

 

[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.

SEE LOOK at that!!!

YOu said "we arent going to reach a consensus" ..you said THAT!

The you said "whether or not we feel its appropriate"..

Can you see how millitant you are?How you just lost your whole head? Can you see how anti the commercial you were ?

And now you are "backtracking " trying to say that you didnt attack the ad before you even saw it?

Are you blind?

Love

Dallas

 

[Autodidact]

How much do you love Dallas Apple?

 

[Autodidact]

Mulling over this ad some more, I'm a bit suspicious of the facts. Just sayin'.

 

[DallasApple]

Mulling over this ad some more, I'm a bit suspicious of the facts. Just sayin'.

Look ..cant you get it?

She HAD a baby and now he is a super famous 24 year old football star.

And she was worred she might lose him "many times " before he was even born.

And she STILL worries about his health even though its O.K for him to be in an occupation that risk his brain and spine every single day.

She's one of those very "protective mothers" because he was BORN..Now he is a big 23 or 24 year old that gets his head smashed into the ground and tackled by other big men and will be lucky if he gets to do that for 5 or 10 years without permenent brain damage or crippled knees or a ruptured spleen ...(by 30 years old)

Because ya'll know how football is so tender like a mother rocking her baby in a rocking chair singing to him ..except the baby is in a violent and dangerous occupation that could kill or mame him that makes him (if he last) rich and famous.

What a MOM!

Love

Dallas

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Haha, she got me. Frubalicious.

 

[DallasApple]

THANK GOD I didnt listen to the doctors that said my baby was a tumor.I thought many many times I was going to lose him ...it was very scary ...

LOOK at his baby picture when he was 3 months old..Thank GOD he survived.

Because NOW he slings his body around and rams his head into other peoples heads with a ball that he runs around with..AND thats a POPULAR "sport" and he gives me some money TOO!

I mean ..I have 5 other (or 4 or 3) other kids but they arent "rich" and cant give me some money .

I mean I tried to make my other kids be really good at boxing or something..But I'll say one thing..THANK GOD I didnt abort this one and that is MY testimony!

LOOK he even TACKLES me...LOL!!! How cute!

Rock a bye baby in the tree top!!!

No wait..

Eminem - Mockingbird (Lyrics) - AOL Video

Mocking Bird..

Love

Dallas

 

[Kathryn]

I totally agree. Honest. I didn't think the ad was a big deal then and I don't think it's a big deal now. Arguably you're making somewhat of a big deal out of the *response* to the ad....but arguably you are not.

I don't want to waste too much energy on these trivialities, I'm just genuinely curious who was being "militant", who were you talking about.

That's a fair question, especially when your comment was directed at me. Isn't it?

It's a fair enough question- and here's my answer.

I didn't accuse or even MEAN to accuse anyone on this site of being militant. I have posted several links, however, to articles that included pre-Superbowl (and therefore pre-ad) comments from groups and individuals who, in retrospect, in my opinion sound sort of ridiculous. These groups were so vehement in their opposition to an ad that they hadn't even SEEN that a feminist sports editor was actually offended by their tone.

I'm not going to repost the links - they're easy enough to find. But hope this answers your question.

By the way, I didn't even think the ad was all that great - certainly not a lot of boom for the buck. However, at least the negative press before the ad ran increased awareness of the sponsor - which is the ultimate goal of any sponsor. So... I guess, mission accomplished.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm not going to repost the links - they're easy enough to find. But hope this answers your question.

Thanks, please do!

 

[Apex]

It's a fair enough question- and here's my answer.

I didn't accuse or even MEAN to accuse anyone on this site of being militant. I have posted several links, however, to articles that included pre-Superbowl (and therefore pre-ad) comments from groups and individuals who, in retrospect, in my opinion sound sort of ridiculous. These groups were so vehement in their opposition to an ad that they hadn't even SEEN that a feminist sports editor was actually offended by their tone.

I'm not going to repost the links - they're easy enough to find. But hope this answers your question.

By the way, I didn't even think the ad was all that great - certainly not a lot of boom for the buck. However, at least the negative press before the ad ran increased awareness of the sponsor - which is the ultimate goal of any sponsor. So... I guess, mission accomplished.

You mean something like this?

I gather that Tim Tebow is extremely good at football. That's just as well, for he certainly isn't very good at thinking.

Guess who that is from...

 

[Evamorgana]

You either air them all or reject them all. I believe rejection the better option. Shoving your opinion down someones throat when they expect entertainment....thats plain abrupt and harsh. What i mean is that it would create a real ruckus. What about adds that juxtapose each other? How will that change the good spirits of the population watching? On the other hand, teaching the public to keep an open mind would definitly be beneficial. we need to learn to better respect opinions that are different.

 

[Kathryn]

I would say that's probably from, oh, someone like Richard Dawkins. Here's the link:
'The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy' by Richard Dawkins - On Faith - The Washington Post - RichardDawkins.net

And here's the sort of pre-ad crap that was floating around by Dawkins and others:

"I gather that Tim Tebow is extremely good at football. That's just as well, for he certainly isn't very good at thinking. Perhaps the fact that he was home schooled by missionary parents is to blame.

The following is what passes for logic in the Tebow mind. His mother was advised by doctors to abort him, but she refused, which is why Tim is here. So abortion is a bad thing. Masterful conclusion."

Excuse me, but did anyone here see that ad? Was there anything even remotely like that in the ad?

Major kneejerk overreaction.

Note: It's usually best to reserve both judgment AND commentary till after you've actually SEEN whatever it is you're spouting off about.

And THAT was my suggestion before the ad ran, which I stand by now.