"They disagree with what you say, and fight to the end to censor it. More evidence of "liberal" tolerance."

so you'd be ok if al qaeda bought super bowl commercial time to spread their message?

or what if the kkk wanted air time durring the superbowl?

what was wrong with the wardrobe malfunction that conservatives wanted to censor?

I am sure the NFL will cave in and will pull the ad. A couple of months ago when there was theis issue of Rush vs. the NFl someone made the pont that in the 1993 they aired (due to pressure from feminist groups) psas about domestic violence during the superbowl. Apparently they weren't too concerned about politics in that ocassion, where they?

It seems to me that fminists have shown their true colors, they are not really pro-choice, they are pro-abortion. Chosing to keep a baby is a choice too. But the only choice they approve of is aborting it. What sad pathetic people they are.

I am unaware of anyone, liberal or conservative, who wanted to see that pathetic sagger Jackson flashed.
So in your insular fantasy, to be pro-life is the same as belonging to the KKK? That is the essence of the problem. The left believes in "free speech" but then condemns anyone who disagrees as "fanatics" who don't merit the right to speak.
If CAIR or AIPAC want to buy ads let them. They represent the radicals, don't they?

"It seems to me that fminists have shown their true colors, they are not really pro-choice, they are pro-abortion. Chosing to keep a baby is a choice too. But the only choice they approve of is aborting it. What sad pathetic people they are."

What the hell are you talking about? I've never met anyone who "pushes" abortion. I've never even heard of that, except from "pro-life" fantasists.

Why the hate, man?

And by the by, the NFL is free to say "fuck off." Censorship--I think some of you need to look up that word.

No one pushes abortion? I guess those abortion clinics really want no business but are forced to take money to kill the kids.
And the NFL or a network has the right to refuse an ad. It's the feminists who are trying to suppress thought here.

I guess those abortion clinics really want no business but are forced to take money

So by being open they are "pushing" abortions?

Like a bar is pushing alcoholism. McDonalds is "pushing" obesity.

Why is it freedom of speech when the pro-lifers protest against pro-choice groups and organizations, or when religious groups protest what they see as indecent behavior on TV, but this is censorship.

Ooooops, your hippocracy is showing.

"No one pushes abortion? I guess those abortion clinics really want no business but are forced to take money to kill the kids."

Really? They push it? They force people to have abortions? They have ads? Kids? What kids? Oh, you mean fetuses. Gotcha. Yeah, killing a bundle of cells is awful. (I can be reductive just like you!)

"And the NFL or a network has the right to refuse an ad. It's the feminists who are trying to suppress thought here."

Um, no. Trying to point out what they see as a problem. How do you feel about conservatives speaking out against indecency? Are they suppressing thought?

+++++

"Why is it freedom of speech when the pro-lifers protest against pro-choice groups and organizations, or when religious groups protest what they see as indecent behavior on TV, but this is censorship. "

Who are you talking to? It's all freedom of speech, those protests. Anyone who says it's not is stupid. People can protest whatever the fuck they want. The networks will decide based on profit projections which protestors they will respond to. Typically, sex and violence sell, so that indecency is not going to go away. A pro-life PSA should be just as allowable on air as a pro-choice PSA (God, I hate those terms). Content and context mean everything.

Well schmanch, it would be censorship if it is not allowed to be spoken freely now wouldn't it?

As they said, the ad will surprise a lot of people. Just let it air, you don't want to see it, don't watch it.

I say that same to the other side. You don't like it, don't watch it, no one is making you do anything.
'
When someone starts making people have abortions, then I can see the cause for the outrage, otherwise share your opinions civilly about whether you personally think that abortion is good or bad and why.

You can't make other people do what is right or wrong. People are rarely made to do something against their will. There is always another choice to take.

Why is anyone afraid of a commercial? Do they think someone who was considering an abortion might change their mind based on what Tim Tebow says? And even if they did - is that bad?

Would they have run and ad showing an orphan who's mother died because of a risky pregnancy? I don't think so.

If no one pushes abortion, why are they upset at the ad? Is this any different than Obama telling men to stip on Father's Day? This is why you'll never see Obama make a similar speech on Mother's Day telling women to CHOOSE to keep their babies instead of abortion, taht would be considered and intrusion of government. And yet everyone, right and left, applauded Obama for his STUPID Father's Day speech. Obama has Father issues. Maybe he should get PROFESSIONAL HELP instead of working out his demons on public.

Tebow is doing more to stimulate the economy with this ad than Obama did with $783B.

#11, Joe, that is precisely the point. Feminists aren't really pro-choice, the are abortin pushers.

Why is anyone afraid of a commercial?

No clue.

Would they have run and ad showing an orphan who's mother died because of a risky pregnancy?

Cash is king. Why don't you try to raise enough cash do get something like that on the air?

"Feminists aren't really pro-choice, the are abortin pushers."

What a disgusting lie. Feminists believe it is an individual woman's choice and that TV commercials like this one are for one purpose, to encourage lawmakers to outlaw a woman's right to choose to seek an abortion. Feminists have children, they also have female children who they want to have rights over their own bodies.

in that comercial was tebow going to cry some more or just whine? what a loser

TAxman, my argument isn't that the commercial should be censored but just that CBS is hypocritical and wouldn't decide fairly if the question were reversed.

One more reason to avoid the Super Bowl. Two corporations competing doesn't interest me.

my argument isn't that the commercial should be censored but just that CBS is hypocritical and wouldn't decide fairly if the question were reversed.

And your argument is based entirely on speculation. All we have before us is a commercial they are (at the moment) going to show. There is no evidence that they would not show your hypothetical commercial.

wouldn't decide fairly if the question were reversed.

I am not so sure about that. If a pro-choice group had the cash and wanted to run a spot right after the Tebow spot CBS would gladly take the cash and run the spot.

#18

Here is a radical idea, instead of trying to ban a commercial, why not put out a commercial of your own encouraging lawmakers to keep abortion legal? This is what we like to call FREE SPEECH. Look it up. To combat free speech from one side, you use your own free speech. Pretty simple.

Have any of those upset about this ad actually SEEN it yet?

No reasonable person on either side of the abortion debate would be bothered if the message were simply, "Not aborting is better than aborting", which from every description I've read is basically what the add will convey. Tebow's mother considered abortion. She opted against it. Tebow appreciates it.

Disagree with that message- reasonable.

Be bothered by that message- unreasonable.

"TV commercials like this one are for one purpose, to encourage lawmakers to outlaw a woman's right to choose to seek an abortion."

Or perhaps this commercial is intended to encourage viewers to choose to give birth, rather than abort.

Not everything is a conspiracy, and not everybody on the other side of the issue is some evil, anti-freedom woman hater.

For that matter, even most of those who believe abortion should be outlawed aren't evil, anti-freedom woman haters. They just have a different perspective on what abortion is.

Disagree with 'em all day and all night, but grow up.

you do have the freedom of speech as long as you have the politically correct opinion

"psas about domestic violence during the superbowl. Apparently they weren't too concerned about politics in that ocassion, where they?"

And Member, which political party is actually pro-domestic violence? We know Republicans vote pro-rape, but does that support include simple wife beatings, too? Or are you just making up shit as usual?

they accept wife beating as well. it is the birth right of a conservtive male.

Feminists aren't really pro-choice, the are abortin pushers.

Since a majority of Americans support abortion at some level, and only a small minority oppose abortion under any circumstance, does that mean Americans are abortion pushers?

Leftie censors. They disagree with what you say, and fight to the end to censor it. More evidence of "liberal" tolerance.

A Southern California school board has pulled the Merriam-Webster dictionary off its shelves after a parent complained about the entry "oral sex."

The collegiate-level dictionary was being used in grade four and five classrooms. The school now promises to begin a thorough scouring of the dictionary for other offensive entries.

"It's hard to sit and read the dictionary, but we'll be looking to find other things of a graphic nature," Menifee Union School District spokesperson Betti Cadmus told the local The Press-Enterprise newspaper.

Merriam-Webster defines oral sex as "oral stimulation of the genitals."

The dictionaries were originally intended for use by children working at advanced reading levels. Now the California town, pop. 70,000, looks like the staging ground for a First Amendment battle.

"If a public school were to remove every book because it contains one word deemed objectionable to some parent, then there would be no books at all in our public libraries," said Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, told The Press-Enterprise. "I think common sense seems to be lacking in this school."

two comments on your post/ 1. dont give the gov of california any ideas, he will shut down all libraries. 2. so did the dictionary sat this oral sex was a good thing or a bad thing? sounds like a good thing to me

they accept wife beating as well. it is the birth right of a conservtive male.

#29 | Posted by Georgeisadrunk at 2010-01-26 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Really? Really? You want to go there? Broad brush mis-informed asshole? Cause you are pro abortion I bet you want to eat babies and suck their stem cells out to keep you young forever.

So by being open they are "pushing" abortions?

Like a bar is pushing alcoholism. McDonalds is "pushing" obesity.

How sad? Millions of Americans go to bars and drink responsibly and don't abuse alcohol. Just because you go to MCDonald's doesn't mean you are obese. You see some people exercise and can eat all the red meat they want.

Calling for a media organization to censor an ad based on its viewpoint is wrong. The ad should be aired, along with any other issue ad that's purchased.

The only problem I have with the Tebow ad is the fact that CBS and other networks have rejected liberal issue ads in the past. The same rules should apply to all.

The only problem I have with the Tebow ad is the fact that CBS and other networks have rejected liberal issue ads in the past.

Really, I never knew that. It does add a wrinkle; however, now would be an opportune time for a group to buy a spot counter to the Tebow ad. There is no way CBS could turn them down.

so you'd be ok if al qaeda bought super bowl commercial time to spread their message?

or what if the kkk wanted air time durring the superbowl?

#1 | Posted by klifferd at 2010-01-26 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ah yes, the libtard comparisons of anti-abortion ads to al qaeda and kkk. Congratulations Kliff - you are on your way to HERM territory when it comes to fucked up thinking concerning baby killing.

No one likes or wants abortions... it's a sad result of human's being irresponsible and not being properly educated... I think we're all guilty of having unprotected sex at one time or another. The problem is with making something illegal when there is obviously a demand for it. Like any prohibition, if there is a demand, a market will develop to provide a means to deliver the service/product. Doesn't anyone remember 'coat-hanger' abortions which I believe were quite common prior to R v W.

I haven't seen the add, so I can't judge the commercial... the right has religious fervor on it's side of the debate which is difficult to compete with, while the left has logic and reason... which isn't quite as motivating. So I don't think you'll see the same money spent for a super-bowl add from the other side. The only card to play may be to protest on the grounds of controversy during a non-political event. Certainly this is not 'censorship'. Is it censorship whenever Orielly or Beck call for some boycott on a particular brand or company based on political differences?

The county is so divided already... is it in good taste to run a polarizing add during a feel-good event?

concerning baby killing

If that's what it was, you'd have a reason to complain. Nobody is snatching kids out of the crib, though. They're scraping the wall of the uterus.

" haven't seen the add, so I can't judge the commercial... the right has religious fervor on it's side of the debate which is difficult to compete with, while the left has logic and reason"

Riiiiiigggght.

Such as those logical, reasonable individuals who compare Tim Tebow saying he's glad his mother didn't abort him to Al Qaeda and the KKK.

There are logical, reasonable arguments to be made against legalized abortion, and for it.

Perhaps if people stopped pretending their "side" had all the good, smart people and the other "side" had all the morons and troglodytes, the issue might be discussed calmly someday.

A woman has the right to decide what to do with her body. Thus, they have the right to NOT watch that ad when it runs!

The only problem I have with the Tebow ad is the fact that CBS and other networks have rejected liberal issue ads in the past. The same rules should apply to all.

#35 | Posted by rcade at 2010-01-26 01:51 PM | Reply

I'd have to assume they've rejected Conservative Issue Ads as well. So it appears as the same rules do apply.

Regardless, it's not about which side of the political spectrum the content falls, it's about the content itself.

And seriously, kliff and danni have the 2 dumbest fucking takes on this subject, by far.

...they aired (due to pressure from feminist groups) psas about domestic violence during the superbowl. Apparently they weren't too concerned about politics in that ocassion, where they?

Gosh, sounds like the pro-domestic violence lobby was caught flat-footed!

It seems to me that fminists have shown their true colors, they are not really pro-choice, they are pro-abortion. -- #2 | Posted by member2586

Well, your views are evolving. Usually you accuse them of soaking the fathers for child support.

Would they have run and ad showing an orphan who's mother died because of a risky pregnancy? I don't think so.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2010-01-26 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am sure the mother would have opted to have the childs life saved in lieu of her own - unless she was a used up, one time heterosexual, libtard. In that case, she would have nuked the kid and moved on to more serious endevours like carpet munching.

I really can't believe your a parent dummi. It boggles the mind. Is HERM the father? Just asking cause the two of you place the same value on life. ZERO.

Have any of those upset about this ad actually SEEN it yet?

No reasonable person on either side of the abortion debate would be bothered if the message were simply, "Not aborting is better than aborting", which from every description I've read is basically what the add will convey. Tebow's mother considered abortion. She opted against it. Tebow appreciates it.

Disagree with that message- reasonable.

Be bothered by that message- unreasonable.

#25 | Posted by ken_schwartz

Thanks for some sanity.

...it would be censorship if it is not allowed to be spoken freely now wouldn't it? -- #9 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Not in this case. CBS is a private corporation, not the government. It may choose not to air the ad, but it does have a choice, and it doesn't appear that the government is involved at all.

Well, your views are evolving. Usually you accuse them of soaking the fathers for child support.

#43 | Posted by Phoenix

If a woman doesn't want to be a mother, she can abor. If a man doesn't want to be a father, they still go after him for child support. You explain to me how that makes sense, how the first is revered and the second is discouraged refered to as being a "deadbeat."

It Roe vs Wade goes away tomorrow I could care less. At least it would even out the playing field.

Mrs Tebow was advised by a doctor that she should CHOOSE to have an abortion to save her own life .. She thought about it and CHOSE to keep her baby. What part of the story is not pro-choice? Oh yeah.. the part where she didnt kill her baby.. if pro-abortion people were really "pro-choice", they would want to hear about both types of "choices"

Advocate for killing a baby and you're reasonable, advocate against killing a baby and you're a right-wing nutjob

tao fraud. if i dont agree with you , I am pro abortion . you are a total idiot and have fallen out of the tree. grow up....fool

The incipient guilt by those railing against the AD is palpable.

"Riiiiiigggght.

Such as those logical, reasonable individuals who compare Tim Tebow saying he's glad his mother didn't abort him to Al Qaeda and the KKK."

did you read the rest of the post? I'm not saying the right lacks logic and reason... but they have religious reasons to back their position, which means they are emotionally tied to the issue.

I 'think' that this is less of an emotional issue for the left... because most will agree that abortion is a terrible thing! however, it's a right that needs to be protected... because the alternative, which is making abortion illegal is worse.

Why is anyone afraid of a commercial?

It is not a commercial. It is propaganda by Focus on the Family.

Focus on the Family seeks to deny civil rights to Americans. This should infuriate good Americans but it seems that the Christian Right is overjoyed by the money being spent to do this.

Dobson claims to have the welfare of children in mind but has caused more harm than good. Several suicides have been directly attributed to his teachings.

If this "commercial" would be informative and balanced in it's approach to family planning then I would see no harm. But, to give a distorted one-sided message regarding abortion is harmful and should rejected. There are times when abortion IS ill advised just as there are times when abortion is the best choice.

Regardless, women should have that choice.

But, hey, he who has the money makes the rules right?

Can't wait to see the new and improved propaganda from the unlimited spending of corporations in the next election.

I think the terms pro-choice and pro-life are stupid, when it comes down to it, they are both involving a choice.

Maybe they can call it the one-choice, better-choice debate, or the
con-choice, pro-choice debate.

or the "do or die" debate

Mrs Tebow was advised by a doctor that she should CHOOSE to have an abortion to save her own life .. She thought about it and CHOSE to keep her baby. What part of the story is not pro-choice? Oh yeah.. the part where she didnt kill her baby.. if pro-abortion people were really "pro-choice", they would want to hear about both types of "choices"

#48 | Posted by Godisfemale

Excellent Socratic logic and reasoning!

#39 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-26 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ignoring the murder aspect of partial birth abortion after 24 weeks - here is a child at 23 weeks - not considered a partial birth abortion.

The Fminists angry at this ad are the ones who ravidly hate Sarah Palin for chosing to have a Dow Syndrome Baby. It's not a choice they approve of.

Calling for a media organization to censor an ad based on its viewpoint is wrong. -- #35 | Posted by rcade

So you want to censor groups who protest ads?

should have said "sometimes" causes more harm than good.

I hope someday abortion is looked upon the way we look back upon slavery today.

Why is anyone afraid of a commercial?

It is not a commercial. It is propaganda by Focus on the Family.

Focus on the Family seeks to deny civil rights to Americans. This should infuriate good Americans but it seems that the Christian Right is overjoyed by the money being spent to do this.

Dobson claims to have the welfare of children in mind but has caused more harm than good. Several suicides have been directly attributed to his teachings.

If this "commercial" would be informative and balanced in it's approach to family planning then I would see no harm. But, to give a distorted one-sided message regarding abortion is harmful and should rejected. There are times when abortion IS ill advised just as there are times when abortion is the best choice.

Regardless, women should have that choice.

But, hey, he who has the money makes the rules right?

Can't wait to see the new and improved propaganda from the unlimited spending of corporations in the next election.

#52 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-01-26 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Women get to make the choice to have sex, after that, their choices dwindle a little bit. They can choose to have an abortion, but I think it should be only if the boyfriend, or husband also makes that choice. Even then, without any medical reason for the abortion, I think the child's rights, or inevitable rights should overrule the woman's rights as she gave them up when she chose to have sex.

Another thing to think about on top of the child support issue. Why if there are two parties to make a child, women get to dictate the outcome of that child's life, even if the father of the child is willing to adopt, raise and support the child?

I don't think that is quite right. What about the stress of the father in seeing their child that they accept being murdered by a woman who does not want them to have the child? So much for individual and civil rights...

#52 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-01-26 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dumbass with access to 'puter and internet.

Regardless, women should have that choice.

#52 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-01-26 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree, a woman should have every right to keep her legs crossed and not have the chance to become pregnant. - There, I am pro-choice.

Maybe they can call it the one-choice, better-choice debate, or the
con-choice, pro-choice debate.

If the Christian Right is successful in their campaign there will be NO CHOICE.

So, it should be NO CHOICE vs Pro-Choice.

The Christians would have you believe that pro-choice means anti-life.

That is why it is propaganda. No one I know is anti-life.

it would be nice to see the commercial. If CBS caves, so be it. They are allowed to do what they want, and groups - provided they aren't govt. agents - can pressure all they want.

if the pro-choicers win out, this commercial will have more legs on the internet and other sources than it would have had if it was simply aired.

this is not a censorship issue. everyone should breathe deeply.

There, I am pro-choice.

#62 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

And every man should take responsibility for his actions. Wouldn't that be nice too?

I want them to run that KFC ad that the Australians were running.

One white man with a bucket of KFC was able to calm a rowdy (somehow black fans celebrating at a game are likened to a rowdy/riotous crowd...) horde of blacks.

This is a serious request..

Can somebody who believes in God and is pro-abortion-choice tell me..why?

I really want to know

Dumbass with access to 'puter and internet.

#61 | Posted by midtowncowboy at 2010-01-26 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag: World famous for self retorting retorts

If this "commercial" would be informative and balanced in it's approach to family planning then I would see no harm.

No commercial gives an "informative, balanced" view on anything. The entire purpose of a commercial is to spread your particular viewpoint and/or influence someone to make a particular decision.

Issue-oriented election commercials typically offer a one-sided view of the issue to get the viewer to feel a certain way about a particular candidate. Are those ads "harmful?"

Burger King commercials present the one-sided view that their burgers are delicious. Is that harmful?

Don't be such a fucking pussy. Commercials are not "harmful" because in the end your decision to act is your own decision. And short of advocating violence or physical harm (which is, ironically, the exact opposite of what this ad promotes), networks should be allowed to air whatever the fuck they want without pansies like you whining about it.

this is not a censorship issue. everyone should breathe deeply.

#64 | Posted by somoco at 2010-01-26 02:25 PM | Reply | BullShit Flag.

That is why it is propaganda. No one I know is anti-life.

#63 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2010-01-26 02:24 PM | REPLY | FLAG

that's a little bit of a cop-out. it really boils down to the same old question - when does life begin? spare me any answer please, there are arguments on all sides of that one...

"I'm not saying the right lacks logic and reason... but they have religious reasons to back their position, which means they are emotionally tied to the issue."

You said the right has religion and emotion, the left has logic and reason. I pointed out to you that both sides have logic and reason, and both sides have emotion.

I'm neither religious nor conservative, but I oppose legalized abortion.

"I 'think' that this is less of an emotional issue for the left..."

And having had this conversation with many, many liberals, I "think" the left tends to be every bit as emotional on this issue. Witness the fools blaming ALL pro-life groups for the murder of George Tiller. Witness the fools on this site comparing pro-lifers to the KKK.

Sorry, but there's no preponderance of sense or stupidity on either side.

And every man should take responsibility for his actions. Wouldn't that be nice too?

#65 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-01-26 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ok, the man takes responsibility for his actions and the woman's irresponsibility in terms of desiring to adopt, raise and support the child. The woman, only 1/3 of the equation, not a majority decides to exterminate the child of the two people. Why don't the man's rights count for anything?

#70. Censorship can only come from the govt. It's not like the FCC is trying to stop this. Go to school, get some learning.

"Dobson claims to have the welfare of children in mind but has caused more harm than good. Several suicides have been directly attributed to his teachings."

I would love to see documentation of that.

And every man should take responsibility for his actions. Wouldn't that be nice too?

#65 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-01-26 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

At last, we agree on something. Goes against your libtard agenda though. Responsibility for their actions does not equal entitlement programs/welfare/free health care.... I could go on all day.

I hope someday abortion is looked upon the way we look back upon slavery today.

#59 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

Look back??? There are slaves from Asia currently working in sweat shops all across America. Maybe the snakeheads will let them go once he has worked them to old age but nevertheless they are slaves.

There will always be opposition to abortion as long as partial birth abortion is supported by liberals. Hopefully someday pro abortion activists can be arrested for felony murder. RICO would be a good start

I think the child's rights, or inevitable rights should overrule the woman's rights as she gave them up when she chose to have sex.

Nice. Children ALREADY do have rights by law. When is a child a child again? A fetus is not a child. So maybe you should work on defining that and apply the law accordingly. Too bad we can just sit down and work that out. Just like too bad we can't just sit down and work out a reasonable solution to health care in America. See a pattern yet? I do.

"Feminists believe it is an individual woman's choice ...right to choose to seek an abortion."
#18 | Posted by danni

As long ad the woman puts family second and are pro-abortion as well as pro liberal then and only then the feminists support that person. See any of Clinton's victims, Palin et al.

Goes against your libtard agenda though.

My "Libtard Agenda" is an illusion created in your head.

Nice. Children ALREADY do have rights by law. When is a child a child again? A fetus is not a child. So maybe you should work on defining that and apply the law accordingly. Too bad we can just sit down and work that out. Just like too bad we can't just sit down and work out a reasonable solution to health care in America. See a pattern yet? I do.

#79 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-01-26 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

What about the fathers rights? They want the child to be born, and raised and supported by them. It is their child, technically the mother would be murdering their child unless there is a medical reason for the abortion.

I don't think that is fair to do to the father.

want them to run that KFC ad that the Australians were running.

One white man with a bucket of KFC was able to calm a rowdy (somehow black fans celebrating at a game are likened to a rowdy/riotous crowd...) horde of blacks.

#66 | Posted by 101Chairborne

They don't have the problems with PC we do.---talked to an American that spent 9 years in Aussie land and asked her about PC. She mentioned they don't have a problem over there with it---said they watch the stupidity with PC and other movements in our country and go the other way.

#74 | Posted by somoco at 2010-01-26 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

The national coalition of women's groups is attempting to suppress another persons right to express their views. Instead of attempting to intimidate CBS, they should welcome the debate and purchase time on their $$$ to spread their message.

All the pro-choice groups could get together and do an ad with women telling their stories on how they are really happy..with..their..aborted baby

"No reasonable person on either side of the abortion debate would be bothered if the message were simply, "Not aborting is better than aborting", which from every description I've read is basically what the add will convey. Tebow's mother considered abortion. She opted against it. Tebow appreciates it. "

And if she had opted to have it, he wouldn't have an opinion.

+++++

"you do have the freedom of speech as long as you have the politically correct opinion"

Oh, fuck off. No, I"m not censoring you. Who is _censoring_ your politically incorrect opinion?

+++++

"The Fminists angry at this ad are the ones who ravidly hate Sarah Palin for chosing to have a Dow Syndrome Baby. It's not a choice they approve of."

I have never heard anyone express anger toward Palin for that choice. I have heard people express that they find it interesting that she said "we thought about it and chose..." or words to that effect. See, she thought about it. Means abortion is a choice.

+++++

"Commercials are not "harmful" because in the end your decision to act is your own decision."

Boy oh boy. I don't have time to get into this huge argument. But it has to do with the cumulative nature of messages in ads. Ah, hell, go take a media literacy course. Our decisions to act are seldom entirely our own decisions. Really. Think about it.

ore liberal censorship:
When Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so," he must have had the city of Nashville in mind.

Toronto's Classical Theatre Project presented Romeo and Juliet in the capital of Tennessee to an enthusiastic audience of 1,000 students and teachers Monday afternoon, but the performance was almost derailed Sunday night by a group of self-appointed censors who found the Bard of Avon a bit too racy for Music City, U.S.A.

David Galpern, artistic director of the theatre company, was taken aback when confronted with requests for a series of cuts to Shakespeare's text and a general "toning down" of the bawdier elements in the show.
Danielle Moffitt, 18, from Goodpasture Christian School, said, "The sexuality was a good thing, the way they addressed it openly back then, not like now."

On the flip side, a woman who identified herself as Val, a home-school teacher from Hermitage, "struggled being here with my son. The sexuality was too much. Our children need to be more pure."

Several other teachers echoed her opinion.

Why don't the man's rights count for anything?

#73 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

actually a very good point and has been debated since the Roman Empire. Too bad we will never be able to work that one out either. We can even decide when life begins as pointed out above.

Again there is a pattern and it seems to me to always point back to religion. If we could keep religion out of it we probably could work it out. Don't see that happening in my lifetime.

"Our children need to be more pure."

Than Elizabethan England?

Hello?

agree, a woman should have every right to keep her legs crossed and not have the chance to become pregnant. - There, I am pro-choice.

#62 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-01-26 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:Has seen a lot of crossed legs.

and Godisawoman-where in the Bible does it say life begins at conception? and why does God abort 1/3 of all pregnancies?

Got a simple question for all the anti-choice folks out there-your wife or daughter is raped by an alqueda terrorist and impregnated. She is in a coma and will die if she carries the fetus to term, but the baby will live. Or you can abort and save her life. You saving the woman or little Osama? Yeah, its a stretch, but you should all be able to answer honestly, bye bye wife or daughter, hello little terrorist.

"Our decisions to act are seldom entirely our own decisions"

Interesting. So you would agree with those who believe that women who choose abortion may not always be doing so with a full consideration of their decision?

Why don't the man's rights count for anything?

#73 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Not only is religion a problem as pointed out above, but also the fact that we live in a welfare state. The man has no say-so, yet is hounded like a criminal to get the child support. Otherwise, it would be the state that has to pay for the child's support. It's very simple really. Many of the problems we have boil down to economics.

But it has to do with the cumulative nature of messages in ads. Ah, hell, go take a media literacy course. Our decisions to act are seldom entirely our own decisions. Really. Think about it.

EXACTLY!

Don't think all those commercials about drugs are affecting you?

And it will only get worse with the new and improved corporate propaganda that is about to be unleashed upon us all.

Get a DVR!

All the pro-choice groups could get together and do an ad with women telling their stories on how they are really happy..with..their..aborted baby

#86 | Posted by Godisfemale at 2010-01-26 02:37 PM | Reply |

Has anyone watched the HSBC commerical where the black lady says "I didn't want to be a mom. It took me three months to love him."?

I can't believe there wasn't more made of that awful campaign.

"Got a simple question for all the anti-choice folks out there-your wife or daughter is raped by an alqueda terrorist and impregnated. She is in a coma and will die if she carries the fetus to term, but the baby will live. Or you can abort and save her life. You saving the woman or little Osama? Yeah, its a stretch, but you should all be able to answer honestly, bye bye wife or daughter, hello little terrorist."

So, it's your opinion that terrorism is a genetic thing, and the progeny of a terrorist can only become a terrorist?

Ah, hell, go take a media literacy course. Our decisions to act are seldom entirely our own decisions. Really. Think about it.

#87 | Posted by pragmatist at 2010-01-26 02:37 PM | Reply

Take your own advice. Unless the commercial has a frequency of "3" you're barking up the wrong tree.

#89

I think if both sides were not so polarized things would work out more. All I see is a bunch of people backing republican issues or pro life issues and then killing thousands of Iraqi's and afghanistani's and a bunch of people backing democratic issues about treating people right better and according to all men are created equal, while putting restrictions on specific men to pay for or support another group against their will.

Same problem, different letters.

You join that far too often for me to take your sincerity or concern as being honest

Someone should write a book:

A Kingdom Divided: A polarized nation. The book would discuss the different avenues that American has been polarized, i.e through media, politics, two party systems, emotionalism, arrogance on both sides. etc.

Got a simple question for all the anti-choice folks out there-your wife or daughter is raped by an alqueda terrorist and impregnated. She is in a coma and will die if she carries the fetus to term, but the baby will live.

This calls for Jack Bauer! Water Torture! Any kind of Torture! We must stop the nuclear attack!

Oops wrong senario...sorry.

Why don't the man's rights count for anything?

#73 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Not only is religion a problem as pointed out above, but also the fact that we live in a welfare state. The man has no say-so, yet is hounded like a criminal to get the child support. Otherwise, it would be the state that has to pay for the child's support. It's very simple really. Many of the problems we have boil down to economics.

#93 | Posted by member2586 at

he had say so when he blew his load. Unless the man is being forced to come he has all the rights in the world. Once a fetus is conceived he now has responsibilities, get it?

This is what we like to call FREE SPEECH. Look it up. To combat free speech from one side, you use your own free speech. Pretty simple.

#24 | Posted by member2586

This is an excellent example where expression is only accessible to those who can afford it. Check the price of a Super Bowl ad...hardly "FREE".

Got a simple question for all the anti-choice folks out there-your wife or daughter is raped by an alqueda terrorist and impregnated. She is in a coma and will die if she carries the fetus to term, but the baby will live. Or you can abort and save her life.

Obviously the answer is to Invade Yemen.

#100

The women also had say so (unless raped) and yet she is allow to abort instaed of stepping up and being a women and keeping the kid. Double standards they call it. When or if Roe vs Wade is struck down, then I have no problem with men being hounded for child support. Until then, I will not support this sexist double standard.

"This is an excellent example where expression is only accessible to those who can afford it. Check the price of a Super Bowl ad...hardly "FREE"."

Because NARAL and Planned Parenthood have no money to spend? That's a new argument.

#101

Typical Liberalism, because not everyone has the same access to reasources, no one should have access to any resources.

I think if both sides were not so polarized things would work out more...You join that far too often for me to take your sincerity or concern as being honest

You need to examime your own affiliations. The Rethugs and the Christian Right are what caused this great divide. The Bush years caused more of a divide in America than I have seen in my entire life. That life included the Vietnam era and Nixon.

I would say that the Republican Party and the Christian Right and in particular the Fundamentalists in this country have forced this polarization and it has nearly destroyed America. Not sure if we will ever recover. But, that just is my opinion. I am going to a Democratic rally now to try plan a way to take back our country from the extremists...good luck to you!

-D

"Got a simple question for all the anti-choice folks out there-your wife or daughter is raped by an alqueda terrorist and impregnated. She is in a coma and will die if she carries the fetus to term, but the baby will live. Or you can abort and save her life"

Fucking stupid hypotheticals, so lets play:

Say you are a crack head lib and your two bit ho girlfriend gets knocked up and you beat the shit outta her until she gets an abortion. Later on you find out the kid would've been like an autoimmune Rain Man and cured HIV, would you still of beat yo bitch until she aborted?

I'm prochoice with the best of um but ultra-fucking-stupid-never-
happen hypothetical are not a form of arguement, they are an admission that you cannot come up with an arguement so you need to pull someting all stinky out of your ass and present it as a thought out arguement.

argh!

#106

Take back the country? Are you seriou? You guys have like 250+ seats in the Hous, 59 in the Senate, and the Wh and you are acting like the minority party? Give me a break. Luckily for us, Dems always fight amongsts themselves.

donnerboy is the best example I can think of to keep pot illegal.
Jesus H Christ, you are seriously fucking stupid.

The assumption is that because I believe in God, I follow whats in the Bible. I dont look to the Bible to tell me whether or not God is OK with abortions or when life begins or any other argument for/against abortions. The assumption is also that anybody who believes in God also believes that God is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens EVERYWHERE.. that's kinda silly.. if God could stop a hurricane, wouldnt She? If God could keep a baby alive, wouldnt She? Here's a crazy idea.. maybe stuff just..happens

#109

Nullifidian is another example. I am thic close to changing my position (currently pro-legalization) jubt because I am thinking that pot is not as harmless as they say.

#74 | Posted by somoco at 2010-01-26 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:
The national coalition of women's groups is attempting to suppress another persons right to express their views. Instead of attempting to intimidate CBS, they should welcome the debate and purchase time on their $$$ to spread their message.

#85 | POSTED BY MIDTOWNCOWBOY AT 2010-01-26 02:36 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I suppress other people's views all the time. If my kids want to swear or say they hate me, God, or the kid down the street - I have the right to suppress their views IMMEDIATELY. It's my right as a parent, and, people may think it's wrong - fuck 'em.

If I get someone calling my business trying to sell me some shit I don't want - they don't get 2 words out before I politely tell them I'm not interested. If someone wants to advertise through my business, and I don't like their hair color, teeth, or if I think they are too fat, too liberal, too conservative, tatted up, smoke, or their breath smells - I'll tell them to take a hike.

If the 500 club gets a call to have a pro-choice commercial played, they will tell the group to pound sand. WTF is wrong with that?

If FCC says you can't show the deal, that's different. That's censorship. I believe, however, we still have rights as private business owners to not allow things that upset us or our customer base.

CBS runs a risk of some loony-lefties boycotting if they run it, and run a risk of some loony-righties boycotting if they don't. Big Fat Hairy Deal. CBS is not in business to provide a fair fight forum for advertisers - it's in business to make money. The lefties are applying pressure in the best way they know how and shouldn't have to buy air time to air their views if they think they are more effective in some other way.

It'll be interesting to see it plays out, but you shouldn't really get your Constitutional panties in a bunch over it.

You need to examime your own affiliations. The Rethugs and the Christian Right are what caused this great divide. The Bush years caused more of a divide in America than I have seen in my entire life.

#106 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2010-01-26 02:52 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Wrong. Obama and the left is causing a bigger divide than Bush could have ever caused. Take a look dude. The country doesn't want the health care bill and more reckless spending, but your folks are gonna ram it down their throats anyway. Your post is comical.

Is this really an issue? Who loses here? Is it a future mother who was considering abortion and then decides against it? What does she lose exactly?

I swear some people just look to complain about something simply to complain. Theres no logic at all behind it. So what if CBS declined ads of similar nature from "the other side" of political spectrum. Last I checked they owned their own TV stations and could put the content of their choosing on it. If its offensive enough for you to orchestrate some sort of boycott. Go for it. Because the rest of us will enjoy the super bowl, commercials and all.

"Is this really an issue? Who loses here? Is it a future mother who was considering abortion and then decides against it? What does she lose exactly?

I swear some people just look to complain about something simply to complain. Theres no logic at all behind it. So what if CBS declined ads of similar nature from "the other side" of political spectrum. Last I checked they owned their own TV stations and could put the content of their choosing on it. If its offensive enough for you to orchestrate some sort of boycott. Go for it. Because the rest of us will enjoy the super bowl, commercials and all."

That right there? The best post in the thread.

I'd have to assume they've rejected Conservative Issue Ads as well. So it appears as the same rules do apply.

That makes no sense, Chair. CBS has rejected liberal issue ads on the grounds that they are too political. They are allowing this ad. That's two different sets of rules.

So you want to censor groups who protest ads?

No one is stopping these groups from protesting the ad.

That makes no sense, Chair. CBS has rejected liberal issue ads on the grounds that they are too political. They are allowing this ad. That's two different sets of rules.

#116 | Posted by rcade at 2010-01-26 03:15 PM | Reply

What are you talking about? Are you trying to tell me that CBS has never rejected a conservative ad, and they only reject liberal ads?

BTW, what in this commercial makes it political?

You need to examime your own affiliations. The Rethugs and the Christian Right are what caused this great divide. The Bush years caused more of a divide in America than I have seen in my entire life. That life included the Vietnam era and Nixon.

I would say that the Republican Party and the Christian Right and in particular the Fundamentalists in this country have forced this polarization and it has nearly destroyed America. Not sure if we will ever recover. But, that just is my opinion. I am going to a Democratic rally now to try plan a way to take back our country from the extremists...good luck to you!

-D

#106 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-01-26 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Donner, you are wrong on two accounts,

1. I am not a conservative nor a republican, nor do I support them
2. I am not a Christian extremist, nor are all Christians extremists.

You like to generalize when things aren't going your way. Just because the one side is doing something wrong does not make it acceptable for the other side to do something equally and more opposite toward the wrong.

That is where polarization comes from. The Democrats are not working any harder than the republicans to start attracting the other side rather than repelling. Everybody is equally repulsive in this discussion when it comes to the two party system.

The media just propagates it, so do the politicians and the uninformed electorate.

#112 | Posted by somoco at 2010-01-26 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag

I appreciate your concern over my panties. Trust me, they are not in a wad.

I have no problem with political or informational commercials being run as long as they are appropriate for the typical audience of the program.

I say why should these women's groups attempt to prevent CBS from running an add. They should just run their own ad to voice their opinion.

I say why should these women's groups attempt to prevent CBS from running an add. They should just run their own ad... -- #119 | Posted by midtowncowboy

Oooooooooh... let me write it!

Lead with a few mothers telling heartbreaking stories about having to choose between aborting their pregnancies or leaving their other children motherless.

Then cut to clips of Tebow fumbling handoffs from under center.

Final shot: "Maybe Tim Tebow should learn to take a handoff from under center before second-guessing life-or-death decisions."

#91 | Posted by northguy3 at 2010-01-26 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh boy NG3 that was quite the comeback. Now, are you finished with the 2nd grade insult and BS strawman about al Queda rapes? Please do tell - is it a woman's choice to keep her legs closed? If not, whose is it? As donnerboy said - PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Libs are against it - RELIGOUSLY.

he had say so when he blew his load. Unless the man is being forced to come he has all the rights in the world. Once a fetus is conceived he now has responsibilities, get it?

#100 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-01-26 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

So the woman made the same choice by opening her legs right? If we agree with those two statements, there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy. Solves the problem. Except for rape, incest and life of the mother. Care to tackle those?

--> "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together"

WTF is this woman smoking? That's all sports is ABOUT! One versus another. She's a complete idiot.

So the message is: you should never trust your doctor. Doctors are stupid. Trust your imaginary moral superiority and pseudo-religious beliefs over trained medical professionals. Because you too could accidently abort a future cash cow capable of buying you a Bentley and beach house in Boca with the first paycheck he ever earns.

I guess that is what we should expect from people who travel the world to shovel their dogma on unsuspecting third-world illiterates. The Tebows think god comes down from high to set up a favorable bounce on an on-side kick, catches touchdowns, and smites the other team if they don't pray enough. Real nutters. This fits their M.O.; pretend the people you are preaching to have shit for brains, play on their emotions, and win them over with an anecdotal rags-to-riches fairytale.

Somehow I don't think this is what Jesus was talking about.

If Tim Tebow wants to play football, he should do that. If he wants to be a preacher, he should do that. If he thinks his talents on the field somehow empower him to shape society in his likeness, he should get on that new anti-self-importance pill by pFizer.

So in your insular fantasy, to be pro-life is the same as belonging to the KKK? That is the essence of the problem. The left believes in "free speech" but then condemns anyone who disagrees as "fanatics" who don't merit the right to speak.
If CAIR or AIPAC want to buy ads let them. They represent the radicals, don't they?

If Tim Tebow wants to play football, he should do that. If he wants to be a preacher, he should do that. If he thinks his talents on the field somehow empower him to shape society in his likeness, he should get on that new anti-self-importance pill by pFizer.

#124 | Posted by BluSky at 2010-01-26 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yet you think a politician has been empowered to shape society in their likenesses.

Yet you think a politician has been empowered to shape society in their likenesses.

First, what does one have to do with the other?

Second, yes. Politicians win popular elections. I'm pretty sure a certain amount of empowerment is implied.

Maybe Tebow should run for office? I was just thinking, what the country really needs is another good-lookin, Isaiah quoting, Southern demigod that cries all the time.

"Except for rape, incest and life of the mother. Care to tackle those?"

Yep. If abortion is wrong, it's wrong. No exclusions, no exceptions.

How's that?

(I'm pro-choice. Leave Roe v. Wade alone. STFU, critics, about other people's sex lives and reproduction choices.)

If Tim Tebow wants to play football, he should do that. If he wants to be a preacher, he should do that. If he thinks his talents on the field somehow empower him to shape society in his likeness, he should get on that new anti-self-importance pill by pFizer.

Why shouldn't Tebow -- or anyone else -- use the platform of their fame to try and make a difference in the world? I don't agree with his politics, but I agree with people who don't just use fame to make money.

Polarization of America

Jesus H Christ, you are seriously fucking stupid.

#109 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2010-01-26 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag: and I know stupid!

Yep. If abortion is wrong, it's wrong. No exclusions, no exceptions.

How's that?

#128 | Posted by pragmatist at 2010-01-26 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ok. Repeal RvW and lets celebrate! Deal? Let me guess - you are against the death penalty but ok with killing this because it allows the mother to get back to her partying sooner:

Why shouldn't Tebow -- or anyone else -- use the platform of their fame to try and make a difference in the world?

I don't equate shooting a television commercial with world change.

He is pushing his religion using an emotional issue that was settled by Federal Law long ago. There is no debate. Americans want abortions to be safe, legal, and rare. No one's opinion will change no matter how many commercials you make.

I'm not necessarily saying Tim shouldn't speak what's on his mind. I just don't think anyone should (or will) take him seriously. Moral guidance from a 20 year old kid that uses his head as battering ram? No thanks.

There is no debate.

#133 | Posted by BluSky at 2010-01-26 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Typical of the left. Americans do not want this healthcare bill - there is no debate! Americans do not want cap and trade - there is no debate!

And you dumbfuck liberals call the Republican party the party of No? LOL.

Moral guidance from someone who believes in not taking responsibility for their own actions? No thanks.

Second, yes. Politicians win popular elections. I'm pretty sure a certain amount of empowerment is implied.

Maybe Tebow should run for office? I was just thinking, what the country really needs is another good-lookin, Isaiah quoting, Southern demigod that cries all the time.

#127 | Posted by BluSky at 2010-01-26 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yet you have zero control over what happens in Washington as stupid program after stupid program is enacted and paid for using your money by those who think they are empowered to do so as they enrich themselves at your expense.

And with Tebow's commercial you have total control. You can change the channel and he is gone....

There are many idiots like you who think Tebow is a polarizing person.

Donner, you are wrong on two accounts...

hmm I never said YOU were. You actually seem like a reasonable person (unlike Mr Torture Werks! i.e. dumbOdumbchairpoodles).

I just got back from the Democratic rally. It looks like if we don't get it together and take back our party we are screwed. The Democrats have no backbone. It is sad. About 50 people showed up. They don't have the courage of their own convictions. They will show up after they lose everything to the teabaggers I guess. Then they will have nothing else to do so they won't be too busy to get involved.

Take back the country? Are you seriou? You guys have like 250+ seats in the Hous, 59 in the Senate, and the Wh and you are acting like the minority party?

Really?

Maybe you need to go here:

Yep. If abortion is wrong, it's wrong. No exclusions, no exceptions.
How's that?
(I'm pro-choice. Leave Roe v. Wade alone. STFU, critics, about other people's sex lives and reproduction choices.)

#128 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST AT 2010-01-26 04:29 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Having difficulty with shades of gray? Roe says there's a right to choose absolutely during first trimester. Then, the state interest becomes compelling after viability unless the life of the mother is at risk.

Do you believe abortion rights should be absolute at all times before the birth of the child, viability be damned? Or, do you really believe in Roe v. Wade. If you do, then you believe in shades of gray. Why cannot someone who opposes abortion likewise believe in shades of gray? i.e. it's ok in the event of rape and incest/health of the mother.

I've never heard of a pro-lifer (at least who wasn't off their rocker) who believes that abortion shouldn't be legal under at least some circumstance.

The country doesn't want the health care bill

no Somoco you are righty tighty there! not after the rethugs got done with it. But, I think Obama should have stood firm. He should have STAYED THE COURSE. The Public Option should have been non-negotiable

We got a WAR of choice rammed down our throats. Why not ram Health Care down there too. It would have been good for us and I think the aftertaste would been better than what the War in Iraq left in our mouths.

No thanks

Well that's good, 'cus I'm not offering any. I assume you were born capable of deciding for yourself what moral code to live by. I'm different than both you and Tebow in that respect.

There are many idiots like you who think Tebow is a polarizing person.

I've never thought of him as anything more than a good college QB. I kinda like Tebow. He plays hard. That's what I judge him by. However, if he wants to become a "polarizing person" the best route would be to pick a highly volatile issue and preach about it during the Super Bowl. Oh wait...

"He is pushing his religion using an emotional issue that was settled by Federal Law long ago."

Which "Federal Law", specifically, "settled" the abortion issue?

Also- you've seen the ad? I'd wager the ad doesn't mention religion once.

#136 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-01-26 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

So tell us how the Republican's can filibuster when the Democrats hold a filibuster proof majority?

#139 | Posted by BluSky at 2010-01-26 05:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

And yet you don't criticize actors/entertainers when they use their popularity to polarize....

#140 | Posted by ken_schwartz at 2010-01-26 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Change the channel.

Why?

Which "Federal Law", specifically, "settled" the abortion issue?

The 14th Amendment. It just took the Court awhile to catch on.

I'd wager the ad doesn't mention religion once.

Which should make you wonder why a self-styled "christian" group like Focus on the Family wouldn't be forthright in their sloganeering. But I doubt you'll think about it.

And yet you don't criticize actors/entertainers when they use their popularity to polarize....

I'm doing it right now, nitwit.

'Which "Federal Law", specifically, "settled" the abortion issue?

The 14th Amendment. It just took the Court awhile to catch on.'

No, the 14th Amendment has zip to do with abortion.

Additionally, abortion is regulated at the State level, not the Federal.

"'I'd wager the ad doesn't mention religion once.'
Which should make you wonder why a self-styled "christian" group like Focus on the Family wouldn't be forthright in their sloganeering. But I doubt you'll think about it."

Odd that you quoted what I wrote without addressing my point- which is that Tebow isn't pushing necessarily his religion by stating an opposition to abortion.

Is that because you don't understand the point, or you're not able to respond intelligently and prefer vague, poorly-placed insults instead?

'"And yet you don't criticize actors/entertainers when they use their popularity to polarize...."
I'm doing it right now, nitwit.'

I'm sure whoever wrote that is reeling from being called a nitwit by the likes of you, good Sir.

""An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together,"

More like, a spectacle for the masses designed to bring millions to sponsors, the NFL, media, etc.

They've not even seen the ad and wish to censor it. Apparently the very mention or thought of a pro-life conversation is not allowed. A bit step forward for free speech.

Now wait a minute. I would like to see Tebow make an ass out of himself as much as the next guy. I am a Bama fan after all. But I don't dislike him. I think he is a great guy and a great athlete, the media has hounded him to hell.

So what if he wants to make a commercial with his mommy? So what if he wants to tell everyone he believes that abortion is immoral? So what if he will probably be paid a bazillion dollars to do it?

I am 1000% pro choice, but i would advise anyone that asked me, to not have an abortion, because of other factors unrelated to the law or the question of womens rights. I would even make a commercial about it if someone would pay me to do so.

I saw some anti-abortion zealot on TV today saying that the left was trying to take away her freedom of speech regarding this matter.

Unless the Govt is persecuting you for what you said, it's NOT an infringement on your freedom of speech. When will people learn?

I'm with Tim. Hell, if we hadn't made a hasty choice, we could have had 3 QB's starting in the NFL this year. -Archie Manning

"so you'd be ok if al qaeda bought super bowl commercial time to spread their message?"

No problem at all as long as the fuckers give the network an accurate billing address. ;)

I'm a pro-life guy but I don't really want to see advocacy ads during an event like this. If the network is hurting for revenue, then they'll do what they have to, but as they allow more and more special interest (ie: provocative) spots to run... I just don't like where it's going.

Give me a bunch of horny beer swilling guys eyeing some big busted coeds any day. Or more Go-Daddy ads. Yessir.

"Give me a bunch of horny beer swilling guys eyeing some big busted coeds any day"

Well, I think that goes without saying... And truth be told, that kind of goes hand-in-hand with unintended pregnancy!

Give me a bunch of horny beer swilling guys eyeing some big busted coeds any day. Or more Go-Daddy ads. Yessir.

#153 | Posted by OohRah

You need to step away from the TV and go get you some.

"Do you believe abortion rights should be absolute at all times before the birth of the child, viability be damned? Or, do you really believe in Roe v. Wade. If you do, then you believe in shades of gray. Why cannot someone who opposes abortion likewise believe in shades of gray? i.e. it's ok in the event of rape and incest/health of the mother."

No, I was being deliberately provocative. I'm not sure where the viability line lie, or rather what I think of what I've learned about the science. I don't buy into the rhetoric of calling a fetus an unborn child, and I don't believe that there aren't at least some anti-choice folks who do in fact want to control women's choices. But I imagine there are a wide array of anti-choicers.

That said, yes, what I said about rape, incest, health is, I believe, worth considering. Those who are against abortion from a religious perspective--well, I don't see how they can make that distinction. If the argument is that only God can create and destroy life (an argument I've seen put forth here on numerous occasions), then why is the "child" conceived of rape or of incest any different from the "child" conceived during a loving act between two consenting adults? Why is it okay to "kill the child" to save the life of the mother? Isn't it God's plan and all?

If you're not talking religious motivation, we're in a different plane.

But then, I haven't seen a lot of leeway in those who hold firmly to one side or the other.

I don't know if that makes my position any more clear. I figure we're just talking peacefully here. : )

+++++

"Take your own advice. Unless the commercial has a frequency of "3" you're barking up the wrong tree."

Um, gee gosh, I'm a media _educator_. Methinks I've done some study. oe said "Commercials are not "harmful" because in the end your decision to act is your own decision." That's just not so. Or at least there's a huge body of thought and study that says/shows that's not so. Read McKibben, Postman, McCannon, Jhally, Kilbourne... And yes, I was talking about high-frequency ads. Ads shown over and over again. Commercials can indeed be harmful; television, as McKibben writes, is cumulative.

What a disgusting lie. Feminists believe it is an individual woman's choice and that TV commercials like this one are for one purpose, to encourage lawmakers to outlaw a woman's right to choose to seek an abortion. Feminists have children, they also have female children who they want to have rights over their own bodies.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2010-01-26 01:15 PM

Why didn't I see this before? No wonder our government is so F*ed up. They watch the Budweiser commercials during NFL games and they are encouraged to get wasted and jump out of plans chasing the guy with the 6pack.

Lawmakers are encouraged by lobbyist, plan and simple. The squeaky wheel gets the oil and in turn, the empty congressional officals pockets get the cash

Let them air whatever they want. Let the pro-choice group pay equally to air their own ad. Instead of complaining, put up your own ad's

Who buys shit because of a commercial in the first place? Besides those Hope and Change one's anyway....

Besides those Hope and Change one's anyway....

I was going to say . . .

Who buys shit because of a commercial in the first place? Besides those Hope and Change one's anyway....

#159 | Posted by wisgod at 2010-01-26 09:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't actually think Budweiser is the most consumed Beer in the Nation because it tastes good, do you?

#161 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-01-26 10:35 PM | Reply | Flag: duh

Carlton is beer.
But it needs to be had in Sydney.

Best beer ever for me was Carlton on tap in a Sydney pub.

You don't actually think Budweiser is the most consumed Beer in the Nation because it tastes good, do you?

#161 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

You're close, it's Bud-Light. Anheuser-Bush does have the largest brewery in the United States. I would hope that they sell a lot and they spend alot to get that air time. Coca Cola does the same thing. So does Go Daddy and various drug companies.

They're scraping the wall of the uterus.

#39 | Posted by ZombieHunter

ZH--

You should know what you are talking about.

Here at 24 weeks--pick a photo..

#105 | Posted by member2586

Typical idiocy, to believe that there is any such thing as "FREE" speech on commercial television.

No, the 14th Amendment has zip to do with abortion.

Additionally, abortion is regulated at the State level, not the Federal.

For someone this frothy at-the-mouth over other people's sex lives, you're awfully underinformed.

"""the 'right of privacy', whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."""

There is a Federal umbrella protecting abortion emanating directly from the Constitution. Sadly, some State legislators -- much like you I suspect -- chose imaginary religious /ahem/ 'standards' over The Law of the Land. Eventually they get overturned by the courts.

Fundamentalists have been dancing on their trailer rooftops and praying for deliverance from the courts for over 30 years. No help comes. Roe is LAW. Time to move on.

Set aside all the PC points and the message is accurate. I mean, if his mom had the abortion, he would not be around to entertain all the sports enthusiasts out there. You can't argue that fact. It's a provable truth - not an opinion.

However, as with others in the limelight (actors/actresses, musicians, etc), I believe they should just stick to doing their job instead of campaigning.

Ya know, maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong angle Who am I to say what they can do in using their popularity as momentum to propel their beliefs when in actuality, the problem lies with the value/worth we, as those who listen, give them. No one would fuss if it was believed no one listened. Really, the bulk of people who do (fuss) are those with a take on the issue to begin with If you agree you'll exclaim, "Yeah!" If you don't, you'll yell, "Screw you Bud!" and commence to bicker amongst yourselves. It's like I really care if Barbra Streisand threatens to leave the country again if her Dem doesn't get elected. :-D

typical facists move from people like this
I thought this group was prochoice...so wouldnt that mean that sometimes a woman would choose NOT to murder her baby...
ah but no..thats not what it means at all now is it

hypocritical fuckers

and its another plank right out of progressive...or rather OPPresive play book

they MUST SILENCE the other side of all arguments either by demeaning, insulting, attacking, and debasing any person who has the NERVE to disagree with them.

typical horseshit

"Roe is LAW"

Love that one, especially since the same people that would argue that are arguing against the recent SC decision regarding corporate political contributions. I guess you also have to argue that Dred Scott is LAW, and Plessy v. Ferguson is LAW. Leave it to liberals to put up idiot arguments like this.

the funny part to this is that no one has seen the commercial, so you dont know exactly what you are protesting. alarmists cunts,

Its a TRUE FEEL GOOD STORY!!!! It encourages people to consider and think about the possibilites before making important decisions.

Are the libs so afraid that others might hear the truth about one womens important decision? Are they more intrested in promting an agenda than they are about promoting thinking through a decsions for indivuals.

The answer is YES and YES

Welcome the Libtard thought process and agenda

"Women's Groups Ask CBS to Punt Tebow Ad"

There are too many people on Earth. We need to kill people before they are born! What is your carbon footprint? Are you poluting? Why don't we just go ahead and take you out now!

How do you choose who lives and who dies?

What next? Pepsi demanding equal time on a Coca-Cola paid ad?

Hypofreakincrits!

Leave it to liberals to put up idiot arguments like this.

Leave it conservatives to characterize the Constitution as an "idiot argument".

Dred Scott is LAW

Only is your fantasies. Y'all must not get newspapers in Spokane? Telegraphs? Homing pigeons?

the same people that would argue that are arguing against the recent SC decision regarding corporate political contributions.

A red herring and a strawman in the same sentence. Impressive. So it shouldn't take you long to show both my opposition to the ruling and proof it is only liberals making an objection.
I've got a stopwatch handy.
Ready. Set. Go.

Are the libs so afraid that others might hear the truth about one womens important decision?
#173 | Posted by WI_Hunter at 2010-01-27 11:40

absolutely

why do you think that leftists are SO OPPOSED to any law that would make a woman look at a sonogram before they kill thier baby???

"dissent is the highest form of patriotism"

hillary clinton

"only if you agree with our side"

addendum added by ME....

Blusky, you completely miss the point. Of course Dred Scott is no longer good law, but then again it's never been overturned. Same with Korematsu. I was making a comparison with with the lib's love of Roe. Just because it's "LAW," doesn't mean that it's either good law or even accepted law. Roe may be now, but that doesn't mean it will always be accepted, though it may never be overturned. Arguing Roe in place of a person's right to speak is the red herring.

but then again it's never been overturned.

There goes that damned 14th Amendment getting in the way of your good time, again. Dred Scott was overturned the moment the 14th was ratified. Dred Scott the man was free about a decade earlier.

Same with Korematsu.

No, sorry, not really.
"""Forty years after his conviction, Fred Korematsu once again decided to challenge it. Korematsu's conviction was overturned by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the same court that had originally convicted him. The case was heard as a corum nobis case. A writ of corum nobis is a remedy used only in special circumstances to correct errors in a criminal conviction."""

Arguing Roe in place of a person's right to speak

I have no problem with someone speaking. There are a million different forums where folks might like to hear the unadulterated holy wisdom of 20yo kids with a liberal arts degree. I'm just not sure the super bowl is one, unless of course you're just trying to cause a stink or secure your place as the "christian white knight" of Madison Ave.

Question... do those of you in support of abortion feel we should negate the aid the Haitians need - essentially letting them die? Please explain the difference between those people and an unborn fetus? I know they're different "ages", but they are all made of the same stuff aren't they? Is your glass half empty or half full?

An unborn fetus is just that--a fetus. Would you really argue that a fetus is a person? At what point in fetal development?

wow prag

way to start off with an easy question...LOL

next one is
whats the meaning of life???

but here is a question right back
I have read that the heart starts beating some hours after or is it days...after conception...is that a sign of life? or just a bodily function?? or what??

and do you have great timing...you show up right when I have to leave..
nicely done

An unborn fetus is just that--a fetus. Would you really argue that a fetus is a person? At what point in fetal development?

#181 | Posted by pragmatist

I personally think a fetus is alive upon the combination of egg and sperm. It's kinda' like the sodium and chlorine that create edible table salt, but only after combined. Whether or not it's in a shaker, it's still salt. Where do you think the "life" status changes from... not life to life? That almost sounds like you think you can make something that's "dead", "alive" just by commanding it to be so. How abstract (and egocentric) is that? ...and you think I'm a nut?

FTA: On Tuesday, CBS reacted to the furor, saying it has eased its restrictions on advocacy ads and would consider any that are "responsibly produced" for the few open spots remaining for the Feb. 7 broadcast.

So Issue ads are now A-OK according to CBS?

Spud agrees that the only good answer to free speech you disagree with is more free speech.

Tebow's mom was advised by medical professionals to consider abortion fer her 5th pregnancy and she deciceded fer herself to risk it and the result is a Heisman-winning football player.

Good fer her.

All's well that ends well.

Spud supports her right to choose life.

Pro-Choice means exactly that.

Pro-life, otoh, means Pro-forced birth and anti-choice.

Be Well.

Pro-life, otoh, means Pro-forced birth and anti-choice.

Be Well.

#184 | Posted by dethspud at 2010-01-27 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:
As usual, the left forgets that the mother has the ultimate choice going in - keeping her legs closed. Rape being the only instance where the choice is made for her.

So please mr potatoe head, tell us why this is not a choice? Pro-choice does not mean exactly that - the proof is in this thread you idiot. Why would woman's groups want to stifle the add? Go back to your basement and play with yourself - that is often your choice, and a responsible one at that - 100% chance of not inflicting more little spuds on the rest of us.

tell us why this is not a choice?

Who claimed that it wasn't?

Are you saying that women who agree to have sex are also agreeing to choose to carry any progeny spawned to term?

Cos if so yer being even dumber than usual.

And that's really saying something in yer case.

Be Well.

Are you saying that women who agree to have sex are also agreeing to choose to carry any progeny spawned to term?

Without using some form of birth control? Yes - they are. So is the guy.

Calling me dumb? I'm not the loser on another countries political blog - get over yourself after all these years and move on. You are not that entertaining. Wait- maybe you are. Most of the time your opinions and commentary can only be considered comedic - on a third grade level of course.

I have no problem with the ad itself. I just don't want it during the Super Bowl.

We have a tradition with Super Bowl commercials. There's the game itself, the halftime show, and the commercials. All three make up the Super Bowl experience.

I'd imagine most people don't give a hoot about the halftime show, though. The game itself can be great fun or a bust, with the occasional big play.

But the commercials are an integral part of it all, and I think CBS should avoid controversial issue ads during the game.

So Tebow's mother was advised by her physician to terminate her pregnancy, and she choose not to, and obviously Tim's pretty thrilled by that. Fine. Nice story. But not as a Super Bowl commercial.

"whats the meaning of life???"

Easy. 42.

"but here is a question right back
I have read that the heart starts beating some hours after or is it days...after conception...is that a sign of life? or just a bodily function?? or what??"

Uh, yes, it's a bodily function in fully formed humans too.

"and do you have great timing...you show up right when I have to leave..
nicely done"

Thanks. Happenstance. I'm not so concerned about arguing with you that I have tracked your comings and goings.

+++++

".and you think I'm a nut? "

No, I disagree with you. I have never said or implied that you're crazy. It's that simple for me. We disagree. I can live with that. I really have zero interest in this debate anymore. There is no common ground. I apologize for engaging in such simplistic fashion.

+++++

"Most of the time your opinions and commentary can only be considered comedic - on a third grade level of course."

I don't think you actually read Spud's posts if this is what you think. He actually is able to marshal decent arguments, though the third-person game tires me sometimes. (Sorry, Spud. : ) ) But you know, the heart of DR, for many posters, appears to be insulting those on the other side of an argument. And to be fair, sometimes it's really hard not to.

TheTom,

"I have no problem with the ad itself. I just don't want it during the Super Bowl."

Yea....I understand what you mean.

The last thing anyone wants when they're drinking and partying is to be reminded of that abortion they had when they were younger, and the child they lost.

That wasn't my point, Bill. But you knew that.

@ #2:
"I am sure the NFL will cave in and will pull the ad."

good, it's the RIGHT thing to do. but i'm sure it'll come down to who owns the bottom line. (hint: not Tebow?)

hey, aren't you too busy readying to try out for that new basketball team to watch the SB anyway? ;-P

TheTom,

Pro-choice people candy-coat the reality of this issue.

They can't even be honest and just admit this is a human life being ended.

They should just simply say they believe the mother has the "right" to kill it, even though it is a life.

Personally, I think you meant what I said in a round-about way. You don't want the seriousness of this issue to overshadow the "great fun".

As usual, wannabe-clever leftist sophists try to draw a moral and intellectual parallel between the Al-Qaeda's agenda of murder to well-intended efforts to extend the legal rights of post-birth individuals to pre-birth individuals. In this situation and context, it is clear that 1st Amendment principles of free speech should apply, and should prevail over misandristic gender feminism, since trying to protect pre-birth human life is not the same thing as perpetrating and advocating murder for political purposes (which Al-Qaeda does).
The deliberately irrational and control-freakish Left's inability to discern the moral difference between the two situations is why I believe a Civil War ver 2.0 will be required to settle their s-c-u-m-bag hash. As a matter of deliberate strategy, they make courteous intellectually honest discussion with them impossible. So be it.

"As a matter of deliberate strategy, they make courteous intellectually honest discussion with them impossible. So be it."

Yeah, no one who self-identifies as of the right wing ever does that.

Love that broad brush.

And the civil war comment is way out there. Yep, that's American. Take all the people with a different opinion and shove 'em outta yer country.

Please tell me again why progressives think it is OK for a 12 year old to have an abortion with out parental consent.

"Detectives are investigating a Queens clinic where a 37-year-old woman was fatally injured while undergoing an abortion, officials said Tuesday.

Alexandra Nuez began bleeding heavily during the procedure at A1 Medicine in Jackson Heights on Monday, officials said.

One of Nuez's arteries was inadvertently severed and she went into cardiac arrest, according to police sources.

She was taken to Elmhurst Hospital Center, where she died a short time later."

if anyone here has not seen Lake of Fire, i HIGHLY recommend it.

i checked out the DVD at my library.

How can you claim to be "pro choice" while trying to censor a story about someone who made a choice and is happy about that choice?

If you're really just pro-abortion, then make a fucking commercial about someone who had an abortion and is happy about it.

I am pro choice but I ask what these women's groups are so afraid of? The truth about how terrible abortions are? It's not my business to tell another what to do but I personally find it abhorrent.

I am pro choice but I ask what these women's groups are so afraid of? The truth about how terrible abortions are?

I'm with you 100%. I'll go with 1st trimester abortions, but after that, I get squeamish. But at any time in the pregnancy, I don't deny it is taking a life. Why hide or sugar coat the reality of what is going on?

I'll go with 1st trimester abortions, but after that, I get squeamish. But at any time in the pregnancy, I don't deny it is taking a life.

Good for you.

Marry all women and then convince them to carry your child. If that doesn't work, use the state to force them.

Marry all women...

I'm monogamous, boy(d)

Goatman-
Well, then I guess you'll have to monitor, guide, and dictate by force the choices of strangers through the ballot box.

Bummer.

Well, then I guess you'll have to monitor, guide, and dictate by force the choices of strangers through the ballot box.

Yep, just everyone else, boy(d). I see you passed your 8th grade civics class. Good on you!

Goatman-
No, just happen to have a wife, and I don't really care when, if, or why the fuck you wish to dictate what her medical choices should be, asshole.

boy(d)?

That's very racist of you, Goat.

No, just happen to have a wife, and I don't really care when, if, or why the fuck you wish to dictate what her medical choices should be, asshole.

Outside of the situation when a woman's life is at stake, abortion is NOT a "medical choice", asshole.

I am pro-choice (barely) and even I can grasp this.

No, just happen to have a wife, and I don't really care when, if, or why the fuck you wish to dictate what her medical choices should be, asshole.

And we all sit here bemused, but not surprised, as boy(d) moves into his predictible assign false position phase of his nightly DR visit.

Next: His "goodnight blog" so he pretends to not see that his nose has been bloodied again,

That's very racist of you, Goat.

Sorry. Is boy(d) black again? I can't keep up.

No, just happen to have a wife, and I don't really care when, if, or why the fuck you wish to dictate what her medical choices should be, asshole.

I'm cool with that. But why are you so upset that I would agree that we shouldn't mask or sugar coat the procedure though if there's nothing at all morally wrong with it? It's no more taking a life than clipping your toenails according to pro-lifers. So why hide the details of it?

accor...ding to pro-lifers. =

...according to choicers

Sorry. I shouldn't eat and blog at the same time

Well, boy(d)? Why keep the details of an abortion hidden from view?

"goodnight blog"

boy(d)

LOL

No country gives a fetus citizen status.

No church counts a fetus as a member.

No country counts a fetus in their census.

No human being has the right to suck life from another human being without permission.

No freedom loving person should think they have the right to make life decisions for another human being.

#213 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the 'right' to an abortion is not enumerated in the Constitution.

Thank you, bOoB. Since your boy, boy(d) is too scared too chicken shit to answer, maybe you can. Do you think we should hide the details of a procedure that is no more significant than clipping your toenails? (abortion) If so, why?

Or will you be a chicken shit like boy(d) and ignore the question?

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the 'right' to an abortion is not enumerated in the Constitution.

#214 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-01-28 01:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Superme Court said it was, it falls under human freedom. Freedom for human beings. Human rights. That's what America stands for---human rights. The Constitution was written for citizens of the United States. Fetuses are not citizens, and are not covered.

The points still stand. Address the points--don't dodge them.

No country gives a fetus citizen status.

No church counts a fetus as a member.

No country counts a fetus in their census.

No human being has the right to suck life from another human being without permission.

No freedom loving person should think they have the right to make life decisions for another human being.

Goat,

In the 6+ years I have been coming to this blog, BBob rarely shies away from a challenge.

Thank you, bOoB

#215 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-28 01:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

And I asked you for a promise that you'd respond like and adult and not play your usual games -- a promise you are unwilling to make. Therefore, I am unwilling to engage you.

When you decide to leave your childlike ways behind, let me know and we'll talk. Simple, isn't it? I'm sure this is the part where you go off and cry as you always do when I throw your childishness at near sonic speeds into your face. Now tell us how you are going to bed after three posts. LOL

What a baby. Grow up for fuck's sake, boy(d)

#41 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-25 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag

In the 6+ years I have been coming to this blog, BBob rarely shies away from a challenge.

Well, if you count spamming (as he is starting to do now as he always does when he can't defend his PoV) you are right. I'd like to something with more substance than spam from him, though. Like an answer to the questin I posed to him and boy(d)

The Superme Court said it was

Yes they did, and it was a horribly adjudicated case.

Abortion is no more a 'medical procedure' than is assisted suicide. According to the judicial logic set forth in Roe, Jack Kevorkian was wrongfully imprisoned.

LOL Just to underscore my spam observation of a person who can't defend his PoV see post 218. . .

In the 6+ years I have been coming to this blog, BBob rarely shies away from a challenge.

#217 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-01-28 01:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm just tired of his childishness and hypocrisy as shown in his words coming back on him to show what a hypocrite and small minded person he is. When he can talk like an adult, we can have a discussion. Until then who cares. Now if YOU have a question...

Now if YOU have a question...

Thank you.

No, I've gotta be moving on - work beckons.

Abortion is no more a 'medical procedure' than is assisted suicide. According to the judicial logic set forth in Roe, Jack Kevorkian was wrongfully imprisoned.

#220 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-01-28 01:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

I agree--Jack Kevorkian was wrongly imprisoned. Humans should have the right to end their lives with dignity. All rights come from the government---even the right to die.

But you still haven't addressed the points, and have instead still gone to the government to try to force your views on others. Aren't republicans supposed to be for less government control in the lives of human beings?

When he can talk like an adult...

You mean like you do when are condescending, or call people duMMy, or start spamming? Those kind of adult actions, bOoB?

LOL

I guess when I back da bOoB into a corner he turns into Mr goody-two-shoes and pretends to be offended and uses that as an excuse to avoid the tough questions.

Piss poor ploy, bOoB. The world can see through it.

Goatman

In 99% of the times I used that term, it was in retaliation for your name calling first. I haven't used that term for quite some time. I am tired of such childish interaction. I'm limiting my interaction with you and others to more adult conversation. Which in your case, seems to be minimal. Expect to see your words coming back on you often. They ring true.

Goatman

Ask your questions in a respectful manner, and we can have a discussion. I believe that is impossible for you.

Ask your questions in a respectful manner, and we can have a discussion. I believe that is impossible for you.

So if I ask in a condescending manner, call you duMMY, and spam the question a lot just like you, you'll answer? Is that what you are saying?

Or are you saying "Do what I say, not what I do"?

I'm saying ask your questions in a respectful manner, and we can have a discussion. I know you can not do it. You simply are incapable of intelligent debate. You will always have to call someone names, and degrade whateve thread you are on. You prove it with your every post.

The world can see through it.

I'm saying ask your questions in a respectful manner, and we can have a discussion

So it is "Do as I say, not as I do".

Sorry, I don't play double standards, bOoB.

Sorry, I don't play double standards, bOoB.

#231 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-28 02:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

I agree. You only have one standard, and it is rejected by me. I treated you with respect and the truth in this interchange. It is impossible for you to do the same. Case closed.

I treated you with respect

I guess your version of respect is different than mine. An excerpt of your "respect" to me earlier today:

Your thinking is shallow as usual. You bore me with your childich attacks and poor logic. You are incapable of debate or logical thinking. You simply lie and throw out childish attacks

#233 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-28 02:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

The statements I made were all true. You just can't handle the truth, or adult conversations. Your thinking is shallow, and your attacks are childish. I have never seen you have a rational discussion with anyone who disagrees with you--ever. You shine whan it comes to repeating facts you have read, but you are incapable of logic or critical thinking. You asked a question earlier in this thread, and you have said you are prochoice. See if you can use your logic to answer your own question. Anyone who is truly prochoice could answer the question, since the answer is part of the critical thinking in being prochoice.

The statements I made were all true.

Make whatever excuse you want, bOoB, but you can't sit up on your high horse and demand respect from people when you don't give it.

When you decide to stop playing the double standard game, get back with me. I don't do double standards as I proved with your own words that you do.

#193 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON
"Personally, I think you meant what I said in a round-about way. You don't want the seriousness of this issue to overshadow the "great fun"."

Feel free to think that.
Not the last time you'll jump to a wrong conclusion.

The statements I made were all true.

PS: What I say is true also. You are a bOoB. So why is it OK for you to speak the "truth" using denigration, but I can't?

As I said, when you come down off your high horse and stop playing the double standard game, you have the right to bitch. Until then you just prove to the world you are a hypocrite.

Simple, isn't it? LOL

Goatman

I'm not playing a double standard game. I've just stopped stooping to your level. I have proven you to be a liar, and you don't even realise it. I have proven you aren't prochoice.

The only support you have is saying you are prochoice, and yet, can answer no questions about why you are prochoice.

That would be like me saying I am a republican, and still support all dem proposals.

If you truly think I am a boob, why do you waste your time? Do you pull the wings off of flies and kick puppies too? Attacking boobs is a sign of weakness---like bullying the weak kid in school or mocking the fat kid or asking the ugly girl to the dance and then standing her up and laughing at her with all your friends when she gets dressed up. That shows your character---attacking the weak. If you really think I'm a boob, you should show some character and ignore me.

You see, I really think you are incapable of adult conversation, and critical thinking.

I challenge you, and anyone reading this post to go over all your past posts, and find one thread where you treated anyone with dignity that was disagreeing with you.

. I have proven you to be a liar

Yep. Just like you "proved" that thing over Dublin was going fast and was far away. LOL

I'm not playing a double standard game.

I understand that in your world it may not be a double standard, but in the real world that the rest of us live in, when you call someone names then demand that they don't do the same to you, we call that a double standard.

Just to let you know how things are in the real world. I hope this helps you understand things outside of your fantasy bubble.

Yep. Just like you "proved" that thing over Dublin was going fast and was far away. LOL

#239 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-28 03:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

True. This guy agrees with me.

This guy agrees with me

So? I never pretended you are the only delusional person in the world.

I must have missed your post that shows the object was close.

That's because I never claimed it was. duh, bOoB.

I understand that in your world it may not be a double standard, but in the real world that the rest of us live in, when you call someone names then demand that they don't do the same to you, we call that a double standard.

Just to let you know how things are in the real world. I hope this helps you understand things outside of your fantasy bubble.

#240 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-28 03:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

I haven't called you names for quite some time, and when I did, I was doing so in response to your attack. I have said I will not stoop to your level anymore, and I will say this in all sincerity.

I apologize for every time I ever called you a name. I was wrong and will never do it again.

That doesn't mean that pointing out that you are exhibiting shallow thinking is name calling. It isn't. But it does mean that I won't call you dUmmy or pUnk bOy anymore, and it does mean that I am truly sorry for everytime I did so. It lowered me.

I apologize for every time I ever called you a name.

No need to do that. I'm a "sticks and stones" guy. Call me whatever you want. I don't care.

pUnKbOy dUmMy LOL

Couldn't resist.

okay, now you two play nice.

later.

Call me whatever you want. I don't care.

#244 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-28 03:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

I do. It isn't about you. It is about me. I won't be lowered to your level anymore. If you weren't so shallow, you would understand the concept.

The apology was sincere. It made me feel much better. I doubt you can understand how that can be.

CHRIS

I was wondering how many times they've said "I'm never going to talk to you again!"

It seems like we should have topped 100 by now.

BBob --

Goat enjoys a tug of war. It doesn't "lower" you any if you tug back.

Some on here are into deep, serious discussions.

Some like a little "give and take" -- mostly "give" without much take. lol

Pick your playmates by the mood you're in. That's how I do it on DR. I don't treat JerryTarkanian (good ol' JT) -- whom I usually love to smack with a zinger or two -- the same way I'd treat, say, dxlingr or Commonsense which is with no namecalling. But I have fun blogging with all of them.

CHRIS

I was wondering how many times they've said "I'm never going to talk to you again!"

It seems like we should have topped 100 by now.

#247 | Posted by Twinpac at 2010-01-28 03:49 AM

You should have added two more zeros. LOL

Goat enjoys a tug of war. It doesn't "lower" you any if you tug back.

#248 | Posted by CalifChris at 2010-01-28 03:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

I disagree. It is along the same lines as--we should torture because our enemies torture. If we become the same as our enemies, there is no difference---no right and wrong. If I succumb to the mindless name calling game of Goatman, I am mindless and namecalling also.

If I succumb to the mindless name calling game of Goatman, I am mindless and namecalling also.

Not really. Besides, it depends on how deep the zingers go.

"pUnKBoY" and "bOoB" and "dUmMy" didn't strike me as either of you being particularly meanspirited.

I saw the light kind of namecalling between you and Goat more along the line of just being "nicknames" you have for each other.

Sometimes one just needs a little "mindless banter" now and then as a way of relaxing -- know what I mean? Reality is filled with enough serious stuff to deal with you occasionally like to mentally get away from it all. And this is sure the place to do it. lol!

Just sayin' that no one thinks any less of you for bantering back. But only you know how you feel.

later all.

Nevermind. I took it down.

This "Yes you did," "No I didn't" kind of circular arguments take place when two very immature men start to think they need a yardstick to measure their penis instead of a ruler.

Twinpac -

You just earned yourself a great big Funny Flag. Wave it high and with pride!

This "Yes you did," "No I didn't" kind of circular arguments take place when two very immature men start to think they need a yardstick to measure their penis instead of a ruler.

In my case, a micrometer is the practical device. I'm hung like a Tic Tac

Thanks DOC

But if you don't mind me sayin' . . . there's been too much waving of *something* going around on this thread already.

If you get my drift.

TWINPAC -

When little boys get into a pissing contest...

DOC

I doubt if either one of them could piss far enough to spell their name in the snow.

TWINPAC -

I've got two -- alas, seemingly mutually exclusive -- responses:

(1) Lucky to squeeze out a letter or two.

(2) Not if one's named "Rumpelstiltskin."

(1) Lucky to squeeze out a letter or two.

No, the 14th Amendment has zip to do with abortion.

Additionally, abortion is regulated at the State level, not the Federal.

For someone this frothy at-the-mouth over other people's sex lives, you're awfully underinformed.

Pointing out your inaccuracies doesn't constitute being "frothy at the mouth", and I don't recall saying a word about sex.

Generally, when one resorts to incorrect and personal attacks rather than addressing the issue at hand, it's because he/she has run out of valid arguments. Is that why you're not able to stick to the topic?

"""the 'right of privacy', whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."""

Yes, I'm familiar with Roe. Apparently you're not familiar with Webster vs. RHS, which determined that the States DO, in fact, have a right to regulate abortion.

There is a Federal umbrella protecting abortion emanating directly from the Constitution. Sadly, some State legislators -- much like you I suspect -- chose imaginary religious /ahem/ 'standards' over The Law of the Land. Eventually they get overturned by the courts.

You have no idea what you're talking about regarding the law, and even less when talking about me.

Pray tell- what religion do you believe I practice, since you seem to have such strong ideas about my beliefs?

Roe is LAW. Time to move on.

Parts of Roe are law. Parts no longer are, via Webster vs. RHS.

Abortion is no more a 'medical procedure' than is assisted suicide. According to the judicial logic set forth in Roe, Jack Kevorkian was wrongfully imprisoned.
#220 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-01-28 01:42 AM | Reply | Flag:
I agree--Jack Kevorkian was wrongly imprisoned. Humans should have the right to end their lives with dignity. All rights come from the government---even the right to die.
But you still haven't addressed the points, and have instead still gone to the government to try to force your views on others. Aren't republicans supposed to be for less government control in the lives of human beings?
#224 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

That shows your character---attacking the weak. If you really think I'm a boob, you should show some character and ignore me.
#238 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Dred Scott was the law, too. Does that make it right in your idiot fantasy?

TWINPAC -

I've got two -- alas, seemingly mutually exclusive -- responses:

(1) Lucky to squeeze out a letter or two.

(2) Not if one's named "Rumpelstiltskin."

#261 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Ever notice that Doc, like Corky, when getting his ass handed to him, he starts in with the insults? What a child!?

Is that why you're not able to stick to the topic?

Maybe? What's your excuse?

The topic is, rather, was:
the 14th Amendment has zip to do with abortion.

So when Justice Blackmun specifically cites the 14th Amendment in the majority opinion of Roe as the basis of the ruling you can see why you might be thought of as a fool when you continue to argue without producing any evidence whatsoever.

Yes, I'm familiar with Roe.

No, apparently not.

Parts of Roe are law. Parts no longer are, via Webster vs. RHS.

The "parts" that speak to the privacy rights of women(emanating from the 14th Amendment), and "strict scrutiny", how have they been holding up for the last three decades? Webster changed nothing. The Hyde amendment goes back to '77; It was essentially upheld in Harris v McRae a decade before RHS sued. RHS was more about state funding than privacy rights.

The forced-birthers (well the smart' forced-birthers) know better than to challenge Roe on Constitutional grounds where they have been crushed by the courts over, and over, and over again.
All those overwhelming defeats have produced a more modern strategy from the forced-birth crowd:
-Kill doctors.
-Hold up morbid pictures of tissue along roadways.
-Buy "judicial activists" and have them appointed to the bench (whilst complaining about judicial activism).
That plan doesn't seem to be working any better, but good luck to you.

Pray tell- what religion do you believe I practice, since you seem to have such strong ideas about my beliefs?

Hummm..../scratches head/

-schwartz
-disregard for personal freedom
-joins the DR in response to an abortion thread
-makes a bold, falsifiable statement (like the 14th has zip to do with abortion law) and refuses to back it up with evidence

I'll take "non-practicing jewish lawyers" for $1000, Alex.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Silly me, I can't find abortion in there anywhere.

Silly me, I can't find abortion in there anywhere.

When the Bill of Rights was being ratified a serious debate was happening among people you might not suspect. Many of the Founders were worried that a limited BoR might encourage, as one Georgian delegate put it, "some fool in the future to assume any right not mentioned doesn't exist".

Now, I'm not calling you a fool, the good people of the newly formed State of Georgia were, so you take that how you wish.

The Constitution doesn't say you have the right to sugar in your tea, or the right to wear a red dress, whistle dixie, and walk down the street backwards.
Do you believe those rights exist?

-Hold up morbid pictures of tissue along roadways.

#267 | Posted by BluSky

Go find a third grader in biology class to discuss what constitutes life, Robot.

I've no time for your silly game of emo-scrabble.

Interesting points, Blu, but silly. Clearly the Constitution is not a limitation on people, it's a limitation on government. Hence the Bill of Rights. However, the 14th Amendment does not preclude anything. At best it only precludes actions against those rights found "fundamental," and applies those rights to the states. Not all BoR "rights" have been found to be fundamental. What all this drivel means is that it's not as clear-cut as you wish folks to believe. Roe made it very clear that there is not an absolute right to abortions. There can be significant restrictions, within the framework laid out by the Court. What the righties fail to do, typically only because they want to make a point, not a reasonable law, is to follow that framework. But the lefties make the same mistake. They wish to both argue for widespread availability of abortion at any age for any reason.

If jurisdictions would simply follow the framework of Roe, there could be a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately no one wants to compromise.

But the real question here is neither, but whether one side or the other can speak their ideas. Nothing constitutional requires CBS to decide one way or another, but it seems reasonable that a voice from either side should be able to put forth a comment in a tasteful manner. That said, conservatives might have to accept an ad from Man Crush, though that ad hasn't been approved yet.

Go find a third grader in biology class to discuss what constitutes life, Robot.

I've no time for your silly game of emo-scrabble.

#272 | Posted by BluSky

#270/#271. Herein lies the biggest debate. The 14th A., of which Blu is so proud, relates to a "person." When does that "person" begin? Obama would allow a full term, or even late term, infant to be killed seconds before the head leave the birth canal, or even afterward if the mother did not wish a live birth.

"Obama would allow a full term, or even late term, infant to be killed seconds before the head leave the birth canal, or even afterward if the mother did not wish a live birth."

You're kidding, right? Or are you that much of a manipulator? Yeah, Obama runs around advocating destruction of fetuses just before they're born. All the time. I can tell you the countless times I've heard him say it.

it's a limitation on government.

Exactly. We basically agree; the government is limited by the 14th from invading a woman's private decision to terminate her pregnancy.

That was a long, scenic drive to arrive at the same place.

Nothing constitutional requires CBS to decide one way or another

Agreed. However, they do use our airwaves for free. That makes them responsible to everyone, not just those who have money to waste on divisive issue ads during family programming.

Maybe next year FARK can buy an ad telling everyone about the medicinal qualities of extensive cocaine use? How about a 30sec spot showing highlights from the killfloor at a meat packing plant brought to you by PETA? Ohh, what about black screen, big bold letters, "GOD IS DEAD", no sound, hold for 45 sec., kick off the second half?

The topic is, rather, was:
the 14th Amendment has zip to do with abortion.

No, actually, the topic to which you erroneously spouted about the 14th amendment had to do with whether abortion is regulated at the State level (it is) vs. the Federal level (it isn't).

So when Justice Blackmun specifically cites the 14th Amendment in the majority opinion of Roe as the basis of the ruling you can see why you might be thought of as a fool when you continue to argue without producing any evidence whatsoever.
More insults, no substance.

Abortion is, at heart, NOT a privacy issue, and as I stated earlier, the 14th has nothing to do with abortion. Roe was decided poorly.

Parts of Roe are law. Parts no longer are, via Webster vs. RHS.
The "parts" that speak to the privacy rights of women(emanating from the 14th Amendment), and "strict scrutiny", how have they been holding up for the last three decades?

If you're going to respond to what I write, you should address the same topic. Which, in this case, is whether abortion is regulated at the State or Federal level. Since that's the item you chose to take issue with initially, one would think you cared about that item.

Webster changed nothing.

Incorrect. Wildly incorrect. Webster granted back to states the jurisdiction over abortion, and not just in terms of funding.

The forced-birthers (well the smart' forced-birthers)

Wow, that's almost as clever as referring to pro-Choice folks as baby killers.

You're some sort of comic genius.

All those overwhelming defeats have produced a more modern strategy from the forced-birth crowd:
-Kill doctors.
-Hold up morbid pictures of tissue along roadways.
-Buy "judicial activists" and have them appointed to the bench (whilst complaining about judicial activism).
That plan doesn't seem to be working any better, but good luck to you.

Again, because you're unable to refute arguments, you resort to willful stupidity and ad hominem attacks.

You were never on the debate team, were you?

Pray tell- what religion do you believe I practice, since you seem to have such strong ideas about my beliefs?
Hummm..../scratches head/
-schwartz
-disregard for personal freedom
-joins the DR in response to an abortion thread
-makes a bold, falsifiable statement (like the 14th has zip to do with abortion law) and refuses to back it up with evidence
I'll take "non-practicing jewish lawyers" for $1000, Alex.

"Lawyer" isn't a religion, and I'm not Jewish. Nor Christian. Nor any other religion.

As to the rest of your nonsense, I'm embarrassed for you.

"Abortion is, at heart, NOT a privacy issue, and as I stated earlier, the 14th has nothing to do with abortion. Roe was decided poorly."

So the penumbra concept means nothing to you. As I understand it, overturning Roe would have some serious consequences at this point. Beyond abortion.

Roe was decided poorly.

LOL Finally, your real argument reveals itself.

I'm wrong because you know better than the Supreme Court, that's rich. Pretty lucrative debating technique, too; when unable to defend easily falsifiable bullshit, simply deny 30 years of legal precedent on a whim. Is that something you learned in your debate club?

If it was such a "poor decision" you'd think a big brain like you could have had it struck down by now! Whataya waiting on!?

Maybe just one more TV ad will put it over the top?

regulated at the State level (it is)...

...and struck down at the Federal level whenever State regulations are found to be in violation of the US Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment.

Nor any other religion.

I was making a tasteless joke, settle down. You ask a trick question then get all pissy with my guess? This must be something else you picked up at "debate club".

"Abortion is, at heart, NOT a privacy issue, and as I stated earlier, the 14th has nothing to do with abortion. Roe was decided poorly."
So the penumbra concept means nothing to you. As I understand it, overturning Roe would have some serious consequences at this point. Beyond abortion.

#279 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST AT 2010-01-28 02:00 PM | REPLY | FLAG

The issue was the misclassification of Abortion as a privacy issue, not side effects of overturning Roe.

Roe was decided poorly.
LOL Finally, your real argument reveals itself.

You're quite the detective.

If it was such a "poor decision" you'd think a big brain like you could have had it struck down by now!

Again, your arguments are so weak you lack the ability to do anything but make personal attacks. Why is that?

Nor any other religion.
I was making a tasteless joke, settle down. You ask a trick question then get all pissy with my guess?

Trick question? You falsely attributed a religious motivation to my opposition to legalized abortion, then consider the questioning of your assumption a "trick question"?

You're an irascible sort, aren't you.

Nothing constitutional requires CBS to decide one way or another
Agreed. However, they do use our airwaves for free. That makes them responsible to everyone, not just those who have money to waste on divisive issue ads during family programming.

Is it your opinion, then, that television networks should refuse ads on either side of any controversial issue?

You're quite the detective.

Not really. I was just surprised you finally admitted your argument is just an expression of arrogance.

You called me out on "incorrectly" attributing the Roe ruling to the 14th. Me, not the Court, not Justice Blackmun.

I didn't hang Roe on the 14th. The Court did.

So here in the universe of Things That Actually Happen, abortion law stems from the privacy rights granted in the 14th Amendment. If you know that and just don't agree with how the decision was reached, you've cleverly disguised your position until now.

I didn't know you wanted to debate abortion law in the universe of Things That Would Happen If Schwartz and Associates Wrote Majority Opinions.

My bad.

No see, you're again talking apples and oranges. On one hand you have suicide, the taking of your own life, being illegal. On the other hand you have abortion, the taking of another's life, legal.

Not at all. A fetus is alive, but is not considered a person by any standard. No government counts a fetus as a person, or counts a fetus in their census. No church counts a fetus as a member. You mistake the connection. The connection is all rights come from the government.

Since it appears here that you do in fact acknowledge that both the above practices are the taking of life do you believe those that feel you are "unwanted" (like Goat perhaps) have the right to off you?

The argument is false. All rights come from the government. Goatman has rights. However, sometimes those rights are taken away. In times of war, it is considered very good to off the "unwanted", and those who do enough of offing the "unwanted" are called heroes. Taking life is how we all survive. Even vegans take life.

I mean, a pre-term fetus can't even ask ol Jack to end it if it wanted to. What's that mean?
Apart from total anarchy, a government is necessary to ensure the safety of a nation's population.

True, but no government considers a fetus to be part of their population.

You can't have both security and freedom, but you can move the slider from one side to the other like a thermostat, you find the most comfortable temperature. For people with enough sense to not think in such extremes as you are demonstrating, less government doesn't mean "no government".

True, but America was founded on freedom and liberty for humans---not security. America is for human freedom of its citizens, and fetuses are not citizens.

Obviously you knew this, but what is also obvious is how your arguments appear to not be strong enough to stray far from those types of extreme absolutes for the sake of your retort.

I think you are reading things into my points that aren't there. Fetuses are protected in all states after 24 weeks. Those rights come from the government. Some countries don't give those rights.

Since you've established earlier that aborting a fetus is ending life in the same fashion as assisted suicide, I wonder what you're saying about your own character? What's weaker than a fetus after all?

Again, you are jumping to the wrong conclusion. aborting a fetus is nothing like assissted suicide. The two are joined only by the fact that all rights come from the government. What's weaker than a fetus? I would say sperm is much weaker. All sperm has the same potential for life as does a fetus---both just need a few more things added. Sperm are as alive as any fetus.

And let's get this straight right now I'm not name-calling or personally attacking ...nyone. I'm engaging in debate, so don't anybody make this about themselves or freak out on me. I'd appreciate it. :-D

These are the points I make:

No country gives a fetus citizen status.

No church counts a fetus as a member.

No country counts a fetus in their census.

No human being has the right to suck life from another human being without permission.

No freedom loving person should think they have the right to make life decisions for another human being.

#264 | Posted by R0B0T at 2010-01-28 11:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm wrong because you know better than the Supreme Court, ....."

Does the Roe is good law because it is a Supreme Court decision philosophy apply to the recent decisions as well?

Does the Roe is good law because it is a Supreme Court decision philosophy apply to the recent decisions as well?

Posted by SpokaneJim

Roe is a bad opinion that lead to good results imo

Does the Roe is good law because

Not necessarily. Roe is a good law because:
-It is firmly planted in the US Constitution.
-It has held up to unrelenting economic, legal, and political pressure from American Mullas and their flock for over 30 years.
-Even with 100 million dollar prayer drives to purchase sympathetic judges and politicians, it stands, possibly as the best example to the world that America isn't completely full of religious lunatics incapable of tending their own business, yet.

Roe is a good law because:

our elected leaders believe that.

Roe is the largest political beachball that has never run out of air.

As long as they can keep that thing in the air being tossed around the 2 parties can keep the sheep on their respective sides of the fence.

our elected leaders believe that.

Some of them do.

As long as they can keep that thing in the air being tossed around

Agreed.

If you want to instigate public fight, possibly cause enough of a stir to force, say, a President to enter the debate, do you think making a Super Bowl message would help your cause?

And if you want to make certain your message gets ample attention, wouldn't making an unprovoked "comment" to a reporter at the All-Star game before it airs be a good way to do that?

Me thinks somebody was paying attention in their media relations course at UF.

You're quite the detective.
Not really. I was just surprised you finally admitted your argument is just an expression of arrogance.

You apparently don't know when you're being mocked. I was making fun of you for figuring out that I was opposed to Roe when I had already stated early on that I was opposed to Roe.

Perhaps tomorrow you can discover that the Earth is round.

You called me out on "incorrectly" attributing the Roe ruling to the 14th. Me, not the Court, not Justice Blackmun.

Nope. I merely stated that the 14th Amendment is unrelated to abortion. That the court erred doesn't make it so.

Regardless, you're still dodging the real point which you originally chose to contend, which is that abortion is regulated at the State, not Federal, level. I understand why you're dodging that point- it's inarguably correct.

So here in the universe of Things That Actually Happen, abortion law stems from the privacy rights granted in the 14th Amendment. If you know that and just don't agree with how the decision was reached, you've cleverly disguised your position until now.
I didn't know you wanted to debate abortion law in the universe of Things That Would Happen If Schwartz and Associates Wrote Majority Opinions.
My bad.

Seriously. Are you really this incapable of reasonable, rational discussion?

Perhaps tomorrow you can discover that the Earth is round.

Some of you "pro-lifers" are still working on that one.

"I'm with you 100%. I'll go with 1st trimester abortions, but after that, I get squeamish. But at any time in the pregnancy, I don't deny it is taking a life. Why hide or sugar coat the reality of what is going on?"

Uh-oh, someone is trying to have a nuanced opinion on abortion rather than the idiotic, absolute positions we're comfortable with.....

Quick, stone him!

"Dobson claims to have the welfare of children in mind but has caused more harm than good. Several suicides have been directly attributed to his teachings."

I would love to see documentation of that.

#76 | Posted by ken_schwartz

You can start your education on how many suicides have been attributed to bigotry and intolerance and hate of the Christian Right and it's affect on families with

"For the Bible Tells Me So"

it is on Youtube

Here is part 1

"The issue was the misclassification of Abortion as a privacy issue, not side effects of overturning Roe."

Huh? I wasn't part of that argument. I was asking a specific question. But yes, the privacy issue is built into the penumbra concept, no? (I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, just a citizen who enjoys investigating concepts.)

I have heard it suggested that Roe is valid under this penumbra concept, and if it (Roe) were to be overturned, so too would the entire apple cart be. Am I misunderstanding that specific argument, or are you denying the point? Or neither. Yes, I'm asking a specific question. I am not joining in the current argument. (I don't see how the 14th plays in, personally. I don't know what part it played in the Roe decision-making. And it's not relevant to my question. I don't think. My understanding of the penumbra in question is that a right to privacy overlays or underlays the Bill of Rights...)

They should just bring out their own commercial....free speech and all...

I would like to know how much Tebow and his mom are being paid by Focus on the Family to do this commercial for them.

We can save a puppy but we cant save a baby?..."Oh..it's too little to be a person yet".. It's alive isnt it? It's going to be a person at some point isnt it? I really really want somebody who believes in God to explain to me why She would be OK with abortion except for in the most extreme circumstances. Please

by Bob; Address the points--don't dodge them.

No country gives a fetus citizen status.

No church counts a fetus as a member.

No country counts a fetus in their census.

#216 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

East Asian age reckoning originated in China;
used in cultures such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mongolia, Taiwanese and Vietnamese

a person's age is counted starting from conception, rather than from physical birth.

Newborns start at one year old, and each passing of a New Year adds one year to the person's age

tsk Bob . . . your stated position was OFF by a factor of 4 BILLION or so - - (including unborn citizens)

I do gotta also note, the FORMERLY "insignificant clump of random cells" in Pam Tebow's tummy . . is NOW a hell-of-a man

:)