Women's Groups Urge CBS To Pull Super Bowl Abortion Ad

[ColorMEreal]

I agree with my LDS Faith that in cases of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, then an abortion can be optional. However, when a girl or woman willingly chooses to have sex, then you and I are not helping them by encouraging them to get an abortion. For then, what are we really teaching them. We are teaching them to "Problem Solve" in ways that are not emotional healthy. We are teaching them to run away from their responsibilities. We are teaching them that the LAWs of Accountability do not really matter or exist. What generally happens with a young woman who begins to problem solve in this way, is that they later problem solve in this same way with ALL of their relationships in life that they face, especially with their future marriages and relationships....

If you really care about a girl/woman, then guide them to the truth. As women we should be teaching other women to have COURAGE and to not escape the choices we made in our own free will. To master their lives in the right way. We should be helping them to learn and grow in the face of such obstickels, not to run from them or to erase them like they never happened at all....

[boyando]

That's kind of what I thought. If she wants an abortion, it's "It's my body, my choice, your feelings don't matter! You don't get to be a father." If she wants to keep it, it's "You have to man up and be the father and pay child support! You have no say! "

Society must also play a role in determining the value of an unborn child. That includes us men.

"If we, as a society determine that a fetus is truly a part of a woman's body, than the logical conclusion would be that any child, born of a woman, is an extension of the woman. And therefore, this woman, has the right to do with that child what ever is in the interest of that woman". That is the cleaned up version, of what a man I knew told me, when we were discussing partial birth abortions.

As sick as that sounds, he got part of it right. We as a society must come to some kind of agreement, as to the value of life, at all it ages and stages.

Individually, when ever there is a unwanted pregnancy, there will be hard choices to be made, that the women will most likely make with the help of her support group, be it large or small.

Something to think about, if it was totally up to the individual woman, then there wouldn't be a women's group for it and there wouldn't be pro-life groups against it.

[Faded]

So, no, not every woman who has an abortion is traumatized by it.

Every woman I've ever talked to who has had an abortion seems to fit ColorMEreal's description. There is definitely something to what she's saying, so I don't understand rejecting it out of hand.

In fact, if your concern is really about ruined wombs, then you should hope abortion remains legal, because desperate women will continue to get abortions, whether it‘s legal or not. That’s never going to change, and many of those women, especially the poor, will go to the “back alleys,” and some of them will die because of it.

Elphaba

Following this logic, all elicit drugs should be legalized to allow for quality controls on the illegal drugs. After all, a bad batch of LSD can put you in a permanent state of hallucinations for the rest of your life. Irresponsible practices by drug dealers have killed countless of their customers. So in the interests of making the experience healthier for all, we should simply lift the ban on all elicit drugs, right?

Do we really want to make the case that legality or illegality of something should be based upon avoiding the ill-effects on those who do it when it's illegal? They ARE breaking the law, aren't they?

My wife and I are 10 years married and unable to have children. We'd have happily adopted the baby you aborted. Is that so terrible of us?

[Elphaba]

I agree with my LDS Faith that in cases of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, then an abortion can be optional.

If an embryo or a fetus is a “baby,” then it is a “baby” regardless of how it is conceived. If abortion kills a baby, it kills a baby, regardless of how it is conceived. So, other than because the Church allows the exceptions, how can it possibly be okay to kill a baby in one case, but not in another?

However, when a girl or woman willingly chooses to have sex, then you and I are not helping them by encouraging them to get an abortion. For then, what are we really teaching them. We are teaching them to "Problem Solve" in ways that are not emotional healthy. We are teaching them to run away from their responsibilities. We are teaching them that the LAWs of Accountability do not really matter or exist. What generally happens with a young woman who begins to problem solve in this way, is that they later problem solve in this same way with ALL of their relationships in life that they face, especially with their future marriages and relationships....

If you really care about a girl/woman, then guide them to the truth. As women we should be teaching other women to have COURAGE and to not escape the choices we made in our own free will. To master their lives in the right way. We should be helping them to learn and grow in the face of such obstickels, not to run from them or to erase them like they never happened at all....

Do you have any credible evidence, from a non anti-abortion source, that having an abortion causes women to lead irresponsible lives?

The only reason you believe this nonsense about abortion portending future irresponsibility is that you believe it is immoral. It has nothing to do with a woman’s actual irresponsible, or responsible, character.

In fact, most women who have an abortion do so because of their belief that having a child would impair their ability to care for others. That is not being irresponsible.

Additionally, other women’s irresponsibility should not be your first concern.

For example, you publicly asserted abortion carries a significant risk of a woman becoming unfertile. This is not true, as abortion is a very safe medical procedure that carries very little risk. What is irresponsible is for you to perpetuate the myth otherwise.

You also implied that women who had an abortion would suffer emotionally. From a Mormon perspective of eternity, I can't argue with your belief. However, during a mortal lifetime, this is far from always true, and it would be irresponsible of you to continue to assert such.

Now your latest diatribe insists choosing to have an abortion encourages irresponsibility. Again, the only reason you think this is because you believe abortion is immoral. In fact, a woman can be very responsible and still choose to have an abortion--she just doesn‘t share your belief that it is immoral. In her opinion, she has chosen to have a legal and safe medical procedure. That is not, nor does it portend, irresponsibility.

Do women have abortions because they have been sexually irresponsible? Yes, they do. But, in fact, most women who have had an abortion did use birth control during sex. They may have been unknowingly using it improperly, but they did use it. This certainly does not fit the dire scenario you posit that young women who have an abortion will grow up to be irresponsible. In fact, it is a ridiculous stretch to come up with another, albeit unfounded, reason to oppose abortion.

Oppose abortion on your moral grounds--that is legitimate. There's no need to fabricate ridiculous reasons to justify your opposition, and it would be irresponsible of you to continue to do so.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Every woman I've ever talked to who has had an abortion seems to fit ColorMEreal's description. There is definitely something to what she's saying, so I don't understand rejecting it out of hand.

You have not talked to every woman who has had an abortion. I acknowledged some women suffered emotionally. But it is wrong to imply ALL women suffer emotionally--they don't.

Given your beliefs on abortion, it is not surprising the women you've talked to are women who have suffered emotionally. I would be very surprised if you talked to women who didn't--other than me that is.

Following this logic, all elicit drugs should be legalized to allow for quality controls on the illegal drugs. After all, a bad batch of LSD can put you in a permanent state of hallucinations for the rest of your life. Irresponsible practices by drug dealers have killed countless of their customers. So in the interests of making the experience healthier for all, we should simply lift the ban on all elicit drugs, right?

I assume you mean illicit drugs, and yes, they should be legalized. There are better ways to deal with the problems they cause.

Do we really want to make the case that legality or illegality of something should be based upon avoiding the ill-effects on those who do it when it's illegal?

It should be considered.

They ARE breaking the law, aren't they?

I don't particiularly care if they're breaking a bad law--often that's how we know it's a law that should be changed.

My wife and I are 10 years married and unable to have children.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that.

We'd have happily adopted the baby you aborted. Is that so terrible of us?

First, I aborted a fetus.

Second, where did I even come close to implying I thought adoption was a terrible thing? In fact, I stated the opposite.

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

If an embryo or a fetus is a “baby,” then it is a “baby” regardless of how it is conceived. If abortion kills a baby, it kills a baby, regardless of how it is conceived. So, other than because the Church allows the exceptions, how can it possibly be okay to kill a baby in one case, but not in another?

(Presuming abortion is "killing" in all cases, which may or may not be the case): It's fairly easy to draw this distinction if you accept the idea that, in cases such as those the Church has outlined, an abortion is tantamount to self-defense.

[Elphaba]

(Presuming abortion is "killing" in all cases, which may or may not be the case): It's fairly easy to draw this distinction if you accept the idea that, in cases such as those the Church has outlined, an abortion is tantamount to self-defense.

I understand that. I just think it fails when the very reason someone is against abortion is because it kills a baby.

If it's a baby, it's a baby regardless.

Elphaba

[boyando]

I understand that. I just think it fails when the very reason someone is against abortion is because it kills a baby.

If it's a baby, it's a baby regardless.

Elphaba

Looking at it from a very non scientific aspect, while you were pregnant with your two wonderful kids, did it feel like a baby?

Please don't take this as a trap question. I know every woman is different. the answer is your own and you can e-mail me or keep it to yourself, if you wish the answer to remain private.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yikes - this seems to be getting kind of personal, IMHO.

[Elphaba]

Yikes - this seems to be getting kind of personal, IMHO.

That's my fault. I made it personal when I acknowledged I had had an abortion in the midst of a board full of people I know are opposed to it.

It's all good--with me that is.

Elphaba

[ColorMEreal]

The war over right and wrong is no different then the war over abortion. The bottom line is that you either believe in the sacredness of life, or you simply don't.

The fact that an abortion is legal gives the inhuman practice of vacuum sucking or chemically burning a living baby out of a woman's uterus no legitimacy.

The beginning of life is not a casual thing. It is much more than what we have the human capacities to understand. I believe It is ordained by God that all life be given a chance.

We are all here after all because OUR mothers decided against getting an abortion.

[Elphaba]

The war over right and wrong is no different then the war over abortion. The bottom line is that you either believe in the sacredness of life, or you simply don't.

Nonsense. I believe life is sacred. I just don't believe it starts at conception.

The fact that an abortion is legal gives the inhuman practice of vacuum sucking or chemically burning a living baby out of a woman's uterus no legitimacy.

If it is so terrible, then why is it okay with you when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Don't those "babies" deserve not to be sucked out or chemically burned?

The beginning of life is not a casual thing. It is much more than what we have the human capacities to understand. I believe It is ordained by God that all life be given a chance.

Yet, it's okay with you if the beginning of life is sucked out or chemically burned if it's the result of incest or rape. Why shouldn't all of those lives be given a chance?

We are all here after all because OUR mothers decided against getting an abortion.

More nonsense. Most of our mothers, as is true for mothers in general, wanted to have their children when they became pregnant with them, and thus, never considered the choice.

Elphaba

Edited February 3, 2010 by Elphaba

[boyando]

Tebow's pro-life ad set for Super Bowl - Washington Times

[MarginOfError]

The war over right and wrong is no different then the war over abortion. The bottom line is that you either believe in the sacredness of life, or you simply don't.

The fact that an abortion is legal gives the inhuman practice of vacuum sucking or chemically burning a living baby out of a woman's uterus no legitimacy.

The beginning of life is not a casual thing. It is much more than what we have the human capacities to understand. I believe It is ordained by God that all life be given a chance.

We are all here after all because OUR mothers decided against getting an abortion.

I'm going to refer you to a few posts I've made in the past. Your language makes me think that maybe you could use a small intellectual jog

Abortion is not murder

Why the Church opposes abortion (1 of 3)

Why the Church opposes abortion (2 of 3)

Why the Church opposes abortion (3 of 3)

[deals_dog]

The abortion issue debated till we are blue in the face and yes it will be resolved (when Christ returns to the earth) However in the mean time if someone wishes to spend 3.2 million dollars to appose the practice of abortion to a large audience they have my support. Putting their money where their mouth is, those other womans groups could pay 3.3 million and have their add posted too if they are that upset, capitalism at work again. If you have money you can say anything to the masses, if you have none sorry sucker you are a second class citizen. (really works eh!)

[Moksha]

Now that corporations - like the TV networks - are allowed to become political voices and spenders by themselves, I imagine that more advertisements like this will hit the airwaves.

As spinners of public opinion know, if you repeat the same talking points enough times, the mass of public opinion can change.

[Palerider]

Now that corporations - like the TV networks - are allowed to become political voices and spenders by themselves, I imagine that more advertisements like this will hit the airwaves.

As spinners of public opinion know, if you repeat the same talking points enough times, the mass of public opinion can change.

you mean they were not allowed to do this until now???

[Moksha]

you mean they were not allowed to do this until now???

Don't know what the Supreme Court was thinking for their latest decision. I do know that the ultimate best interest of the citizens should be considered along with the tedium of reviewing past decisions in their deliberations. Don't think that was done in this case and this case is one that will have definite impact on our lives.

[Guest]

Don't know what the Supreme Court was thinking for their latest decision. I do know that the ultimate best interest of the citizens should be considered along with the tedium of reviewing past decisions in their deliberations. Don't think that was done in this case and this case is one that will have definite impact on our lives.

Moshka, not sure what you're trying to say here. But even before the Supreme Court decision, corporations have always had freedom of speech - including political ones. Am I missing something? Superbowl is this coming Sunday, I don't know of any elections going on in the next 2 months.

[Moksha]

... corporations have always had freedom of speech - including political ones. Am I missing something?

Maybe, this was a big story in the news the last couple of weeks.

[Palerider]

Don't know what the Supreme Court was thinking for their latest decision. I do know that the ultimate best interest of the citizens should be considered along with the tedium of reviewing past decisions in their deliberations. Don't think that was done in this case and this case is one that will have definite impact on our lives.

never fear your gov't is here to help you....:)

[Guest]

Maybe, this was a big story in the news the last couple of weeks.

Ah, then you must be talking about the Supreme Court Ruling last month that overturned McCain-Feingold. It removed the restriction imposed by McCain-Feingold on political campaign ads funded by corporations within 60 days prior to an election.

Superbowl is not within 60 days of any election. Corporations have always had freedom of speech outside of those measley 60 days.

So, still not sure how this is relevant.

[Moksha]

So, still not sure how this is relevant.

The significance of the decision need not be tied to the Superbowl, but now that time limited restrictions are not involved, perhaps we might be urged to write our Congressman for his vote in bringing back the Budweiser Frogs. Hope spunky foe of airport scanners Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, will add an addendum about including the Mormon Crickets with the frogs.

[ColorMEreal]

If it is so terrible, then why is it okay with you when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Don't those "babies" deserve not to be sucked out or chemically burned?

It all has to do with something we call"Free Agency". If you have sex by your own free will, knowing it could result in a pregnancy, then step up to the plate and accept the good/bad consequences of such a choice.

A girl or woman who is forced into sex DOES NOT have a choice. Their free agency is revoked and forcibley removed by her rapist.

[Elphaba]

It all has to do with something we call"Free Agency". If you have sex by your own free will, knowing it could result in a pregnancy, then step up to the plate and accept the good/bad consequences of such a choice.

A girl or woman who is forced into sex DOES NOT have a choice. Their free agency is revoked and forcibley removed by her rapist.

Thank you for that lecture straight out of Mormonism 101.

Now go back and actually read what I wrote, and address that.

Are you seriously unaware that if an abortion is painful to the baby because it sucks it out or chemically burns it, it does not matter how it was conceived?

Elphaba