This is topic Tim Tebow to appear in anti-abortion ad during the Super Bowl in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=056697

Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
 
From ESPN.

quote:
The 30-second ad, which is being bankrolled by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, reportedly will feature Tim and Pam telling their story of his birth. While pregnant with Tim, her fifth child, Pam fell seriously ill during a mission in the Philippines. Her condition was so severe, doctors told Pam to have an abortion. She refused, obviously, and along came Tim, one of the most decorated players in college football history.
I'm not so sure that it's a good idea. Trying to mix politics with football just seems wrong to me.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
I'm not sure to what degree that statement was sarcastic, but I can't think of any particular reason politics is worse than corporate greed (much as might disagree with this particular message).
 
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Well, it seems like sort of a bummer for the Superbowl.
people want to see half nekkid women dancing around, not serious issues.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Is this politics? I mean is it an add about the legality of abortion or the morality? Because most pro-choices people I know say they're against abortion in general, just not for making it illegal.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
It seems like a unique story that one wouldn't want to make decisions based on. Another woman in her situation might have died.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Yep, and I don't want to hear about it during the Superbowl. Particularly since they have refused to allow ads in the past from the other side of that argument.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Hobbes has the right idea. That people will interpret the ad as politics probably just demonstrates how abortion debate has gone awry.
 
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
 
Well there is no middle ground anymore. Either you're a baby killer or a bible beater. All of the sense has been squeezed right out of the debate until there's nothing left but the two most polar opinions being represented.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I wish the Super Bowl would avoid these sorts of issues, but you can't really stop it.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I so want someone to respond with an ad showing a widower with two kids whose wife had the same diagnosis but chose "life" and died for it.

As far as politics, if they are advocating a change in laws, that is political.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
quote:
As far as politics, if they are advocating a change in laws, that is political.
Well I agree, but my question was: are they doing that? It didn't sound like it from the description but I don't really know.

quote:
That people will interpret the ad as politics probably just demonstrates how abortion debate has gone awry.
I watched a really fascinating documentary on this called Lake of Fire, it's both illuminating and scary.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
 
Whatever happened the good old-fashioned days of wardrobe malfunctions?
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Hmmm....I'm uncomfortable with saying a group shouldn't be allowed to put out a commercial if they can pay for the time. I understand that they are paying full price for the ad, it's not as if CBS is giving the time away.

quote:
Particularly since they have refused to allow ads in the past from the other side of that argument.
Have they? I didn't read the article. I disagree with that...I mean, if Planned Parenthood can pay for the time and wants to buy an ad they should have the same chance to purchase ad space as anyone else does.

The only thing I would want to see is that either commercial would handle the content and subject matter tastefully because the game is on rather early and kids do watch it. So my position is this commercial is okay with me, and so would a commercial for the other side. If you can pay for the ad space, have at it.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
And yet, the ad for a gay dating site was rejected.

But this, and the GoDaddy ads, are allowed.

I find CBS' logic questionable.
 
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
And yet, the ad for a gay dating site was rejected.

Because the commercial involved two people passionately making out. Do you recall any other primetime commercials that have people making out passionately? Also, it didn't involve the natural coupling of male and female. Just eww.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
The "natural coupling of a male and female" is a political issue. So is abortion. Unless you'd like to argue that the first is a moral issue, in which case I'd argue, so is abortion.

As for people making out, please, have you seen Superbowl commercials? G-rated they ain't.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Maybe civil unions or same-sex marriage would be political, but just making out would be political? This is a post-Ellen or post-Will and Grace world [Wink]

Heck, I think there may even have been Star Trek commercials with that.
 
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dabbler:
It seems like a unique story that one wouldn't want to make decisions based on. Another woman in her situation might have died.

I'd be all for this ad if they also showed another with this alternative ending.

Equal coverage, people!
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Do you recall any other primetime commercials that have people making out passionately?
During the Super Bowl? Yes.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
And yet, the ad for a gay dating site was rejected.
I saw the ad and it is pretty harmless. It is a lot less graphic than many other Superbowl ads. I would have hoped for something much much better considering what they say they spent on making the ad.

The article I read said the the CBS sales department "had difficulty verifying the credit of the site to guarantee payment of the estimated $2.5 million cost to air the ad" which was responded to by the site's owners saying they "spent more than $100,000 on the ad and has raised $40 million from investors". I would think verifying that kind of money would be kinda easy.
If CBS rejected it because of not being able to guarantee payment, then I would understand their decision. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

CBS's main reason is ““CBS Standards and Practices has reviewed your proposed Super Bowl ad and concluded that the creative is not within the Network’s Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday.” It is not clear what “the creative” references but one can guess."
Not a valid reason IMO since many of the other 'creatives' are not well done either.
Commercial
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Do you recall any other primetime commercials that have people making out passionately?
It isn't making out passionately but a gay kiss was done in 2007
Snickers Mechanic Kiss The ad was later pulled off of TV but did show
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
Hmmm....I'm uncomfortable with saying a group shouldn't be allowed to put out a commercial if they can pay for the time. I understand that they are paying full price for the ad, it's not as if CBS is giving the time away.

Any group?
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Hell, I'm sure there are beer ads with two women.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Hell, I'm sure there are beer ads with two women.

I have a vague memory of a beer ad featuring eroticized female wrestling airing during the super bowl. Of course, the point of it was that men would enjoy watching, which I guess makes it less gay. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
And not Superbowl ad specific, but most of the major networks denied a "controversial" ad by the UCC several years ago... Just read an article that says the UCC ad would be accepted nowadays, but not in 2004.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
As I recall CBS's rational for not accepting the UCC ad was that it took a position on a controversial political issue.

Now, I believe that they have some right to do that. These days, anyone with enough money can buy and sell whatever "speech" they choose. The idea of "public airwaves" seems to have gone by the wayside.

But can we also put to rest the whole "liberal media" garbage?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
But can we also put to rest the whole "liberal media" garbage?
Watch an hour of prime time programming on one of the major networks. Culturally and politically speaking, which side do you think it will lean?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
CSI? Law and Order? NCIS? Criminal Minds?
 
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
Don't get me started on "Law and Order".
 
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
To be fair, CBS, as far as this is concerned, seems to be making decisions based on their percieved audience. It's easy for me to assume (perhaps not correctly) that people who watch the super bowl are perhaps a little more conservative-leaning then the average TV viewer. If CBS were to invite more liberal-leaning ads, it might risk backlash from that audience. I don't think they care one way or another on the politics, but about the bottom line.

It's not a matter of free press or the first amendment. It seems like a free market thing. CBS can give ad space to whomever they see fit, and the consumer can decide whether or not to support CBS by watching it or supporting its sponsors, thereby making the ads worthless.

I'm reminded of the Dixie Chics a few years ago, and how they nearly lost their audience when they spoke against George W at a concert. They seem to have forgotten at that moment just who tends to listen to country music, and their audience acted accordingly.

I'll admit to not being an expert on capitalism, though.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Another sticky problem in the marriage of democracy and capitalism.
 
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
That I'll agree with. [Smile]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
CSI? Law and Order? NCIS? Criminal Minds?
I haven't watched the latter two shows, but what about Law and Order is especially conservative, politically or socially?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Pro-law enforcement, pro-police and so forth tend to be more conservative. Or at least more Republican. For goodness sake, Fred Thompson was one of their principal actors.

What do you think is especially liberal?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
During the Bush years, the fact that they actually had to gather evidence, follow the laws of due process, and actually convict someone in court could be considered fairly liberal.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Except as often as not - though I don't watch the show religiously anymore, no pun intended - the show takes a stance against abuses by the criminal justice system, by police and expert witnesses and the district attorneys and their assistants and so on and so forth. And McCoy, who was the main lawyer on the show for years, was very, very liberal in his politics and frequently made no secret of it. Fred Thompson, by comparison, was hardly a blip on the radar-and the actual protagonists of the show were quite often upset with him.

Aside from McCoy's politics, what is often liberal about the show is its portrayal of sexuality, for example-conservatives generally aren't happy about, for example, adultery being treated as a matter of course on television. Or at least they're usually more unhappy about it than liberals are.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I would hardly say that adultery is treated as matter of course when, more often than not, adulterers are also murderers. Unless you also consider that murder is treated as a matter of course as well, because it happens just about every episode.

ETA: In fact, if you are going to cast conservatives and anti-adultery and liberals as pro-adultery, L&O has a very conservative message.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
*sigh* Yes, that's what I was doing.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I think that is what a lot of people do*. Not "you" personally, "you" generally.

Again, if one thinks about it, cop shows hardly have a pro-adultery message. Yes?

*If not, how does showing adultery = liberal?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
"*If not, how does showing adultery = liberal?"

Because it doesn't suppose that it's best to whitewash stories about human behavior (unless they are morality plays); that exploring the reasons for adultery doesn't constitute endorsement of it.

That's still too simplistic, but it is one way that showing adultery is kind of liberal, without implying that liberals are pro-adultery.

ETA: I don't think that this aligns well with political parties or anything. I think most of us are liberal enough to agree that it's OK for some entertainment shows to portray adultery (while we might have more disagreement about how it is portrayed). But the argument that it would be best not to portray adultery in TV entertainment would, I think, be sort of a fringe conservative view.

[ February 03, 2010, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
But they show adulterers (most of the time) as either murderers or victims of murderers. That isn't exploring reasons for adultery; that is sending a plain message that adultery and adulterers are evil.
 
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
 
But the real question is, do they portray smokers as evil?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
I guess it's going to be impossible to generalize. [Smile] You're right, some of those portrayals have a lot in common with the sort of exploitation film where every sinner gets murdered.
 
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
But they show adulterers (most of the time) as either murderers or victims of murderers. That isn't exploring reasons for adultery; that is sending a plain message that adultery and adulterers are evil.

McNulty from The Wire doesn't fit this model and thats just off the top of my head. I don't think its as much about showing adultery being liberal or consevative as its about a few far right conservatives getting pissed off whenever that type of stuff gets on TV.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Is The Wire on prime time on one of the networks?

I am sure there are plenty of exceptions, but I don't buy that the preponderance of prime time, network shows are liberal. Especially not politically liberal. So if I "watch an hour of prime time programming on one of the major networks" I think that, "culturally and politically speaking" it is more likely to lean conservative as liberal.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I fail to see how the Tebow commercial is controversial. His story should be inspirational. He was deemed to be a failure prior to birth. Not only did he overcome the odds during his life, he overcame them prior to birth.

My wife was adopted and when her parents adopted her, they were told she would be mentally retarded. The mother was told she would be and the adoptive parents were told they were adopting a handicapped child. She's far from disadvantaged...completely normal. I transferred my post 911 GI Bill to her and she's getting her Masters degree in Literature.

Neither my wife nor Tebow should've been aborted. Since when has a pro-life message been considered controversial? Every Down's syndrome kid I ever met was very happy and loved by their parent. We should admire the parent who is willing to give birth to a handicapped child. If my wife or Tebow were born retarded, they would still prefer to be alive. Killing them prior to birth only frees the parent from the burden of having a stupid child.....even the stupid child wants to live.
 
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Stupid child?

I was kind of slightly with you, but, calling a child stupid, isn't very nice...
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I tend to be blunt. Life wants to live....even life that is less intelligent than the norm. People may delude themselves as a justification for termination but that disadvantaged child would rather live. Ever watch, "Little People, Big World" ? How many parents have aborted their midget embrio? They might tell themselves it's better not to live than to be retarded or deformed but no one asks the retarded or deformed if they would prefer to be dead.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
No, you tend to be clueless, rude, abrasive and ill informed. You chose your name to fit your behavior.


BTW, that wasn't a compliment.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Well, for starters, that ad could convince women not to take the advice of their doctors when their health is at risk. Not everyone is going to have a happy ending.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Not everyone is going to have a happy ending regardless, though.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
And there is where you get the controversy. Is it better for a mother to risk or lose her life for a fetus? Maybe for some people. And doctors don't always know and may often chose the safer route. But do we want women disregarding their doctors' advice because one women took a risk and got lucky?
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
The problem for me is that people really don't understand statistics. When I took an ethics course, we discussed informed consent and how difficult that ethically was. One of the fertility specialist mds mentioned a disease (don't remember which one) that generally destroyed a woman's ability to have a child. She would tell the woman, in general, women with your condition have a 1% chance that they are capable of carrying a child to term. 99% have so much damage that no amount of trying of interventions will help. The typical response to this news: Thank God, there is still a chance I can get pregnant. People always believe they will be in the group that they want to be in, even if stats aren't in their favor.

Which is why I don't like this ad. He beat the odds. Hurray for him. That really is great. But what about all the people who don't? A woman who sees that ad and is diagnosed with the same problem may very well think, hey, the drs are wrong on this. This problem is not as serious as they say. I am fine if the woman looks at the risks and says, ok, I am fine with an X% chance of dying, providing she understands that she has that big a chance of dying.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Exactly. Or the woman may even have a different problem - a more deadly one - but she won't make the distinction because all she will take away from a commercial is "the football star's mother's doctor was wrong and she was fine".

It is a reckless ad.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
That argument works both ways though. Do we want women simply accepting their doctor's advice on the moral aspect of the question? It may be possible to overlook the potential in the life being aborted if one has not seen a story like Tebow's that makes that potential clear.

I am not sure it is up to us to try and withhold information or stories like this from women, in fear that it will cause them to make wrong decisions.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Yes. I would rather women take medical advice from doctors than from a commercial.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
That is not what I asked though. I was asking about morality, not medicine. Would you rather women simply accept whatever moral judgements their doctors make, or would you rather they make such judgements themselves incorporating other information too (including commercials)?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Doctors shouldn't be giving moral advice. Women who want moral advice should be getting it from their priest or rabbi or shaman or best friend - not their doctor. I am concerned with women disregarding medical advice because of an ad that shows one women who had a lucky medical outcome.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
If a doctor recommended that Pam Tebow have an abortion, they gave advice that is both moral and medical.

While its true that this ad could cause some women to distrust their doctors, it sounds like the focus of the ad is on the moral issue - namely, the potential human being that could be lost from an abortion. It doesn't sound so much like it is saying that the probability of success given by the doctor was wrong, as it saying that even at such a very low probability of success, Tebow's life was worth it.

If, instead, the ad focused on the fact that an unlikely medical outcome occurred in spite of the doctor's advice, and then suggested that when doctors can't be trusted when they say something is very unlikely, then I'd agree it is a deceptive ad.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
A doctor recommending an abortion because of the risk to the mother's life is doing just that. "If you go through with this pregnancy, you have a X% chance that you will die" for example. The doctor is recommending what is a good decision from a medical point of view. "I recommend that you have an abortion if you want to live."

I don't know that the ad is deceptive. I think it is reckless.

Of course, none of that matters. Focus on the Family has the cash and CBS thinks it will be profitable. Those are the only real considerations.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
If a doctor recommended that Pam Tebow have an abortion, they gave advice that is both moral and medical.
Nonsense. A doctor tells you, "This is what you should do for this specific outcome, namely your physical health." If you're dealing with a mental health professional, of course, things become murkier, but we're not dealing with that issue right now.

The doctor's recommendation is purely pragmatic. The decision the patient takes on hearing that advice, that is where the moral decision comes in.
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
quote:
it sounds like the focus of the ad is on the moral issue - namely, the potential human being that could be lost from an abortion.
Yes, that's what the theme of the ad sounds like to me too.
However, they have chosen a rather unusual case - this isn't the fifteen year old who decided to have a abortion and then changed her mind.
It's not the woman with five kids who wasn't sure she could afford to raise another baby.
In this case, the odds were probably in favour of the mother and child both dying.
It's wonderful that they didn't, especially since this was obviously a much wanted child, but do you think that the rest of the family would still be making this ad if she and the baby had died?
That might not be quite so heart warming. The baby could very easily have been lost all the same, and the mother too.

To me, this woman and her son are not a representative sample of most people's abortion dilemma.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Rakeesh, yes.

Bella Bee, I think the examples you gave are better and less reckless ways to present an anti-abortion message. Perhaps a player whose mother gave him up for adoption would also be a good choice.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
From the reporting I heard, when the gay ad submitted there were only a couple of commercial slots left. If I were CBS and had the choice between a gay ad and a beer commercial, I would choose the beer commercial, simply because it would pander to more of my audience. No one is going to turn the channel when a beer commercial comes on, but some may get offended by the gay ad.

The Super Bowl is watched by many different people, but I think it is safe to say that there is a wider audience for a beer commercial than a gay ad. It is simply a business decision, and I don't think CBS meant anything harmful by it.

As far as the abortion commercial, again I think that there is a wider audience even for this commercial than an ad for a gay dating site. All of those supposedly devout Christians that stay home from church to watch the Super Bowl and get boozed up probably outnumber the amount of gays watching the Super Bowl.

In short, the network is doing two things:

1) Airing the commercial that they will get the least amount of flak for.

2) Airing the commercial they think will most pander to their audience.

Now if there was a beer commercial with two men kissing, I'd be interested in seeing what CBS did. [Smile]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Hey, business is business.

ETA: Now it occurs to me, though, I wonder if CBS made them put in some CYA fine print. In the tragic event that someone dies, I hope that CBS and FotF get sued.

[ February 04, 2010, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
Dies from what? They told a story and said how great it was that the mother did not get an abortion. They are not advocating anything illegal in the ad, nor are they forcing anyone to do what they say. They are not guaranteeing anything. On what grounds could you sue?

Could I sue Budwieser because 10 bikini clad women didn't pop out and party with me when I opened a beer? Could I sue Axe when gorgeous women don't tackle me as I'm walking down the street after using their product?

Maybe I am missing your point, but on what grounds could someone sue? I saw your abortion ad and that woman didn't die so my wife thought she wouldn't either? I think people have more common sense than that.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Could I sue Budwieser because 10 bikini clad women didn't pop out and party with me when I opened a beer? Could I sue Axe when gorgeous women don't tackle me as I'm walking down the street after using their product?
They didn't/don't? Are you sure you're using the products correctly? My wife made me quit using both of those things. (She was about to sue Anheiser-Busch and Unilever for the completely opposite reasons!)
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:

Maybe I am missing your point, but on what grounds could someone sue? I saw your abortion ad and that woman didn't die so my wife thought she wouldn't either? I think people have more common sense than that.

I think that is exactly what women will think. Faced with losing their baby, they will cling to the hope that this story holds - and it may very well kill them. If FotF doesn't think people will take away that message - "don't have an abortion even if your doctor tells you to" - why are they spending money on this ad?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
But I don't see any legal basis for someone to sue.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I am not a lawyer but think it could be claimed that such an ad* contributed to someone's death. And this would be true morally, if not legally.

I don't think they would win but the cost and bad publicity might get CBS to make a different business decision next time.

*Again, I haven't actually seen the ad - this is just from descriptions and they very well may include some CYA fine print.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Definitely not legally.

And IMO, the moral claim is tenuous at best. People make their own decisions, and this is hardly brainwashing.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Definitely? People have sued for all sorts of "don't try this at home" kind of stuff.

ETA: Even weight loss or exercise commercials are pretty careful with the disclaimers.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Definitely? People have sued for all sorts of "don't try this at home" kind of stuff.

And they usually lose. And this isn't even a "try our product" ad; it's a "this is our story" ad.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Is their purpose in buying the ad to get other women to disregard their doctors' advice to get an abortion for medical reasons? If not, what do you suppose their purpose is? They are trying to persuade somebody to do something, right?

[ February 04, 2010, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
 
Their purpose is to stop people from aborting babies.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Well, yes. I was hoping for a more specific answer. The question is in what circumstances. As Bella Bee pointed out, there are other stories of happy endings for non-aborted fetuses that could be used as examples without using an example that shows a woman disregarding her doctor's advice. Are they trying to persuade women to follow that example? If not, why that ad?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
It does seem like a peculiar angle. Most anti-abortion advocacy that I'm familiar with makes exceptions for medical necessity.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
I really doubt the purpose of the ad is to persuade you not to listen to your doctor. It is a persuasion to choose not to abort the baby, just as Soap wrote.

What is the purpose of any commercial though? Every commercial is meant to pursuade you to do something. Some persuade you to try their product. Some persuade you to vote a certain way. Some persuade you to donate to a cause. Whether you ACT on that pursuasion is up to what you.

Should I should be able to sue any company for anything, because I "Saw it on their commercial."

Lets say I see an ad for Windex and the lady sprays a window and upon wiping it off there are no streaks. But then I use Windex and there is one streak. Do I have grounds to sue? I didn't see a disclaimer at the bottom that says "Results not typical."

Should I be able to sue McDonald's because their Big Mac isn't as large as the one in the commercial?

I don't see anything wrong with this ad, just as I don't see anything wrong with the gay dating website ad. I really wouldn't pay attention to that ad because it has no chance of persuading me, but for some men it may.

Isn't that the point of marketing?

Edit: I agree that most anti-abortion advocacy groups make exceptions for rape, incest, or endangerment of the mothers life.

Now that I think about it, Focus on the Family however has traditionally been against all types of abortions no matter what the circumstances, which I utterly disagree with. They are the nutjobs of the anti-abortion movement

They had a representative on our local conservative talk radio station here in Las Vegas one morning last week, and not one caller agreed with the gentleman. He would dodge questions as to why there were no exceptions, and he ended up sounding like a complete idiot. Even the host of the show told him he was out of his mind.

Even that said, I still believe the group has a right to advertise as much as and how they want.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Right. As I said, business is business. The example they show is of a woman not heeding the advice of her doctor.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
Well, if the ad was "Eat a Big Mac! Your son will grow up to be a famous athlete!" and then, instead of my son growing up to be a famous athlete, I died instead, I might seriously consider suing McDonald's.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
Well, if the ad was "Eat a Big Mac! Your son will grow up to be a famous athlete!" and then, instead of my son growing up to be a famous athlete, I died instead, I might seriously consider suing McDonald's.

Do you think those thing are equally likely to be believed by the person making the decision based on their belief?
 
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Should I should be able to sue any company for anything, because I "Saw it on their commercial."

Are you arguing that there are cases where one should not be allowed to bring suit against a company? (I don't mean 'win a case', I just mean 'bring suit'.)
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I just saw, on the news, a Planned Parenthood ad in response to the Tebow one. I would have no problem with Planned Parenthood's ad airing.

It's not going to, because CBS has a full ad lineup already but I would not have a problem if they did.
 
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
 
I'm not totally sure on this, but I think I've heard rumours of Planned Parenthood being racist, specifically involving them trying to abort large numbers of black babies or something along those lines. If that's the case, then I do have a problem with them airing an ad during the Super Bowl, or under any circumstances for that matter.
 
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
I'm not totally sure on this, but I think I've heard rumours of Planned Parenthood being racist, specifically involving them trying to abort large numbers of black babies or something along those lines. If that's the case, then I do have a problem with them airing an ad during the Super Bowl, or under any circumstances for that matter.

[Eek!]

Can you be more specific and maybe provide some reference somewhere..???
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
Well, if the ad was "Eat a Big Mac! Your son will grow up to be a famous athlete!" and then, instead of my son growing up to be a famous athlete, I died instead, I might seriously consider suing McDonald's.

Do you think those thing are equally likely to be believed by the person making the decision based on their belief?
I'm having a little trouble parsing your question, but I s suspect it gets to the point I was trying to (jokingly) make.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Didn't people sue McDs and win because they got fat eating McDs?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
They are trying to persuade somebody to do something, right?

There's persuasion, and there's persuasion.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Didn't people sue McDs and win because they got fat eating McDs?

I know two girls came close to winning, but ultimately they lost.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
They are trying to persuade somebody to do something, right?

There's persuasion, and there's persuasion.
I don't know what you mean by that. Could you clarify? Are they trying to persuade somebody to not have an abortion by showing someone who refused medical advice? Don't they want people to think that she did a good thing by not following the advice of her doctor? That listening to her doctor would have been a mistake?
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
If speaking the truth is considered "clueless, rude, abrasive and ill informed"...I agree. I'm far from PC. You think I'm insensitive for using the term "retard" or "midget" while I'm defending the right to life of that retarded midget. I've never met an unhappy retard or a midget who would prefer to be dead. Even if Tebow's mother's doctors were correct and he was disabled,....he would still love life and prefer to be alive. Aborting a disadvantaged fetus isn't a mercy for the child, it's an escape for the parent. A parent that doesn't want to deal with a difficult child. It isn't a mercy, it's a selfish murder.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
You don't speak the truth. I get more truth from a magic 8-ball.

You say what you think, but you seem to lack the filter most of us have developed. It usually appears about 4th grade.

What you post here is never entertaining, rarely relevant, and almost always phrased for shock value. What you don;t get is that most of us would be MORE shocked to read one of your posts and find it relevant, timely, well researched, and non-offensive.

Too bad there isn't much chance of that ever happening.

But don't worry, we've gotten pretty good at just screening you out by this point.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
They are trying to persuade somebody to do something, right?

There's persuasion, and there's persuasion.
I don't know what you mean by that. Could you clarify?
I haven't seen the ad, so I'm speculating. But I seriously doubt they will actually SAY, "You too should refuse to have an abortion, even if it is medically advisable!" It may be implied, but that's really not the same thing.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
mal- the issue was not the deformity of the child. The thing that worried the doctors was the high chance of DEATH to the mother. If she had died, the baby would have had no chance of survival. Try to pay attention to the details of the debate before adding in pointless sidetracks about "retarded midgets."
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
No, you tend to be clueless, rude, abrasive and ill informed. You chose your name to fit your behavior.


BTW, that wasn't a compliment.

I'm defending the heisman trophy winner who's mother was told to have an abortion since he was destined to be deformed and retarded. Call me rude for using un-PC terms such as retard and midget but I'm the one standing up for the right to life of the retarded midget. You applaud the pregnant mother for aborting the retarded midget. I defend their right to live, you defend their right not to be called what you consider an offensive term. The retarded midget would side with me.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Again mal- the issue was not that the baby was going to be deformed. It was that the mother was likely to die.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Again mal- the issue was not that the baby was going to be deformed. It was that the mother was likely to die.

What's wrong with her taking that risk for her child? Without hesitation, I would give up my life for my children.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
If she died, so did baby. She risked leaving her other children motherless and her husband alone. My duty to my other children still exists. She had every right to make the decision she did, but another mother who chose the other way has every right to decide differently as well.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
If a doctor told a mother to have an abortion, I wouldn't judge her for following his advice. I'm pro life but accept abortion to save the mother. Here's an example of one who didn't follow that advice and ended up with an exceptional child. If Tebow's mother had aborted him, I would understand and accept her decision. Why is it so controversial that she chose to take the risk and it turned out well? For that matter..my supposed retarded wife maybe wouldn't have been given up for adoption if the mother ignored the doctor. For all she knew, she gave up a retard.
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
I bet the retarded midget would prefer my rude and abrasive speech over your defense of his death. I've never met an unhappy "retard". I say it as it is without regard to political correctness. It's too difficult to keep up with acceptable terminology. Terms change but the reality remains the same. A midget retarded negro wants to and deserves to live. Sorry....african american littler person with a learning dissabiliy deserves to live.
 
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 
quote:
mal- the issue was not the deformity of the child. The thing that worried the doctors was the high chance of DEATH to the mother.
Really? That's not the story I read. From the St. Augustine Record:

quote:
As the Tebow family gathered in New York last December for the announcement of the college Heisman Trophy winner, they were bombarded with media interview requests that included questions about their life in the Philippines, especially since Tim was born there.

In one interview, Pam Tebow related that during that pregnancy, a Philippine doctor suggested that she abort the fetus because the strong medications she was being treated with for amoebic dysentery, which she had contacted early in the pregnancy, could cause serious disabilities to the fetus.

"We knew that we could not do that," she said of the suggested abortion. "We all prayed to God for a healthy baby," she recalled. "And God answered our prayers when Timmy was born."

From ABC World News:

quote:
While there, Pam contracted amoebic dysentery and the medicines used for her recovery threatened her unborn fetus. Doctors advised her to abort the fetus. Pam ignored their advice and gave birth on Aug. 14, 1987, to a baby boy. That boy was Tim Tebow.
Mal is right. Sounds like the Medical Advice was not so much "you'll die if you don't have an abortion" but rather "get rid of the defective kid."
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
She was also diagnosed with placental abruption .

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20071007/NEWS/710060317?p=2&tc=pg

http://www.slate.com/id/2243218/
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Placental abruption, while dangerous to both mother and baby, is not usually a reason to suggest termination. At least, it's not for about the past 15 years or so; maybe it was longer ago, or maybe this is a non-US-medical-establishment thing.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
When did this incident occur? It was the 80s, right?

Wasn't elective abortion illegal in the Phillipines then?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I believe it was which makes the whole story sort of dodgy. If, indeed, this was not about a risk to the mother, I am less concerned about the implication that women who ignore medical advice have happy outcomes.

As I have mentioned before, we haven't seen the ad.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Just to clarify, "placental abruption" can range from (relatively) mild to immediately life-threatening. Unless further specified, it isn't a diagnosis in and of itself that tells you much about what options were available.

At the severe end, the mother and fetus are both at risk of dying from hemorrhage secondary to uterine rupture and/or DIC. Sometimes immediate c-section is the only medically feasible treatment, and whether that means delivery vs. elective termination depends in good part on both the gestational time and the facilities available on-site for resuscitation and life support. [We are just now making it to reasonable viability for 24wk fetuses delivered with access to the highest-level care centers in the US. I don't know what the survival stats were back then and in that context.]

From eMedicine on Abruptio Placentae: Treatment & Medication:

quote:
Bleeding into the decidua basalis leads to separation of the placenta....The myometrium in this area becomes weakened and may rupture with increased intrauterine pressure during contractions. A myometrium rupture immediately leads to a life-threatening obstetrical emergency.

Severity of fetal distress correlates with the degree of placental separation. In near-complete or complete abruption, fetal death is inevitable unless an immediate cesarian delivery is performed.
...
Abruptio placentae occurs in about 1% of all pregnancies throughout the world.
...
Maternal and fetal death may occur because of hemorrhage and coagulopathy. The fetal perinatal mortality rate is approximately 15%.

---

Edited to add: In case it isn't clear, I haven't the foggiest idea about what class of placetal abruption the woman in question may have had.

Like kmboots, though, I think that level of detail about this particular case is not relevant to all of the potential concerns about the ad. I don't really know what it will look like yet either, and I'm happy to wait and find out.

[ February 05, 2010, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
I have nothing to add except to see that I'm glad to see you back contributing facts and knowledge [Smile]
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Yeah! CT is back!!!
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Aw, good heavens. You are both too kind. [Smile]
 
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 
quote:
Wasn't elective abortion illegal in the Phillipines then?
I don't know, but as a US citizen she could have gone back home and had the procedure done there.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
Just to clarify, "placental abruption" can range from (relatively) mild to immediately life-threatening. Unless further specified, it isn't a diagnosis in and of itself that tells you much about what options were available.

Fair enough.

quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Yeah! CT is back!!!

Seconded. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Thirded!
 
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yozhik:
quote:
Wasn't elective abortion illegal in the Phillipines then?
I don't know, but as a US citizen she could have gone back home and had the procedure done there.
Or it may have been that the Dr said "you are in danger" and thus not been elective at all.

I obviously don't know which. But neither does anyone else posting here.

Neither will anyone watching the add.

This is why I agree with CT (and kmboots)... knowing the details isn't relevant to the concerns about the ad.

quote:
Like kmboots, though, I think that level of detail about this particular case is not relevant to all of the potential concerns about the ad. I don't really know what it will look like yet either, and I'm happy to wait and find out

 
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by just_me:
quote:
Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
I'm not totally sure on this, but I think I've heard rumours of Planned Parenthood being racist, specifically involving them trying to abort large numbers of black babies or something along those lines. If that's the case, then I do have a problem with them airing an ad during the Super Bowl, or under any circumstances for that matter.

[Eek!]

Can you be more specific and maybe provide some reference somewhere..???

Its in their Wikipedia article but I originally heard about it in a church pamphlet. I don't think I would take the allegations seriously though. After reading up on it it seems much more like an isolated incident rather than some kind of grand conspiracy.
Planned Parenthood Rebuttal
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Yes, I was just about to post that, SoaPiNuReYe.

I think, "I heard about it in a church pamplet" should be information disallowed, along with, "apparently" and "my grandmother told me".

Evidence, people!
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teshi:
Yes, I was just about to post that, SoaPiNuReYe.

I think, "I heard about it in a church pamplet" should be information disallowed, along with, "apparently" and "my grandmother told me".

Evidence, people!

how about forwarded political chainmails? those are always golden!
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Planned Parenthood does have a less-than stellar origin story, however. The founder was an avowed proponent of eugenics.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Oh yes. Now, when SoaPiNuReYe posted that, it triggered in my mind a faint memory of the connection Dan_Frank is talking about, but I couldn't find anything about that in the brief research I did so I assumed I was thinking about another program.

However, plenty of founders of companies we don't usually dislike have had shady or extremely shady ideas. See: Henry Ford. Now their founders are dead and good the generally good or neutral stuff the do stands by itself.
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
Dan, I'm pretty sure we've been through the whole historical eugenics pro and con, but here are some relevant Margaret Sanger quotes:

quote:
"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.... We are convinced that racial regeneration, like individual regeneration, must come 'from within.' That is, it must be autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without."[25]

We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother... Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment.[26]


 
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
 
From Planned Parenthood's Wikipedia article:
quote:
In 2007, The Advocate magazine (not The Advocate), which is run by Live Action Films, called Planned Parenthood offices in several states, offering to make donations if the money can be earmarked to abort black women's babies. The calls included one in July 2007 to Planned Parenthood of Idaho offering a donation if it could be earmarked for abortions for black women because, "the less black kids out there the better." Answering the phone call, the state organization's vice president of development and marketing said, "Understandable, understandable" and continued, "Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited and want to make sure I don't leave anything out." Planned Parenthood of Idaho's CEO later issued a statement saying that the officer "violated the organization's principles and practices" and was suspended.[18] Planned Parenthood's mission specifically prohibits racial discrimination.[19]

The Focus on Planned Parenthood newsletter stated, "Most of the Planned Parenthood employees who took these calls quickly ended the conversation," those who didn't hang up had a "serious lack of judgement," and to remedy this "our national federation has put forth a Donation Acceptance Policy" but that policies already in place made it impossible for the two employees in this case to have actually earmarked the money for a woman of any specific race(s), even if the caller posing as a racist actually had finalized and sent the pledged donation. They added that the "entrapment" involved "a 30-minute conversation...edited down to about three minutes" where the conversation started about a normal non-racial donation but the caller later indicated the racist intent for the donation.[20] The editor of The Advocate stated that Planned Parenthood of Idaho and the six other states were selected, in part, for having laws that allow single party approval of taped telephone conversations.[21][22]

Like I said before, I think this is pretty much an isolated incident. My fault for not citing what I said earlier.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I think the call was a bit unfair. I imagine if I got a call, I would be thinking a lot of things, but I would probably not say most of it. I can see me saying a variation of the don't leave anything out even as I envisioned ripping this person apart to my coworkers. Not to say that the person answering the phone was not racist, but based on a call designed to set them up (and 30 minutes of unread discussion), I would not judge them or the organization. We've all seen the stuff Colbert gets congressman to say in interviews. Now, if they set up a special category on their website "click here to donate for black woman's abortion" that would be concerning.
 
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
 
Agreed. The commercial just came on. It didn't seem too bad.
 
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
 
The commercial itself seemed fairly nonconfrontational.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Following the link gets one to the "real" message. *shudder* I'm sure these folks are well-intentioned but they are paving a dangerous road.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
A doctor recommending an abortion because of the risk to the mother's life is doing just that. "If you go through with this pregnancy, you have a X% chance that you will die" for example. The doctor is recommending what is a good decision from a medical point of view. "I recommend that you have an abortion if you want to live."

I don't know that the ad is deceptive. I think it is reckless.

The ad ended up not mentioning anything about the abortion or the medical advice the family was given. It focused almost exclusively on the value of Tebow's life - so I don't think it was reckless. Interestingly, it looks like the makers of the ad were counting on the controversy, since otherwise a viewer would not even know what it's about. I didn't even realize what it was until it was over. So without the complaints from the groups upset about the ad, it is doubtful the ad would have succeeded (if it succeeded).

[ February 07, 2010, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Yes, the ad itself was pretty vague. if you go to the link in the ad however...

Well, see what you think.
 
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
I didn't even realize what it was until it was over. [/QB]

Exactly. I was expecting the woman to get tackled or something because there just wasn't any funny going on. We could barely hear what she was saying to have any idea that it was Pam Tebow. What finally clued me in was "Timmy, I'm trying to tell our story." After that, I was expecting it to be the first of a series of spots scattered through the game.
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
That was an entirely boring and uncontroversial ad.

Now the gay dating sites know what to do for next year. Just run a spot where a football player tackles some guy and then link to the website where the dudes are making out.
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
Man, forget the ad. What a game!
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2