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

[Guest]

Elphaba, if I may ask, why did you get an abortion?

[ColorMEreal]

I'm not saying all women who are raped ought to have an abortion. But that in rare cases where a woman that has been raped experienced so much trauma from the incident that she's literally about to loose her sanity, or perhaps she's suicidal, then I feel that along with counseling from her parents and religious leaders, that an abortion shouldn't be ruled out.

[Wingnut]

But that in rare cases where a woman that has been raped experienced so much trauma from the incident that she's literally about to loose her sanity, or perhaps she's suicidal...

I'm fortunate enough to have never been raped or molested, but I wonder why you think it's so "rare" for a woman who has been raped to be traumatized or mentally affected by it? That's something that sticks with you and never leaves.

[deals_dog]

"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

Easy to get misquoted Elphaba. This is such a tricky subject to negotiate. Any time there is a sinful act committed there are generally unavoidable consequences and a fair bit of pain and misery, even the pain of an unborn child who is unable to speak for him or her's self. Rape is such a nasty messy crime, and so many victims. To the unborn child you are correct, it does not matter how it was conceived, that innocent child is going to experience pain before it dies. Yes I do understand and support church policy on this one because of the violation that has occurred to the woman. Mind you a good Catholic would disagree with me on that one. Others would say the mother has every right it is her body. Hence the conflict.

[Wingnut]

I just saw the commercial -- it totally had nothing to do with abortion, other than who sponsored it.

[Guest Godless]

I just saw the commercial -- it totally had nothing to do with abortion, other than who sponsored it.

I thought exactly the same thing. So much for controversy.

[Elphaba]

I'm not saying all women who are raped ought to have an abortion. But that in rare cases where a woman that has been raped experienced so much trauma from the incident that she's literally about to loose her sanity, or perhaps she's suicidal, then I feel that along with counseling from her parents and religious leaders, that an abortion shouldn't be ruled out.

So, you are fine with some "babies" being sucked out and chemically burned, but not others.

Elphaba

[Moksha]

I thought the message to celebrate life was a good one. I treated myself to some rocky road ice cream after the buffalo wings. How about you?

[john doe]

I saw the ad. With so much hype, I would have thought it would be controversial. Instead, it gathered much more publicity from the campaign against it than if the opponents had not said a word. My wife didn't even know what it was about until I told her afterward.

[Tarnished]

Oh, so that was the commercial, with the Tebows. After all the hype I thought it would be some huge abortion commercial, I kept watching for it. How anti-climatic.

[Guest]

I loved that commercial. But then, I really like that Tebow guy. Great example for my boys. It made me curious enough to go check out the website.

I would really be very upset if some Enquirer magazine or what-have-you comes up with some picture of Tim Tebow passed out drunk at some alley with 4 bimbos in tow. I don't think it will ever happen, though.

[annamaureen]

I was interested to see this commercial after all the kerfuffle over it. But when I was watching the Superbowl, I almost missed it because it was so... well, un-controversial. It was very simple and innocent, and I honestly wouldn’t have known it was about abortion except that I’d heard all the controversy beforehand. It just seemed like a message about the importance of families.

Apparently, some feminists are now saying that the Tebow ad "encourages violence against women." Are you serious!? What a load of crap. They're just trying to find something to complain about. Interesting that they have no problem with those unnecessarily sexual GoDaddy ads.

[boyando]

My anti-NFL policy kind of fell by the wayside, when I tuned into half time to watch the WHO.

But I didn't see the commercial any way, until today, when I googled it.

I liked it.

[Faded]

In my opinion, the whole issue hinges upon freedom of speech. If the debate about abortion must fall prey to censorship, then freedom of speech has been taken away. It doesn't matter what side you're on, the moment anyone says it can't be talked about (whether it be in an advertisement or in some other medium) then that's trampling on the First Amendment.

[john doe]

I was interested to see this commercial after all the kerfuffle over it. But when I was watching the Superbowl, I almost missed it because it was so... well, un-controversial. It was very simple and innocent, and I honestly wouldn’t have known it was about abortion except that I’d heard all the controversy beforehand. It just seemed like a message about the importance of families.

Apparently, some feminists are now saying that the Tebow ad "encourages violence against women." Are you serious!? What a load of crap. They're just trying to find something to complain about. Interesting that they have no problem with those unnecessarily sexual GoDaddy ads.

The Betty White ad did more to promote violence against women than the Tebow one did.

[john doe]

My anti-NFL policy kind of fell by the wayside, when I tuned into half time to watch the WHO.

So you left disappointed too? What should have been a great musical performance came crashing down when Daltry decided to open his mouth and attempt to sing. He should have gone the lip-sync route.

[Elphaba]

Apparently, some feminists are now saying that the Tebow ad "encourages violence against women." Are you serious!? What a load of crap. They're just trying to find something to complain about.

Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization of Women, (NOW), was beyond embarrassing when she said the ad glorified violence against women, as that is absurd.

　

She went on:

I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it. That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.

Sigh . . . .

　

Let me say that I, a strong feminist and supporter of NOW, am blown away at such a completely insipid, self-serving comment about what was clearly playful teasing in the commercial, and obviously not violence against women at all.

I will say, very feebly in O'Neill's defense, that people who have been victims of physical abuse sometimes see abuse in places it doesn't exist, whereas people who have never been physically abused tend not to see it when it's clearly there. IMO, it's part of the horrible dilemma that is abuse.

　

But O'Neill is the head of the very public NOW, and as such, she has a responsibility not to overreact to things by calling them "violent" to women when they're clearly not.

　

Given O’Neill’s inane rant, I think it's important to note not all abortion-rights supporters agree with O'Neill. For example, according to Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice:

It's absurd to claim that this is an endorsement of violence against women. These people came across as affectionate, loving, funny and happy.

So, please don't think ALL women's groups agree with NOW's O'Neill.

　

They don't.

　

Finally, I understand people's beliefs that Focus on the Family has the right to say whatever it wants in an ad, and I share that belief absolutely.

　

However, it is wrong to say that women's groups, like NOW, shouldn't have urged the station not to run the ad. They were not suppressing free speech--they were exercising it, as was their right to do.

　

Ultimately, it is was the station's decision as to what it would, or would not, run, as was its right.

I do wish, as a feminist and a mother, that NOW's O'Neill had stopped to think what she was saying before she blurted out nonsense, because it's just plain embarrassing.

　

But she had the right to blurt, as do we all, though some of us do it more than others.

　

Elphaba

[boyando]

In my opinion, the whole issue hinges upon freedom of speech. If the debate about abortion must fall prey to censorship, then freedom of speech has been taken away. It doesn't matter what side you're on, the moment anyone says it can't be talked about (whether it be in an advertisement or in some other medium) then that's trampling on the First Amendment.

I'm not sure that I saw any trampling of freedom of speech. More like, if you say it, you gotta live with it, from both sides of the issue.

Promoting life, did not take a hit. But the popularity of some woman's groups did, because of what they said.

[boyando]

I will say, very feebly in O'Neill's defense, that people who have been victims of physical abuse sometimes see abuse in places it doesn't exist, whereas people who have never been physically abused tend not to see it when it's clearly there. IMO, it's part of the horrible dilemma that is abuse.

　

　

Elphaba

You and I have suffered physical abuse and domestic violence wasn't the first thing that popped into my head, when I saw the commercial. And from the sound of things, it wasn't what popped into your head, either.

Love ya, little bro

[boyando]

So you left disappointed too? What should have been a great musical performance came crashing down when Daltry decided to open his mouth and attempt to sing. He should have gone the lip-sync route.

Here's a long story to make a short point (something that my family say's I do quit often).

While growing up in Santa Ana, California, the house next door seem to have an endless supply of new occupants. One of my favorite was a group of about six men, all self proclaimed "born again hippies".

One day, as I walked past the house in question, the garage door was open and one of the young men was setting up his stereo. These guy's were always willing to chat, so I gave the ole "what you doing?".

He explained that he was setting up his stereo in the garage, so he could play it loud. At thirteen, I know I had to stick around for this and I wasn't disappointed.

All it took was ten seconds of "don't get fooled again" at decibels that I was sure would cause hearing loss, later in life, and I was hooked.

In the thirty nine years that followed that day, I still peek in and see what the Who are up too. So many times have I seen the Who, in concert footage. So many times have I been disappointed, and unable to capture that feeling of the first time, I heard them.

So, I wasn't really disappointed, because I wasn't expecting much. Pete still has great wind mills. Roger still can't hear what the rest of the band is doing, when playing life (although when the band was younger, it was because the music was too loud).

If there was any disappointment, it was that not one guitar was broken or not one amp came crashing down. In this case, you can't go home again.

Speaking of going home again, was i the only one who was a little creepped out by the drummer, trying to recreate the late Kieth Moons (the original drummer for the Who) facial expressions, more than his drumming style?

I hope that, metaphorically, I can say I wont get fooled again.

[bytor2112]

I loved that commercial. But then, I really like that Tebow guy. Great example for my boys. It made me curious enough to go check out the website.

I would really be very upset if some Enquirer magazine or what-have-you comes up with some picture of Tim Tebow passed out drunk at some alley with 4 bimbos in tow. I don't think it will ever happen, though.

I am a HUGE Florida State fan and have no love for the Gators, BUT, I know people who know Tim and he is a class act. If he were found passed out in an alley with 4 bimbos, you can rest assured that he was drugged and beaten to get him there.

[Elphaba]

In my opinion, the whole issue hinges upon freedom of speech. If the debate about abortion must fall prey to censorship, then freedom of speech has been taken away. It doesn't matter what side you're on, the moment anyone says it can't be talked about (whether it be in an advertisement or in some other medium) then that's trampling on the First Amendment.

No, it's not.

The only time your First Amendment right to free speech is trampled on is if the government steps in and tells you what you can or cannot say, or if it punishes you for what you've said. Otherwise, with some exceptions, you have the right to say what you want, when you want, and where you want, without fear of governmental reprisal.

That’s not to say you won’t suffer the consequences of what you say--just that you have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to say it.

For example, you may insult your boss, who may then turn around and fire you for it. In such a case, that would be the consequence of you exercising your right to free speech, but it would not be a violation of your right to the same.

In the case at hand, the women's groups exercised their Constitutionally guaranteed First Amednment right to free speech when they urged the television station not to play the ad in question, and they had every right to do so; however, they are suffering the consequences of their choice because they now look petty and shrill.

Finally, for you to suggest the women's groups violated someone's right to free speech is to misunderstand what free speech is. In fact, they were exercising their right to free speech when they urged the station not to play the ad.

If someone disagrees with your position, it does not mean your right to free speech has been denied. Even if someone doesn't want anyone to talk about it, it does not mean your free speech has been denied. It only means you disagree.

Obviously, this is a very simplistic explanation of something that can get quite complicated. Luckily, being wrong is also protected by free speech, because people get confused about this often.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Easy to get misquoted Elphaba.

Have I misquoted someone?

This is such a tricky subject to negotiate. Any time there is a sinful act committed there are generally unavoidable consequences and a fair bit of pain and misery, even the pain of an unborn child who is unable to speak for him or her's self. Rape is such a nasty messy crime, and so many victims. To the unborn child you are correct, it does not matter how it was conceived, that innocent child is going to experience pain before it dies. Yes I do understand and support church policy on this one because of the violation that has occurred to the woman. Mind you a good Catholic would disagree with me on that one. Others would say the mother has every right it is her body. Hence the conflict.

I would never have thought I'd say this, but this atheist agrees with the Catholics. It's hypocrisy to go on about how horrifying an abortion is to the "baby," i.e., it sucks it out or chemically burns it, but then turn around and discount that horror because of how it was, through no fault of its own, conceived.

Elphaba

[Wingnut]

It's hypocrisy to go on about how horrifying an abortion is to the "baby," i.e., it sucks it out or chemically burns it, but then turn around and discount that horror because of how it was, through no fault of its own, conceived.

So are you saying that Mormons are hypocrites? Or are you just pointing out the fallacy of the arguments made by the few who focus on the trauma to the fetus?

[prisonchaplain]

However, it is wrong to say that women's groups, like NOW, shouldn't have urged the station not to run the ad. They were not suppressing free speech--they were exercising it, as was their right to do. Ultimately, it is was the station's decision as to what it would, or would not, run, as was its right.

Elphaba

I'm a bit surprised by your take here--especially as one intimately aware of the print industry. Yes, legally, it's not a violation of free speech for organizations to use the threat of boycott to "urge" media not print/broadcast a particular point of view. The activity is legal, and media outlets are also free to respond as they will.

And yet, civil libertarians regularly decry such tactics. I remember in the 70s a WKRP TV episode in which Rev. Blowhard (not his real name) was pressuring the station to censor some of its content. It was all portrayed as a thuggish effort at censorship by self-righteous hypocritical religious folk.

Then again, the pro-choice movement has done this before. I remember their campaign against Madonna's song "Papa Don't Preach -- I'm Having My Baby." The movement saw the song as anti-abortion rights, because the girl chose to carry to term.

No not all pro-choice do so. But I guess I have come to find boycotts ineffective and negative--even when "family friendly" causes attempt it. Who can forget the embarrassing failure of the boycott against Disney about 10-years ago?