posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
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!)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
And IMO, the moral claim is tenuous at best. People make their own decisions, and this is hardly brainwashing.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does seem like a peculiar angle. Most anti-abortion advocacy that I'm familiar with makes exceptions for medical necessity.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. As I said, business is business. The example they show is of a woman not heeding the advice of her doctor.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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'.)
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Can you be more specific and maybe provide some reference somewhere..???
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again mal- the issue was not that the baby was going to be deformed. It was that the mother was likely to die.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
