lol. Don't ruin the football game for a debate like abortion...

 

 

who wants ads at a party anyways? Turn down the jams, I want to hear that All-State commercial!

What kind of argument is it that you don't want to watch this commercial during a football game?! I don't want to sit through 6 hours of 65 year olds talking about erection problems, but such is life.

Exactly. Not sure why you think that's funny.

 

I think it is funny how often the ignorance of America comes up, but screw that the Super Bowl is on! It pretty much is indicative of our national priorities.

I think it is funny how often the ignorance of America comes up, but screw that the Super Bowl is on! It pretty much is indicative of our national priorities.

 

I just can't fathom why anyone would think that this is the best time to bring up and discuss abortion issues. There's a time and place for it and the Super Bowl isn't part of that equation.

I just can't fathom why anyone would think that this is the best time to bring up and discuss abortion issues. There's a time and place for it and the Super Bowl isn't part of that equation.

 

To me, a serious issue like this would always be more important than a football game.

To me, a serious issue like this would always be more important than a football game.

 

Who's even arguing which is more important? Of course it's more important than a football game.

I'm going to take myself out of my self-imposed Filibuster semi-exile to chime in, and I think the major problem i have with this pending ad is one that has not been fully enunciated here.

 

I'm pro-choice but I don't have an inherent issue with a non-combative pro-life ad being aired during the Super Bowl or anywhere else. Of course, an ad produced by the hate-fueling Focus on the Family is going to be combative and divisive by definition, so we're already removed from that possibility here.

 

But. . . an ad that spotlights a woman who wrestled with thoughts of terminating a typical pregnancy but didn't, who ends up with a healthy and happy and loved child and is so thankful for the decision she made. . . I don't find that objectionable in and of itself.

 

In contrast, the Tebow situation is NOT that case at all. Here a mother was given the best medical advice her doctors thought they could give her when they suggested she should terminate the pregnancy for health reasons. Here, the decision to abort would not have been borne out of "convenience" but out of medical safety reasons. This mother willfully chose to ignore the doctors' advice and thankfully for her and her son the outcome was positive. But putting this story out there sends absolutely the wrong message that doctors sdvice and warnings mean nothing and to go ahead and carry the pregnancy to term no matter the cost to mother or baby. Things will not work out so well for high-risk pregnancies, and Focus on the Family is broadcasting the message that that's OK.

 

I don't agree that it is, and I think it's disrespectful to the medical professionals who have the best interests of their patients at heart. It's also irresponsible and morally repugnant (to me) that this "Choose Life No Matter What!" message (even if you die in childbirth and leave a father and 5 kids behind, or even if your kid is born with severe congenital defects) is something CBS and the NFL have no problem with.

I'm going to take myself out of my self-imposed Filibuster semi-exile to chime in, and I think the major problem i have with this pending ad is one that has not been fully enunciated here.

 

I'm pro-choice but I don't have an inherent issue with a non-combative pro-life ad being aired during the Super Bowl or anywhere else. Of course, an ad produced by the hate-fueling Focus on the Family is going to be combative and divisive by definition, so we're already removed from that possibility here.

 

But. . . an ad that spotlights a woman who wrestled with thoughts of terminating a typical pregnancy but didn't, who ends up with a healthy and happy and loved child and is so thankful for the decision she made. . . I don't find that objectionable in and of itself.

 

In contrast, the Tebow situation is NOT that case at all. Here a mother was given the best medical advice her doctors thought they could give her when they suggested she should terminate the pregnancy for health reasons. Here, the decision to abort would not have been borne out of "convenience" but out of medical safety reasons. This mother willfully chose to ignore the doctors' advice and thankfully for her and her son the outcome was positive. But putting this story out there sends absolutely the wrong message that doctors sdvice and warnings mean nothing and to go ahead and carry the pregnancy to term no matter the cost to mother or baby. Things will not work out so well for high-risk pregnancies, and Focus on the Family is broadcasting the message that that's OK.

 

I don't agree that it is, and I think it's disrespectful to the medical professionals who have the best interests of their patients at heart. It's also irresponsible and morally repugnant (to me) that this "Choose Life No Matter What!" message (even if you die in childbirth and leave a father and 5 kids behind, or even if your kid is born with severe congenital defects) is something CBS and the NFL have no problem with.

I agree with much that you posted, especially the Focus on the Family angle. I am not a fan at all and that is the most problematic part of all this. But you said Doctors and from what I read it was one Doctor. Sometimes you get different diagnosis and different ideas on acceptable risks. I've had a few operations and skipped two. One Doctor wanted to operate, another suggested a longer, but less evasive recovery program. Was I disrespectful to the medical professionals who have my best interest at heart? It was their opinion, and I have learned Doctors are giving their best opinion, it isn't always correct.

 

Plus, sometimes it is odds. There are so many potential problems in any pregnancy. How many patients over 35 ignore conventional wisdom and conceive anyways?

Yes, I was generalizing my comments in reference to ignoring doctors' (pl) orders. And yes, I understand the value of second opinions, multiple viewpoints, and the ultimate responsibility of the patient to make informed decisions regarding their care and treatment. But the message I anticipate coming from the Tebow story focused through a Focus on Family prism is that NO medical opinion matters (be it one doctor or a consensus of hundreds) if that opinion proffers abortion as the safest course of action. That is a dangerous and irresponsible message.

Edited January 27, 201016 yr by FlaSoxxJim

Yes, I was generalizing my comments in reference to ignoring doctors' (pl) orders. And yes, I understand the value of second opinions, multiple viewpoints, and the ultimate responsibility of the patient to make informed decisions regarding their care and treatment. But the message I anticipate coming from the Tebow story focused through a Focus on Family prism is that NO medical opinion matters (be it one doctor or a consensus of hundreds) if that opinion proffers abortion as the safest course of action. That is a dangerous and irresponsible message.

 

I'm sure they'll be able to explain all of your options and what is best for you in 30 seconds.

Yes, I was generalizing my comments in reference to ignoring doctors' (pl) orders. And yes, I understand the value of second opinions, multiple viewpoints, and the ultimate responsibility of the patient to make informed decisions regarding their care and treatment. But the message I anticipate coming from the Tebow story focused through a Focus on Family prism is that NO medical opinion matters (be it one doctor or a consensus of hundreds) if that opinion proffers abortion as the safest course of action. That is a dangerous and irresponsible message.

 

 

I agree that there could be a dangerous and irresponsible message, just like any other ad. It seems most are anticpating the worse. I still disagree that every discussion has to be to the level of a New England Journal of Medicine article. People Magazine cover stories like this all the time. Lifetime Movies. Songs. This is just one more pop culture reference. No different than complaining that the Bud Lite commercial doesn't discuss every way that alcohol is dangerous. They are encouraging people to drink, even those that have been warned by their Doctor.

 

My last surgery could have been accomplished via a "keyhole" or a 4" cut. When someone told me theirs went fine with the 4" cut, that they didn't think there was a lot of extra pain or a longer recovery, that was valuable information. That was not irresponsible because they didn't talk about all the other factors that come into play.

I'm sure they'll be able to explain all of your options and what is best for you in 30 seconds.

 

 

You would really take medical advice from someone other than a Doctor? Do you really want the Tebows to tell you all the medical options? This is a human interest piece, not a college course. When an athlete does an anti-drug (steroid) ad, do we criticize because of the lack of medical information in the 30 second ad?

You would really take medical advice from someone other than a Doctor? Do you really want the Tebows to tell you all the medical options? This is a human interest piece, not a college course. When an athlete does an anti-drug (steroid) ad, do we criticize because of the lack of medical information in the 30 second ad?

 

lots of people take medical advice from people other than doctors. Many industries are based off of this.

lots of people take medical advice from people other than doctors. Many industries are based off of this.

Hah.

Just look at the percentage of physicians themselves who smoke cigarettes.

Hah.

Just look at the percentage of physicians themselves who smoke cigarettes.

I used to volunteer as an EMT in college, and probably half the paramedics and EMT's smoked. I found that amusing.

 

My ex-wife is an x-ray tech. I've been around sailors and truckers that swear less. I won't even begin to discuss the nicknames for patients . . .

iamshack an Andrew Sullivan fan?

Pro-life, ok. Gay, not ok.

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/m...a_n_440773.html

 

iamshack an Andrew Sullivan fan?

Hah, nice find Sqwert.

Pretty incredible...almost like he has been reading our debate here...

Edited January 31, 201016 yr by iamshack

How about someone runs an anti-abstinence ad featuring some hero who was born out of wedlock?

Pro-life, ok. Gay, not ok.

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/m...a_n_440773.html

 

 

very interesting. the mancrunch ad is more than a bit much, but it is blatant hypocrisy and predjudice imo

How about someone runs an anti-abstinence ad featuring some hero who was born out of wedlock?

That would be a pro-life ad. "Don't abort that baby just because you got drunk and screwed half the basketball team, it could grow up to be famous like I did", says your hero.

How about someone runs an anti-abstinence ad featuring some hero who was born out of wedlock?

 

i would allow that ad

That would be a pro-life ad. "Don't abort that baby just because you got drunk and screwed half the basketball team, it could grow up to be famous like I did", says your hero.

 

No, I mean an ad actively promoting promiscuous sex and pregnancy outside of committed relationships because, hey, you never know! You kid could be a star!

 

It makes as much sense as the logic behind this ad.

No, I mean an ad actively promoting promiscuous sex and pregnancy outside of committed relationships because, hey, you never know! You kid could be a star!

 

It makes as much sense as the logic behind this ad.

Reminds me of the internet ad for AshleyMadison.com

 

I think the slogan is "Life is short. Have an affair."