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

[Traveler]

It appears to me that life in the universe is rare and unusual. Beyond the borders of this earth there has never been a definite indication of life anywhere. What I find interesting in the abortion debate is that in the course of events in which a life is known to exist that is most specifically genetically like a specific individual – more than most all other life known to exist that some individuals consider it in their own best interest as well as the best interest of all that other life and society - that it is best to kill that life that resembles them. And I find it interesting that others support and give advice that it is often best to kill life that among all living things is like you.

Although this concept is somewhat of a mystery to me – I am not sure to what ends I am willing to debate such an issue.

The Traveler

[Elphaba]

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?

The second.

I do not think the Mormon Church is being hypocritical at all, or its members in general.

I am saying people, like Color, who actually argue that abortion is wrong because it makes "babies" suffer horrifically, are hypocrites when they turn around and say it's actually okay for some of these babies to suffer horrifically, because they were conceived via rape or incest.

That stuns me.

Elphaba

[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.

Exactly. So why are you surprised that I would say so, and what does my experience in the print industry have to do with it?

And yet, civil libertarians regularly decry such tactics.

As is their right as guaranteed by the First Amendment. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree with them.

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.

How does this relate to my post?

Then again, the pro-choice movement has done this before.

Lots of movements have called for boycotts. So what?

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.

I actually only became aware of this just now because your post caused me to look it up. At the time, I was more aware of the "Madonna encourages teen pregnancy" controversy.

No not all pro-choice do so.

Do what? Boycott corporations to further their own agenda, which is their right? Something else?

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?

Me! What happened?

PC, I really don’t understand your point with regards to my post. Would you please try to explain it better? Because I am either obtuse or your stream of consciousness left “makes sense” after “I’m a bit surprised. . . . . “ I admit I am sleep-deprived right now, and maybe that's the problem.

But I am half tempted to be offended, and if I am, I just want to make sure that's what you meant!

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

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.

One of my best memories of the two of us is you taking me to see Tommy.

Good times.

Sis

[prisonchaplain]

Exactly. So why are you surprised that I would say so, and what does my experience in the print industry have to do with it? ... PC, I really don’t understand your point with regards to my post. Would you please try to explain it better? Because I am either obtuse or your stream of consciousness left “makes sense” after “I’m a bit surprised. . . . . “ I admit I am sleep-deprived right now, and maybe that's the problem.

But I am half tempted to be offended, and if I am, I just want to make sure that's what you meant!

Elphaba

OK...maybe I wasn't clear. I figured that people who've worked in media would be especially sensitive, and opposed to efforts restricting freedom. You recognize that boycotts are legal, and that is so. Yet, I would have thought you would find them offensive, since their goal is almost always to restrict expression.

You took the time and effort to defend NOW's right to cajole a network not to air an issue-commercial. Of course, you are right--they have the legal freedom to do that. But, I've taken you to be a civil libertarian, and so I expected that you would say, "They have a right...but I sure don't like it."

[Moksha]

Apparently, some feminists are now saying that the Tebow ad "encourages violence against women."

Probably the opposite, if the message to celebrate life came through clear enough, these women will not have worry about being collateral casualties during any future protests. If the message was crystal clear, the doctors will not have to worry either.

[boyando]

One of my best memories of the two of us is you taking me to see Tommy.

Good times.

Sis

Come on over, the kids bought me the dvd, but they won't watch it with me. lol

[LDSgirl]

It's amazing how many pro-choice individuals their are out there who have never woke up at the age of 16 to find themselves pregnant and scared. But yet they're so sure about such a decision. Well, this was my plot many years ago. I found myself 16 and pregnant. I was raised to pray over any important decesion your about to make, so I did. I pondered over the options, prayerfully and carefully. It was always an "Eternal" question for me, not "an immediate fix" question...After praying about it, God made it over whelmingly clear in my heart that an abortion would be wrong and that the Spirit growing inside of me very much wanted to live. Shortly after I came to this realization I choose adoption. This decision never haunted me nor did it ever emotionally traumatize me. Abortion however does. It's a haunting decision that never leaves you. Every time I run into a woman who has had this de-humanizing procedure, their is always a haunting look in their eyes when they tell their story. I've never run into a woman yet, who has not regretted having an abortion. It turned out to be one of the most painful, emotionally traumatizing experiences of their life.

Abortion also scars your insides. Many women are totally unable to carry a baby in the womb again. The pro-life people never tell women this as part of their counseling before hand...

If that commercial that aires brings to light more of the truth, then I am all for it.

Thank you for sharing the poem and your story!

[ColorMEreal]

Thanks LDSgirl .

I wanted to add one more thought. I believe in equal rights for women. But "we"as women cannot trample on the innocent/defenseless beneath us in our pursuits for equality between the sexes. True power and equality cannot be obtained by such means.

When a woman gets an abortion, she takes a life so that she in return may have a better life. It is the most self serving choice she will ever make.

As women, where has our natural affection's gone for our children/off-spring. I presently have a 19 month old baby girl. If anyone tried to hurt her while she was still in my womb, you better bet I would have fought to the death to protect and preserve her life inside of me. I cannot imagine in a million years being a willing participant to her death, so that I might have a better life. So that I can accomplish more for "me" in my life.I can't ever imagine such a horror story as that...

[Guest]

Thanks LDSgirl .

I wanted to add one more thought. I believe in equal rights for women. But "we"as women cannot trample on the innocent/defenseless beneath us in our pursuits for equality between the sexes. True power and equality cannot be obtained by such means.

When a woman gets an abortion, she takes a life so that she in return may have a better life. It is the most self serving choice she will ever make.

As women, where has our natural affection's gone for our children/off-spring. I presently have a 19 month old baby girl. If anyone tried to hurt her while she was still in my womb, you better bet I would have fought to the death to protect and preserve her life inside of me. I cannot imagine in a million years being a willing participant to her death, so that I might have a better life. So that I can accomplish more for "me" in my life.I can't ever imagine such a horror story as that...

I'm a Pro-Lifer in the Catholic sense of the word... yet, this post is still too black and white for me. It is not a black and white issue, unfortunately.

Your sphere of experience has not shown you the struggle between life and death where both the baby's and the mother's life are on the balance. Do not forget, that just because the mother/father of that baby chose to preserve the mother's life over the baby's life that the mother was a selfish serf-serving horror of a person. Posts like these is what makes us Pro-Lifers look bad in the public arena.

[boyando]

I'm not trying to take away from the importance of discussing abortion, but there were two other politically charged adds, from the Super Bowl, that quite frankly, I just didn't get.

Census Bureau: Snapshot of America - 2010 Super Bowl Commercials -- NFL FanHouse

I can't figure out, what these last years, (as in so last year) environmentalist, are trying to tell me. That there is going to be a census? Is this part of the stimulus package, too give angry, out of work actors, a job?

Audi: Green Police - 2010 Super Bowl Commercials -- NFL FanHouse

Is Audi trying to tell me to give in to the police state, and buy an Audi?

Don't hate me for trying to lighten the mood. Abortion is a very important subject, that we need to continue to discuss. Every once and a while, I think it is best to take a break, and laugh.

b

[prisonchaplain]

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

There is no way around this dilemma. You are correct. The strongest pro-lifers are opposed to all abortions, except perhaps one that truly threatens the life of the mother (not just health, but life). Those who make allowances for rape or incest are, in most cases, engaging in "real politik." They believe that the public will never support a total ban, and so, make this compromise, allowing women who are victims of rape or incest to have the abortions if they choose. Then, within our churches at least, we would counsel the victims to consider making the person sacrifice of carrying the baby to term, and then immediately adopting him/her out.

In other words, those who make the rape/incest allowance are willing to make the moral compromise of putting at risk the 3-4% (latest statistic I read, don't remember the source) of abortion candidates who are conceived out of rape/incest, in order to protect the 96-97% who are not.

Maybe it's the reality of living in a democracy vs. a theocracy, or maybe it's an immoral, unacceptable compromise. But you are right. It's an inconsistency...there is not getting around it.