Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you noticed, at no point on this topic did I argue for or against abortion being legal or illegal. I'm trying to keep it about a group of people trying to censor a message they don't agree with. Since neither us nor these groups have seen the commercial, we can only assume what the message will be. Based upon his and her story, I assume it's a message of the result of her choosing to keep her baby. That's a choice. If they truly were pro-choice then they should have no problem with such a message. Instead they're fighting against the message while assuming it's a message to make abortion illegal. Even if it is a message urging to make abortion illegal,...making such a commercial isn't illegal either. Don't like the message? Pull your organizations' funds together and produce your own commercial with you own counter message. Pro-choice should mean providing all the options available so that the woman can make the decision for herself. Choices include no sex, birth control if she has sex (condoms and pills), aborting the baby, keeping the baby, or keeping the baby and giving it up for adoption.
Rita comes very close to the real issue. Certainly the producer has a right to create the ad and present it to CBS, who has the right to broadcast it, as long as it is within the rules of the FCC.
CBS might need to be concerned about someone asking for equal time to air an opposing viewpoint under the Fairness Doctrine. If that were to happen, would equal time be defined in terms of the cost of advertising time during the Super Bowl? Does this ad fall within the definitions of political statements that carry special rules for broadcasters? CBS has some very real concerns here that have nothing to do with whether they agree with the message in the ad.
I just don't understand why the Left gets their panties in a twist with a message of Life AND CHOICE.
Shouldn't this mother be celebrated for carrying her child to term, rejecting the doctors opinions (they were WRONG)?
If she would have listened to them, she would have aborted a perfectly healthy baby.
What exactly is your objection to the ad?
I'm at a loss why they are so spitting mad over an ad that might influence someone into not getting an abortion.
Running this ad does not require anyone to take actions that do not want to do, it does not require anyone to change the way they live their lives, it does not call for government to raise anyone's taxes, does not ask government to enact any new mandates to change the way we live our lives.
Meanwhile, every global warming ad on TV is an attempt to lobby the government to mandate new regulations and laws to change the way we live our lives, raise our taxes, change the cars and products we buy, and calls for government to spend our tax dollars on green energy.
I really have no problem with a TV ad that simply asks a woman to consider other options then abortion, when they find out they are pregnant.
You're right, I don't respect censorship of points of views you don't agree with.
Partial truth is bolded. Not everything in life is all about your pet issue, although your posting history speaks loudly. You've made a career of attacking women from your warped perspective. It's not possible for women to be right about anything for any reason in the world inside your head. Reality of the world speaks otherwise. You'd rather throw your sister in arms under a bus than defend as you would any other vet. That betrays a lack of self respect, and hiding behind a deep & noble principle for your own shallow self serving reasons.
Go ahead and reread your own thread. See my reasoning behind my objection. It has nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with invasive contentious issues assaulting the senses of joe public from every direction. I'd have equal problem if NOW put up their ad in exact same time slot. There was a time when rabbit ear tv had commercials to pay for programming, then cable came along boasting no commercials. Now we've got straight stream commercials everywhere, no 'free air' channels, and exorbitant fees for basic media source. Enough already.
This thread is moot because obviously they'll do whatever the hell they want, but my 2 cents says I'd rather not have billboards hung on the Popes behind, or school buses advertising to children what sneakers to wear. When every moment of silence human beings previously enjoyed is bustling with the clamor of ad men, when every inch of landscape you drive through for daily mundane tasks is visual bustling of ad men, you may find yourself regretting not hearing me out because your commitment to prejudices overrode reason.
Last edited by harborlady; 01-27-2010 at 05:34 PM..
So a network can choose a position, and choose the tone/ tenor of those positions to promote/ repel those positions. A license to influence is the new mission statement of 'media'. Accepting that as fact, there is free will to change the channel. The problem as I see it is when these media sources become so obnoxious that ALL channels are the agenda channel. They've collectively gotten further away from abiding principle of objectivity, and gone headlong into subjective with reckless abandon. I dislike the direction media has taken.
Focus on the Family will air a 30-second television spot featuring University of Florida star quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother Pam, during the Super Bowl Feb. 7.
The Colorado Springs-based media ministry shot the ad with the Tebows Tuesday in Orlando, Focus spokesman Gary Schneeberger said this morning. It is set to air before and then again during the CBS broadcast of the game from Dolphin Stadium near Miami, he said.
Tebow and his mother will share one of their many personal family-affirming stories, Schneeberger said, but he wouldn't reveal which one. One such story could be her decision to carry him to term despite a life-threatening pregnancy in the Philippines where she and her husband Bob were serving as Christian missionaries.
The 2007 Heisman Trophy winner, known for being home-schooled, winning an NCAA championship and wearing Bible verse citations inscribed in his game-day eye black, agreed to appear in the ad because the issue of life is one he and his family feel strongly about, Schneeberger said.
Another sick, bigoted organization being given recognition they don't deserve. Just one more reason for gays and lesbians to not support homophobic, anti-gay professional sports, like football.
Oh really, that theems tho harsh!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
