UPDATE: CBS is reportedly considering running a Super Bowl ad produced by a gay men’s dating website.
Say a prayer for me. I’m about to get controversial.
In a “why am I not surprised” move, CBS executives have decided that it would be perfectly consistent with their “longstanding policy of not accepting advocacy advertising” to air a pro-life (Ahem. excuse me, pro-family) ad during this year’s Super Bowl.
The $2.5 million, 30-second spot is sponsored by Focus on the Family and stars the bible-verse-eye-blacked Tim Tebow and his mother. Who is really glad she chose life, now that her son will soon be richer than Peyton Manning. As the Colorado Springs Independent reports:
The Focus ad supposedly features the story of University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother. Pam Tebow and her husband were Christian missionaries in the Philippines in the ’80s, and during her pregnancy with Tim she developed amoebic dysentery. Doctors told her the strong drug they used to kill the infection had likely damaged the fetus, and they suggested an abortion. Pam refused. Tim was born healthy, won the Heisman Trophy in 2007, led Florida to the national championship a year ago and is a likely top draft pick in next spring’s NFL draft.
Don’t get me wrong. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Tebow making an ad for a cause he believes in. Did you catch that? I’m going to say it again just in case: Tim Tebow, who does God’s work by winning football games, loves Jesus, unborn babies, and his momma, should make any pro-life-pro-Jesus-pro-whatever ad he wants to. Go for it. Good for him. (And good for Him too.)
And really, there’s nothing wrong with CBS deciding to air the ad (to be fair, the final decision has yet to be made), except for one little thing.
As a Media Post writer points out:
Over the years, CBS has rejected Super Bowl ads on the grounds that they advocate one side in matters where “substantial elements of the community (are) in opposition to one another.” A pro-life spot would appear to fall under that umbrella.
Yes. Yes, it would. Aye, there’s the rub.
And as you might have guessed by now, the spots CBS has rejected over the years using this very same rationale happen to be on the other side of the political spectrum from good ‘ol Doctor Dobson and his fetus-loving, gay-bashing brethren.
In 2004, The Tiffany Network rejected an anti-Bush Super Bowl ad produced by MoveOn.org. And as The Boston Globe reports, a gay-friendly ad sponsored by the United Church of Christ was also denied airtime:
Two broadcast networks are refusing to air an ad from the United Church of Christ because the spot, intended to make the point that the Protestant denomination is welcoming, briefly shows two men who are holding hands being turned away from an unnamed church.
CBS and NBC both described the spot as too controversial. In a letter to the denomination, a CBS official said, ”Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations, and the fact that the Executive Branch [the Bush Administration] has recently proposed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast.”
This isn’t really unexpected – I mean, doesn’t all of football-watching America love Jesus and babies, and hate gays and over-sexualized PETA ads? But it certainly reeks of a double-standard.
Related posts:
- Twilight’s Christian Serratos Is an Unfit PETA Spokesnude Faced with a long plane ride and the prospect of...
- Twilight Star Christian Serratos Misguidedly Poses for PETA How awesome must it be to be Christian Serratos right...
- Tabloids Say Mel Gibson’s Mistress Is Pregnant Have you all been following the Mel Gibson divorce? Because...
- Mel Gibson Threatens Churchgoers With Eternal Damnation Mel Gibson, who is in the process of divorcing his...
- Goldman Sachs Exec: Jesus Wants Me to Be Filthy Rich Ready for an eye-popping example of arrogance? Check out Brian...
I watch the “Puppy Bowl” on Animal Planet every year anyway. It’s got a “Kitty Half-Time” show!
Tebow will never be as rich as Peyton Manning. Not even close.
Let’s get this out of the way….
“There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Tebow making an ad for a cause he believes in.”
Why do you hate Christians SJS?
Silly Christers! Super Bowl ad space is meant only for those Go Daddy.com tramps and erectile dysfunction commercials.
And Beer StrawberryGirl, we can’t forget beer. (Or as Baptist call it, Satan’s Favorite Poison!)
It is hard to see the controversy in what people speculate the add to be about. You have to make a huge leap in reason to make this about gays or how Christians feel about them.
It’s controversial in the sense that a lot of people aren’t going to agree with said ad, and will get ticked off, especially if they don’t get their own views aired.
and what about seperation of church and media….or was that state …or steak?
I disagree with the Doritos’ ads as I think Doritos suck. So what? Should we take them off the air since I disagree, nay, OFFENDED, with what they say?
Go Saints!
In case this is of interest to anyone, this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c was rejected to air during the superbowl when NBC had it.
Beyond that, I am really offended by your immature style, this line in particular “good ‘ol Doctor Dobson and his fetus-loving, gay-bashing brethren.”
Oversneer, I don’t know if you care, but I will probably completely stop reading Deceiver because of this. I have been following it for over a year, but ever since Simon left it has gone WAY downhill, and this post just ended it for me. I sincerely wish your blog good luck and hope it finds its voice again.
If CBS is being hypocritical, isn’t that what Deceiver is all about? I disagreed with Sarah about that whole Haiti/ship docking thing, but that’s just because I’m an insensitive jerk, and don’t care about anyone but myself.
I don’t think you can blame the messenger, just because you don’t like the message though.
….and now I love Pasta even more.
SJS:
You are only allowed to criticize people and causes we dislike, OK?
Sarah is just writing on a couple of topics she apparently doesn’t knows little about and is trying to sound cool (or should it be “kewl”? as the tone of her posts are quite immature).
But the good doctor and his ilk are indeed pro-life (fetus-lovin’) and believe homosexuality is wrong (gay-bashing according to the Liberal rulebook) so while her tone is juvenile at least she isn’t making things up.
But until I see the ad, I can’t tell if CBS is doing the right thing or not. It doesn’t matter one second who is behind the ad if the message of the ad is within their standards. Does NOT matter one bit. The ad is supposedly pro-family (whatever that means) and if the panty-wearing pantywaists get their panties into a twist over the fact that some might take it as anti-baby killin’, well then, looks like CBS might have done something right for once.
Until they drop the ad because the ninnies complained of course.
Hey, Tebow is a Gaytor anyways (can’t spell GATORs without GAY). I’d rather he get dropped in a cauldron of hot oil but that’s me…….
Because loving Jesus and babies is the same as beating up Matthew Shepard and leaving him to die on a fence. I get it.
That’s asinine. It’s reductive thinking, it’s prejudiced and ignorant, and it’s asinine. It is also, unfortunately, what we’re beginning to expect.
If you can find a case in which anybody from Dobson’s group has actually BASHED A GAY, please do let us know. And remember, from the outset: Define your terms.
If all the stations air uppity rich liberals who implure us to reach into our pockets and help out the Haitians for 2 hours on a Friday night, then I am all for Tim Tebow telling us his views too. besides, for once I am glad they are running something I believe in instead of those other ridiculous ads that make me want my 30 seconds back.
and how many of those rich people actually donated money? Angelina, Bullock, to name a few.
Pasta: Last year, the Puppy Bowl showed one dog peeing on another (or maybe just trying to pee on another before being whisked away by a handler). You can’t see THAT at the Super Bowl.
I’ll agree they’re hypocrites with one exception, the anti-Bush ad. That should be blocked.
wow, deceiver readers are taking great offense to this write-up. how ’bout we all put or big girl panties back on and call a duck a duck. if CBS has a certain criteria for either accepting or rejecting ads based on what they think will be offensive to their viewing audience, they should stick to that criteria. then again, business is business and all those rednecks who watch the superbowl probably would be offended by the other two ads SJS mentioned and CBS would inevitably lose money by airing them. who ever said life was fair?
I freaking LOVE the Puppy Bowl.
I personally have a “pro-choice” stance. I believe women know what’s best with their own lives. And I think that “pro-life” ads are tacky. However, if you look at all the disgusting typical Super Bowl ads with half-naked women and beer flowing everywhere and bros and other tacky crap that is “un-Christian-like”, maybe this “Christian” ad will just balance it all out?
I don’t know. I can see how it’s hypocritical. If CBS made the statement that they don’t side with one-sided groups in the past, then what changed all of a sudden?
I can take a few different perspectives on this.
By the way, what ever happened to the good ol’ days when Super Bowl ads were light-hearted and funny, like the one with the cowboys herding cats? Now that’s a commercial that everyone can agree with.
Cats should be free range, herding cats is oppressive, enslaving one of God’s noble creatures, for shame….lol
I think there’s a difference between this ad and the previous two. The previous ads attacked specific groups. If the football player’s ad attacked pro-choicers, then yes, the ads are all the same and this is hypocritical. If it doesn’t attack anyone though, then I don’t see why it should be taken off the air. (Of course I don’t know what the ad is like though and won’t know until next week.)
No, my wrong. Dobson loves homosexuals. He loves them so much, he wants to convert them into fundamentalist Christian heterosexuals. I’m sorry, but I think that this counts as gay-bashing…last time I checked the definition (from wikipedia: Gay bashing is an expression used to designate verbal confrontation with, denigration of, or physical violence against people thought to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered (LGBT) because of their apparent sexual orientation or gender identity. …The term can also be applied to non-verbal acts of homophobia…). And I didn’t even have to look beyond Dobson himself.
And again, speaking out against the Federal Hate Crimes Bill:
Besides, I thought all this was pretty much common knowledge. Since when is it a big secret that Focus on the Family is either a) pro-life (and by extension anti-abortion) or b) anti-gay? Also…not really the point. I am not after FoF, Dobson, Tebow or his mother. I also don’t care if CBS airs the ad, only that if they do, they will be doing precisely what they said they would not do in many other, similar instances. CBS, people, CBS!
“I personally have a “pro-choice” stance. I believe women know what’s best with their own lives.”
First, call it what it is. It’s a “pro-abortion” stance. Calling it ‘choice’ is the wimpy way out to make you feel better about what you support. Why the need to sugar-coat it? Oh, I know….
Secondly, that kind of thinking is as empty as it gets. I’m sorry, but it is. I have no interest in getting into a whole argument and will abstain from commenting after this but if this is the line of reasoning from the “pro-choice” crowd, it is stunningly pathetic. No matter what side of the argument you fall on this kind of logic boggles the mind. I understand it is the logic of freshman college kids sitting around the campfire, strumming their guitars and talking about how they will change the world and how their parents just don’t understand, but it’s dumb. Dumb.
Do you believe it is ok for seat-belt use to be required by law? Do you believe drug use should be illegal? Do you think helmets should be required by law for motorcycles? If not, why? There are many laws in which the State intrudes on your lives for your supposedly own good that I’m sure many pro-abortion people fully support but somehow the one that involves killing another human being is OK just because “women know what’s best”?
And if women know what’s best and the procedure is just pulling clumps of tissue from your vajayjay why does the “pro-abortion” lobby fight so hard against requiring sonograms prior to the procedure. I mean, what’s the harm?
God forbid you have a daughter who gets strung out on drugs. How can you tell her to stop using? After all, she’s a woman and women know what’s best for their lives. And before anyone says “well, that’s different”, stop and quit typing. You will only make yourself look sillier.
I think the ad sounds inoffensive personally, but there is some hypocrisy in CBS accepting it. HOWEVER, as they claim their policy has been changed, it will only really be hypocritical if they refuse to run “one-sided” ads (that are otherwise inoffensive, which is possible) at a later date. I’ll give them a conditional pass for now.
I am totally for the Puppy Bowl and Kitty Half-time Show.
Hate crimes are actually unconstitutional because they are criminalizing thought/belief, which is protected, even when abhorrent. Prosecute criminal acts, but intent should only be used to show motive/prove guilt. People are guaranteed the right to hate. You just can’t act on it. It isn’t nice, but unless you want to gut the Constitution and only allow certain opinions, that’s the way it is.
*gets off soapbox lectern*
Wow, the punches just keep coming. While I agree there may be hypocrisy if they accept it, bashing pro-lifers is unnecessary. Not all pro-lifers are bible thumping, gay haters – to use your language. As a matter of fact, I am a pro-lifer myself, as well as an agnostic and an advocate of gay rights. I have so much more to say, but I am so irritated by this post I can’t put it together rationally.
As babel says, I am sure you don’t care, but this is the last time I read Deceiver. I am pulling it off my blogline reader and unfollowing on Twitter. I have loved reading this blog, it was fun to finally find a snarky blog on my side. Too bad, this was one of the best blogs on the web. Goodbye.
@Hurricane- Gee, thanks for the personal attack. Good job, I hope that made you feel better about yourself. Oh, and good job on stereotyping me, too.
@ Hurricane. when you have a vagina, you can come back and discuss roe v. wade, until then stay out of mine. you’re an idiot if you think pro-choice equates to pro-abortion. the ruling is not about women wanting to have abortions, it’s about women wanting the right to do what they please with their bodies.
I’ll start off by saying that I am a die-hard Gator fan and that I admire Tim for not being afraid to share his faith. However, I don’t really think that CBS is making the right move with this. Although FOF’s claim is that the purpose of the ad is to “celebrate families”, they could have done so without the Tebows. By having Tim and his mother do the ad, it automatically gains a very pro-life stance simply because it’s the Tebows that are doing it. And anybody who is familiar with Tim and his values is going to pick up on that.
Yeah, I understand that it would make sense to feature Tim in a Superbowl ad because he’s a football icon and all, but he’s also very well known for his faith (In fact, Tim would much rather you recognize him for his faith other than his status as an athlete). I don’t know if CBS is making the right choice by allowing something like this to show during such a huge event. Oh well, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see…
When you start employing the same kind of vitriol towards CBS as you do towards Focus on the Family–and by extension, anyone else who’s pro-life–I’ll buy that. This post was clearly meant to dig at pro-lifers, despite your ostensible angle on CBS’s double standard.
Exactly. Disagreeing with something is NOT THE SAME as hating someone, no matter how many times you say it is, and no matter how loudly you say it.
Okay, kids — Break time. Everyone out of the pool. Shake off the sand.
I guess we struck a third-rail, but I’m sticking by SJS. Everyone is fair game here. Hell, if Larry the Cable Guy turns out to be an opportunistic investment banker who speaks four languages, I’ll kick his ass. And I think he’s funny as hell.
Sorry if we lost a few readers over this, but we’re not here to coddle anyone. We’re trying to make you think and laugh at the same time.
Which is like walking and chewing gum. Or something.
So…”pro-choice” refers to a choice between…what, exactly? Shades of wallpaper? Automatic or standard? Mac or PC?
And by what logic does someone have to have a vagina to debate abortion? I’ve never killed anyone; does that mean I don’t get to condemn murder? I’ve never set a house on fire, so do I have to reserve judgment on the right or wrong of arson?
Oversneer, I don’t think anybody has asked for “coddling”–nor does anybody need help learning to think. It’s not like this is the first time Deceiver has posted stories that reflect negatively on conservatives or conservative groups. It is one of the most poorly-written ones, however.
@Hurricane. GREAT POST!
Sorry you don’t have a Vagina! But what about the 9 MEN ( supreme court justices) who voted on Roe V Wade. How come they are allowed to discuss it?
Just saying by your logic…..
I love how the same term “gay bashing” is used for both saying things that hurt peoples feelings and dragging them behind your truck. Calling people that believe that homosexuality is a sin gay-bashers is as valid as calling people against obamacare racists, it is a way to silence people that have different opinions. Violence against anyone that isn’t harming you or another is WRONG, but to claim someone who doesn’t like homosexuality is guilty of the same offense and someone who harms or kills someone is also WRONG.
@fallingstar- I said I wasn’t going to comment further but I shall to you as I feel bad. It wasn’t a personal attack and I think you’ll see that when you have had time to consider it. It was simple criticism of the normal argument from the pro-choice side, a line of reasoning you clearly, but unfortunately, share. I do understand that as far as the Left sees things, any critique of their beliefs system is considered a personal attack. I’m just somewhat surprised a kneejerk “you’re a racist!” wasn’t shouted too even though that has nothing to do with things. It’s par for the course. My suggestion to you would be to develop a more logical line of reasoning to back your argument up. There are some decents ones to be had. Your current one falls short and I know you can understand that.
As for the stereotyping, unless you are a hardcore conservative who is pro-choice, I think I was in your ballpark so thanks. I know it was a good job but I always appreciate a little kudos from the peanut gallery as well. That’s why I am here. That’s why we are all here.
Going off what Oversneer said, I hope the only readers Deceiver loses are the rude ones. I’ve been a long time commenter and an even longer reader here and I just can’t believe how downright rude some people have gotten here.
@ Hurricane- So I’m automatically grouped in with the liberal Obama worshipers? Stereotyping people based on one of their opinions is what looks “silly”.
@fallingstar — In the immortal words of Harland Williams, everybody’s rude. http://comedians.jokes.com/harland-williams/videos/harland-williams—everybody-s-rude
I think SJS nailed the CBS hypocrisy part. No question. It’s worth raising.
It’s the sneering, patronising tone of ‘who does God’s work by winning football games, loves Jesus, unborn babies, and his momma, should make any pro-life-pro-Jesus-pro-whatever ad he wants to. Go for it. Good for him.’ That’s what annoys me here.
And it’s a pattern with SJS. The two posts on Palin made fun of her accent and hillbilly credentials. This time, it’s making fun of Christians.
If I wanted to read watered down KosKidKrazy, I’d go to the source.
Yeah, I don’t see a problem with the CBS hypocrisy angle either, Jane. But when the target of a post is supposedly one entity, and the tone of the post itself makes it clear that the writer’s actually grinding an axe to use on someone else entirely, that’s when it gets confusing and, as in this case, annoying.
i don’t understand how people don’t understand what por-choice implies. as a woman it’s my *choice* to either keep the potential child or abort it. that’s where the CHOICE comes in. get it? and considering 90% of pro-life supporters are men and 100% of them will never get pregnant, i find it ridiculous that they get to decide what i do with my body.
Childless social workers also get to decide what happens to a lot of other people’s children. How far do you want to carry the whole you-have-to-be-just-like-me-to-have-an-opinion thing?
Seriously–do you honestly think nobody UNDERSTANDS what pro-choice means? We understand it just fine. It’s just odd that abortion supporters don’t want to say they’re in favor of abortion–it gets gentrified into “choice”, because that sounds nicer.
Beige, I agree. It appears that the CBS hypocrisy is just a convenient vehicle to bash Christians with. Unfortunate.
Well I have a vagina, so I guess I’m allowed to have an opinion on abortion. In a way, I’m pro-choice. I believe that if a woman is pregnant, she has already made the choice to have a baby. And that’s where the choice ends. (Disclaimer: I am not against abortions in the case of rape or medical emergency. In the case of rape, she didn’t get to make a choice, and in the other case, there’s a separate choice to be made.)
Oh, and since somebody brought up Roe vs Wade, here’s a fun fact. Norma McCorvey (Roe) herself is now a huge pro-life activist and has been trying to get that case overturned for years.
On the topic of Dobson, I’ve heard the first quote before. It was his response to a study that showed homosexual couples valued monogamy less than heterosexual couples. So that part of the comment isn’t really coming out of left field. (That said, I don’t agree with his remark and I am not a fan of Dobson.)
The third quote makes sense to me as well, even though I think he phrased it poorly. I’m annoyed that there’s a hate crimes bill out there that protects homosexuals and doesn’t protect Christians. (I think ALL people should be protected.)
PS: I love you, Hurricane. And I’m glad you’re a dude so that this won’t interfere with us bashing gay people. Or something. Whatever pro-lifers are supposed to do in their free time.
If you look at archived Deceiver stuff, there have been plenty of posts referring to hypocrisy on the right. That hypocrisy definitely happens; there’s no denying it. But I never got the sense that the writer had a very personal animosity toward the subject of the post, or towards a particular side. Until now.
It sounds as if the advocacy ads that it refused were anti-something where this one is pro-something. A small difference, but an important one.
Thanks for saying exactly what I wanted to say Beige. You hit the nail on the head, many times over. And I agree with Jane, if I want KosKidsKrazy, I will head straight to the source.
As one of the lost readers (this post is my last), I didn’t find commenters rude, just opinionated. I like opinionated. Opinions keep it fun.
Kat- stick around. Your voice carries much weight. We must always fight for what’s right even in places we find most uncomfortable. Especially in these places.
@Owitzia: fo sho!
anagram089: Have you ever heard the statistic that 73% of all statistic are made up? Anyone that claims “90% of pro-life supporters are men” is either deluded or a liar, not sure where you fall.
Beige: Nail on the head, making snarky comments is one thing, if you are a hypocrite you brought it upon yourself, but I am seeing a trend with SJS, where instead of comedic comments they seem to take a tone filled with venom and hate, and now this one where instead of actually going after the real hypocrites( and CBS is being hypocritical ), and the real attack seems to be aimed at christians in general.
I hope that those saying they are leaving reconsider, even when there are differences of opinions there has usually been civility, which is what I think SJS is lacking.
I for one still plan to return but am likely to start ignoring SJS’s posts.
I have an idea, those of you that are unhappy with SJS join me in an SJS boycott, when her post stop getting hits and comments then maybe they will boot her.
@Hurricane- I’m sorry a fellow woman attempted to exclude you from the discussion solely because of your gender. (ps- men help make babies too duh. I always remember at times like these a news interview with a man who was sobbing because his gf aborted their twin babies without his consent. Men are parents too)
And really, do I have to say it again? Pro-choice means supporting NOT getting an abortion! Meaning if you’re pro-choice, you should support what Mrs. Tebow did. She had two choices and took one. There’s no evidence this ad is anti-pro-choice yet, or speaks specifically about outlawing abortion. Why is a supposedly simple statement of pro-family love upetting some of you so much? Maybe it really is just that, and you’re reading too far into it. This ad is freedom of speech. If you don’t like it, pass around the hat and air your own ad about how great the freedom to have an abortion is.
And yes, I join a lot of you in despising passive-aggressive rants. If you don’t like pro-lifers, just say it right out! Geez.
I took the original post to mean that CBS was taking sides, though all the while claiming not to. Hence, the hypocrisy.
anagram089, I’m a pro-life woman. Gasp!
Also, I agree with what others have said about the tone of this post. It’s one thing to point out hypocrisy and add a bit of snark, and another to inject your own sneering, venemous slant.
I’m pro-choice, but I still think abortion should be avoided if possible. I think it should be an OPTION, but…and this is where I think a lot of the misunderstanding comes in…people who are pro-choice aren’t all “Happy day, let’s have a picnic in the park and skip off to get an abortion!” I just want to throw that out there. Abortion is a hot button topic with almost everyone, but I don’t think “pro-choice” and “pro-life” have to be opposites or that supporters of each need to fight each other tooth and nail.
I’m also all in favor of the free market, not a fan of Obama, and against gun control. And I love Jesus on top of all of that. So in theory, everyone flying off the handle and sneering at one side or the other is also managing to sneer at me. There are plenty of people who aren’t completely polarized toward one party’s platform. Let’s all relax.
I stood out on the street with pictures of dead babies back in the day, and here’s what I have to say about this post:
I miss the Budweiser frogs.
…WOW. This post brought the wank like naught else.
In the interests of full disclosure, I’m a Christian and a pro-lifer. That said, tone of the article aside, Miss Snarker nailed some hypocrisy here. Not only is CBS contradicting their original ad policies, they’re doing so with a multi-million dollar payoff in hand. Not cool, CBS. Not cool.
I am going to say that it can be taken as a slam against Christians in general, especially with lines like this:
This isn’t really unexpected – I mean, doesn’t all of football-watching America love Jesus and babies, and hate gays and over-sexualized PETA ads?
While I do find that rather stereotypical and offensive (except the PETA part, PETA can jump in the lake for all I care), I have to say props for the hypocrisy report. Keep up the digging, Deceiver!
Regardless of the message contained within the ad, CBS denied the United Church of Christ airtime for their ad. Based on the name I’d assume the United Church of Christ is a Christian Church.
The “Christian Broadcasting Service” denying a Christian Church buy airtime? Blasphemy!
Pro-choice is choice between having an abortion and not having an abortion. It is as simple as that. And get this, abortion is murder. The women chooses to end the life of someone because she had a one night stand. I am open minded about rape as I am not sure where that one falls into yet.
I worked with inner city girls who used abortion as the means of birth control. It made me sick to my stomach especially since I am one of those women who can never have kids myself.
Just like someone chooses to walk into a bar and shoot people, killing them, a women has the choice to walk into a clinic and end their pregnancy. In my eyes, it is the same thing. Except the baby has no chance to defend itself.
And I agree – bring back the Clysdales and frogs. Leave the sleezy women out of the super bowl ads. I find it refreshing that someone as young and influential as Tebow is standing by his principals when so many young people do not even know what a principal is. Adults either for that matter.
I don’t really take exception with CBS choosing to run this ad — they say they’ve got certain criteria that must be met, and they feel this ad fits said criteria. I do find SJS’s tone in this post (in most of her posts, actually) offensive, but what can ya do? In the future maybe I’ll just skip her posts. No biggie.
It’s frustrating, because in society it’s OK to be vocal about certain things: you can scream from the rooftops that you support gay marriage or you’re against the war in Afghanistan… but God forbid you speak openly about being a Christian or holding conservative beliefs. It’s always open season on Christians and the right… it’s like they’re one of the few groups it’s still “OK” to hate on — right up there with fat people. Where is the hate crime legislation to protect them? What happened to those people who were throwing bricks through church windows after Prop 8? What about the fact that Christians are being murdered EVERY DAY in the Muslim world — but where’s the outrage there? If it was the other way around I’m sure Amnesty International or other “human rights” groups would be all over it like white on rice.
I really couldn’t care less about college football, but I’m a big fan of Tim Tebow… not only is he outrageously hot, but from what I’ve heard (from friends who are RABID Gators fans) he actually walks the walk. It’s one thing to say you’re this big Christian, but when you’re off the field you’re messing around with groupies or doing drugs or whatnot. But Tebow says he’s a Christian, and he lives his life according to that. He and his family get HUGE props from me for that. Seeing as how our young people look up to athletes so much, it’s refreshing to see one who actually IS a good role model. No criminal charges, no baby mamas… I think that’s pretty great.
I can see you are all in a tizzy about your views on choice or life.
An outside concern I had with the ad was the disregard for medical advise. Tim Tebow’s mother was very very lucky that her son was born without any physical or mental defects, however many people would not be that lucky. I am truly happy for their family it worked out, but the ad’s underlying message is ignore sound medical advise and your family might be one of the lucky ones.
And let’s not forget the other deceivers here, although they may not be as sexy as a story about a big media corporation: the feminist groups like the Women’s Media Center and the National Organization for Women who have launched an online effort to convince CBS to change their minds on the ad.
Mrs. Tebow was faced with an extremely tough decision. During her pregnancy she lost her health and required drugs which put her unborn child in danger. Despite the urging of her doctors (most likely at least one of which was a man) to have an abortion she made up her mind that she would continue on with her pregnancy and deliver her child. This woman had the courage and conviction to ignore the advice of experts and defied the odds.
To me, if these feminist groups weren’t so hypocritical themselves they’d be championing her story not pushing an online campaign to silence her. I suppose women’s rights are only unalienable when they are inline with your agenda.
LN – kind of a moot point considering Tim Tebow was born and turned out to be an amazing athelete. No?
Anagram- I am a woman and I am pro-life. I have one adopted child who was a candidate for abortion but her mother didn’t have the money or the desire to find an organization that would pay for her abortion. We adopted her at 8 years old and love her very much, there was a hole in our hearts we never even knew we had until we met her. We also have a biological daughter who is 3 and adores her big sister and a new baby on the way that they both hope is a brother. Blastocysts become people unless they are too unhealthy to be carried to term or are aborted. Blastocyst, embryo, fetus, baby whatever word we use, will have a heart, soul and emotions if they are able to live. Pro-choice is pro-abortion, the right to decide for our bodies should extend to us as women, absolutely. No one should be able to tell us not to have sex, or who it should be with, we should be allowed to choose for ourselves wether we take birth control, seek medical treatment for illness, leave the home without covering our faces and hair.
We HAVE the choice to take birth control, and to obtain it quite cheaply from planned parenthood at that, when we don’t take responsibility for our actions is where this becomes an issue. We know where babies come from, we had the choice to prevent the baby from being conceived, if we decide not to be responsible and take precaution then we are faced with a living human being growing inside of us. We demand that people who have had to much to drink should not drive because they will probably harm someone by their lack of responsibility. While not quite the same thing, deciding not to use birth control and be informed about our bodies puts us in a place to harm someone else because of our lack of responsibility. We already have a choice and that choice is to prevent a baby from being conceived. We don’t live in the 1950’s anymore, we have the choice, knowledge and ability to be responsible without having to involve our parents or others. Our boyfriends and husbands can’t force us to get pregnant against our will, and if they try by force we are protected from them by law.
While I love this site, I have to say this post seems to be very pointed and not at the entity accused of being a hypocrite. When you find info that Doctor Dobson hit a gay man with a baseball bat or forced his third favorite 15 year old mistress to have an abortion, please, by all means, make a post about it. But it seems like in this case CBS was a convenient platform to rant about those with views different from yours. I am all for pointing out obvious, glaring hypocrisy, Christian, or not, but when you have to reach this far to back hand someone, maybe it’s not exactly deserving of the critique.
I am finding SJS’s snark to be of a rather elitist tone. She is certainly welcome to her opinions and to blog them here at Deciever, as I am welcome to skip reading her future blogs.
I’m a libertarian (small “l”) and a Christian so I’m ambivalent regarding pro-life/ pro-choice. (Ambivalent, not uninformed or apathetic). Morally, I’m opposed to it; politically, I don’t want the state interferring with anyone’s life more than nessecary. These two views are at a loggerheads within my own mind.
That being said, I’m inclined to agree that yes, CBS is being hypocritical going back on its own views. Now, not having seen the ad yet, it could be that it is a very neutral, heartwarming story type of ad. Given that FotF is involved however makes it credible that the ad will be partisan on one side of a hot button issue. But I could be wrong.
***
“An outside concern I had with the ad was the disregard for medical advise” ~ LN
I’ve got no problem with people being encouraged to think for themselves, investigate issues for themselves, and make decisions for themselves. The medical community is far from infallible. If this ad encourages people to think “The doctors say my kid will be born disabled, but that’s not a certainty. Could I live with raising a severely disabled child? Could I live with aborting a child?” and weighing the risks and possibilities for their own lives. Doctors can only give advice on what they think will be best, but their advice can be influenced by fear of being sued for malpractice, bad studies, and influence from pharmaceutical companies.
That’s the thing about “choice.” It comes with a load of responsibility for looking over the options and weighing them soberly and seriously. There’s a possibility that will mean going against doctor’s advice.
Did it ever occur to any of you sudden Deceiver haters that stirring up controversy (and attracting readers with passion) is what a blog like this is supposed to do?
If I want mindless entertainment, I’ll go back to Dlisted. This is far more engaging.
Bigger hypocrisy: that so many of these pro-lifers would refuse healthcare to these babies and the mothers who were forced to have them. Ahh, the far right… the Christian party that doesn’t do as Jesus would.
In His day, Jesus liked to hang out with lepers and whores (the bane of that society); in todays’s world, he’d probably be chillaxin’ with gays and abortion-getters. lol
Biggest hypocrites off all: Deceiver posters who complain about ONE “liberal” post in a sea just the opposite. All of the sudden, now that one topic isn’t bashing something from the far-left, everybody’s gonna grab their toys and stomp away from the playground?
NEWSFLASH: they’re ALL hypocrites. Reps. Dems. Moderates. The far right. The far left. Your momma. (It’s just not as fun to post about her.) lol Personally, I prefer the posts about obnoxious Hollywood hypocrites, anyways, but sheesh…
Thanks for bringing out the laughs, Snarker. I guess you better go back to mocking Edwards, Obama, & Gore or your readers will skip your posts.
They sure told you.
i dont think this is about the issue being displayed with the adspot. i think this is about cbs’ choice to run it– if they’ve got a policy (if!) that states they dont run ads that a large portion of a population finds offensive, and then they run it anyway, well, thats hypocritical. SJS did uncover it, and thats the whole point of the website wherever you happen to fall on a political spectrum.
Because this is the very first time anything anti-conservative has EVER been posted on Deceiver? Have you ever read any of Holly Won’t posts? She’s gone after right-wingers, but she’s done it with about 95% less ham-handed brutality than SJS. I also seem to recall the much-missed Simon Scowl posting about some right-wing hypocrisy too. There wasn’t this much outrage then, because they did it well. And in case you haven’t noticed, not “everybody” is grabbing their toys and stomping away.
Beige – you need to be a writer because you say it so much better than I ever could. Hypocracy is all around us. Look at Pelosi, Reid and Kerry. They claim to be Catholic but support abortion. Catholics believe that life begins at conception so I believe, as a fellow Catholic that they are huge deceivers. There are deceivers on the right of the aisle as well. However, it is how it is delivered that makes it fun. If I wanted nastiness, I would read Huffington Post and listen to the bandrupted Air America. See how well nastiness worked out for them?
Right on Beige. Deceiver has called out lots of hypocrites left and right but until now I have never felt insulted by any of them whether I agree or disagree. The description of SJS’s posts as ‘ham fisted’ is apt. Miss Snarker needs to mature a little in her writing.
luscious_t what babies in the US (other than those who are victims of an abortion) don’t have access to health care? Find me one.
Ever heard of SCHIP?
Again with the asinine. There are lists of LISTS of programs and shelters and churches who cater to and reach out to babies and their mothers, particularly low-income babies and their mothers. Yeah, we’re all about barring those pediatrician’s office doors. Nice try, except not really.
The more people that bash SJS, the more I will support her. Why? Because I’m cool that’s why.
Hahahaha – I love reading this stuff. lol Keep it coming.
Well glad to know that my original post was right on and a prediction of things to come…
I am deeply conservative (leaning libertarian) and one thing that always disturbed me about my fellow conservatives is their need to push their moral beliefs on others. Oh I know you are all gonna say it’s not true but let me point out one theme I have seen here.
Whatever your opinion is, abortion is a medical procedure. If conservatives believe in a less intrusive government why do they accept the inteference of government into a medical decision? You would think less government would be less all the way around.
I also get a chuckle out of this other bit of hypocrisy. “I want my religous freedom and you have no right to intefere in my religous beliefs” which leads to “my religous beliefs say what your are doing is morally wrong so you should not be allowed to do it!”
Echoing Jenn:
She is certainly welcome to her opinions and to blog them here at Deceiver, as I am welcome to skip reading her future blogs.
So SJS, though you’ve certainly struck a chord, it’s been awhile since we who disagree with some of your opinions have had to really put on our thinking caps. I’m glad you’re here because it’ll keep our debating skills honed…Lord knows I need sharpening.
Now that we know your take, and others’, I’ve been itching to throw this out:
People keep saying a woman should have the right to decide what to do about her own body.
Ponder this — an unborn baby is not your body. It has only half of your chromosomes, can have a different blood type, and be of opposite gender (yeah, I know we all start out girls). It is only “IN” your body…granted, severely in it… but it is not you, nevertheless. I is a separate entity which at some point looks human, and is human before that, even if it doesn’t look like it. It certainly is not a duck. It has it’s own soul – whether you believe it’s God-given or just happens. Your body does not need it to survive. For a certain length of time, it does need you, granted. But that doesn’t make it your body. Will the pregnancy have an effect on your body? Yes. Maybe you don’t want to go through that. Okay, but condemning the unborn to death though it has committed no crime ?
In contrast, if you have cancer, that is very much a part of your body — same chromosomes, same blood type and gender and no soul. Do you have a right to kill the cancer or leave it alone? Sure — that truly is your body, a part no one wants to keep.
What’s the legal difference between terminating the life of an unwanted unborn child, which is legal at various trimesters depending on the US state, -vs- terminating the life of an unwanted 6-month old, which is not legal ? Merely the law. Man has decided that one is okay.
I have a sister-in-law who had 3 younger kids when her husband just decided to have another life. She was Catholic at the time, and dated another guy a couple of years later, got pregnant, and decided to have an abortion, and she did agonize over whether to do it or not. So yes, I realize that those who do have abortions do not always do it lightly, though some do.
They quickly broke up (I forgot who “left” who first). She was just glad to have that part of her life gone. But she later regretted the abortion decision every day of her life since. Her one daughter has had 3 kids out of marriage by 2 fathers, and my sister-in-law strongly advised her not to abort — all 3 of them, knowing full well it’d be a rough road ahead for them all, and she ended up raising 2 of them for the most part. Maybe out of guilt, but also conviction. She’s not been Catholic for quite some time, but still very much a Christian (man, that’s another can-o-worms).
I have a daughter who thinks she’s gay, sometimes, but she wanted a baby so she had one – cute little guy of 2.5 years. And no father to help her raise him. I have another daughter who got pregnant and then married very soon thereafter – she’s due in late Spring. You know, you train your kids the best you can – the rest is up to them. I mentioned these stories so you know my wife and I have been intimately familiar with the pro-choice/pro-abortion/pro-life world, and not just speaking from theory.
Cheers
@D- everyone’s a hypocrite. A lot of us are amused my the ‘my body, my choice’ types who turn around and try to legally control if/when we smoke, wear seatbelts, and set our thermostat all “for our own good”.
And really, has anyone ever, oh I don’t know, ASKED if a Christian would help raise an unwanted child? You might be surprised at the answer. A lot of Christians are good at making casseroles, tutoring on homework, donating money, etc. You shouldn’t just assume that religious types won’t help before knowing for sure.
Hey folks — For all of you who think you’re entitled to a pillow-soft and stress-free reading experience here, and that it’s no great shakes to please all of the people all of the time, why not try it yourself?
We’re accepting Guest Blogger submissions. Just drop me a line at Oversneer@Gmail.com
Our dear stalwart “Pastafarian” has just agreed to be the first regular guest poster.
… or maybe we need a Commie-to-Fascist political “meter” like http://www.fark.com/politics/
@Les Paul – The problem I have with your assessment is when do we decide a fetus/baby can be considered a seperate entity from the mother. If you say at the zygot stage, you loose me. Generally it was decided that our current state of medical technology can support a fetus/baby outside of the mothers womb at the 6 month stage. Other study’s have also shown that memories begin around the same time, maybe even sooner.
One other note: just because you believe in a “soul” doesn’t mean everyone does.
A bit of a non-sequitor here, but I’ve always been puzzled at how proponents of the “pro-choice” stance always seems to sneer every time abstinence education is brought up, since abstinence is actually just another choice women could make.
Why is that? Is it because it’s mostly the OMG XTIANS!!!!1!! who advocate that approach?
Tossing out condoms like festival confetti to a classroom full of 8th graders does not constitute “sex education” and has CLEARLY done nothing to effectively reduce teen pregnancy. Obviously abstinence is not as much fun, mind you, but life isn’t all about instant gratification at every turn. At least that’s how grown-ups roll.
For full disclosure, since I’ll surely receive at least one screeching epithet about me having no right to speak on this issue since CLEARLY I have no vagina: 1) I’m female, 2) I’m not a practicing Christian, and 3) in spite of what I’ve written, I don’t believe it’s my place to try to push on other women what they should do with their bodies, so I’d never support any law that prohibits voluntary abortion (with provisions, of course: Abortions with taxpayer money? Nyet. Partial birth? Sorry. Services provided to minors without parental consent? Not on your f*cking life, with the exception of incest.) Unwanted pregnancy situations are complex, intensely personal and, since the baby (not “fetus”) is actually living inside the woman’s body, taking nutrients from her blood and 100% dependent on her for its life, it’s her call, plain and simple.
So I really wish I could get behind the pro-choice movement, I really do. But the problem I see with a LOT of abortions (empirical evidence only, sorry) is that women are demanding the right to choose an extreme measure to “correct” a condition created by the refusal to make a responsible choice in the first place. And until I see more evidence that the “pro-choice” side values education about only choice that is 100% effective against pregnancy, it ain’t gonna happen.
I don’t particularly want to climb into this hornet’s nest, but just wanted to point out that a.) not all women who have abortions are irresponsible or careless, and b.) not all aborted fetuses are unwanted.
I do feel this article should be required reading for anyone interested in reproductive rights:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/
Yet heartbreaking decisions like these would not be permissible under regulations that would restrict abortions to cases of rape and incest.
Anyway, carry on.
HW, I don’t know if your comment was directed at me, but after reading the article you linked, I feel I have to amend the “partial birth” thing I wrote about to add that I believe if the mother’s life is in any way in danger, what must be done to save her must be done – if she wishes it to be that way. I’ll reiterate that I understand that choice is always an intensely personal and complex, and yes, heartbreaking one to make. No, not all women who have abortions are irresponsible or careless, but our “whatever you feel you want to do is the right thing to do!” culture does nothing to cultivate responsibility or curtail heartbreak like this either.
Not to you in particular, Julie, just as a general aside. And in Gretchen Voss’s case, her life was not at risk. It was a question of whether women pregnant with babies who have been identified with severe birth defects should be forced to carry to term.
SJS, Oversneer & Deceiver: great job with this post. I just love how all your conservative (christian, pro-life) readers got all touchy and offended because SJS had the audacity to point out hypocrisy that, lo and behold, involves Christians and pro-lifers as its subject.
CBS has a policy not to air ads that could be considered controversial or partisan. They reject religious ads from a church that include a brief image of gay tolerance. That’s fine; it’s easy to see how the ad promotes religion and gay tolerance, which is partisan and controversal.
Then they decide to air an ad that is blatantly pro-life. Which is controversal and partisan.
How is everyone not seeing the hypocrisy here?
@angryarmywife:
1. “And get this, abortion is murder. The women chooses to end the life of someone because she had a one night stand.” Who is this woman? Do you mean to say all women? Yes, the only women who get abortions are lazy, immoral, scarlet women of the night who can’t keep their legs shut and are too lazy to use birth control.
2. “I worked with inner city girls who used abortion as the means of birth control.” Great, another instance of your taking a personal experience and applying it to 100% of a group of people who perform the same action. Maybe less of these poor inner-city girls would resort to abortion if they had access to affordable birth control and education about safe sex and pregnacy prevention.
3. Until the Supreme Court reaches a decicion that fetuses are fully formed, complete human beings that are fully funcional without the in-utero support of their mothers’ bodies, abortion is not murder.
And I just love how Republicans & Conservatives just HATE the Federal Government getting all up in their buisness, and yet are PERFECTLY happy telling individuals like myself how to live our lives: who we can marry and what we can and can’t do with our bodies. If that isn’t hypocrisy, then I don’t know what is.
Just want to add that I completely agree with D, which is pretty much what I was trying to get at in my last three sentences.
How did I miss this one!? Sweet Jesus there’s a lot going on here and I’m sure similiar opinions to my own have already been debated to death but what I’m not seeing is common logic used when debating that “a woman knows what’s best for her body”.
That is not the argument that pro-choice people make. Pro-choice people, like myself, believe in, say it with me now people, CHOICE. The act of abortion is simply the medical procedure that must be done once the choice is made. And that choice is never easy to make no matter how much pro-life people want to believe otherwise. I believe in allowing women the right to make that choice. Why? Because even though the fetus is not the woman’s body per se, the fetus is using the woman’s uterus, joining her circulatory system, drawing nutrients from her body, and will cause irrevocable change to that body.
So if a woman, after careful consideration, and yes, that is the norm when it comes to these decisions, makes the choice to terminate her pregnancy – well what business is that of strangers commenting on a private citizen’s private choice?
Tim Tebow could’ve just as easily been a rapist, a murderer, a dentist, a mechanic, a paper pusher, a model, a porn star, a communist, etc, etc… this makes FOF’s argument null and void. Hell I’ll even go the extra mile and say what’s the big deal with him being a football player anyway?
But Kudos SJS! Considering the article is not about abortion or a woman’s right to choose what she wishes to do with her uterus (keeping/evicting a tenant) – you nailed CBS’s hypocrisy facing it’s decisions on what it chooses to air and what it doesn’t. Bravo!
It’s hard to see how wishing women wouldn’t resort to abortion is identical to telling them they “can’t” have abortions. If they COULDN’T have abortions, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It’s a plea, not an attempt to dictate. Not. The. Same. Thing. At all.
What is Planned Parenthood FOR, anyway? Isn’t providing “access to affordable birth control and education about safe sex and ‘pregnacy’ prevention” their whole raison d’etre in the first place? Isn’t that why they locate most of their clinics in lower-income/inner-city neighborhoods?
Look, we’re probably never going to agree on this particular issue, obviously. The pro-abortion people think it’s fine to toss slurs at pro-lifers, but God forbid they get offended by anyone else’s stance. I’ll say this again: It’s not the fact that a conservative group or cause is being critiqued that bothers me, here. It’s the clumsy, lazy, eighth-grade debate-club way in which it’s done.
With all due respect: If you honestly think ANYBODY comes to Deceiver for a “pillow-soft and stress-free reading experience”, Oversneer, you might not have been reading your own site as closely as the rest of us.
@caroline
WOW!So much to cover & so little patience.
If abortion isn’t killing someone what is it? DNA is used to prove so many things in our society. It is unique to each person, how can a non-person have unique human DNA?
The inner city girls part: do you know the MILLIONS of dollars in tax money ( not to mention private groups) spent on subsidizing birth control in this country? Seriously lack of access is the WEAKEST argument.
What makes the supreme court the arbiter of this fight? Ever hear of Plessy versus Ferguson? Does that make them still right? The idea that these guys are always right is nuts.
conservatives read & beleive the CONSTITUTION about such matters. The name marriage is taken call it something else & we’re fine with it. Us telling you about your bodies? again have you heard of seat belt laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, and so many other laws are made by Liberals that control your body and everything else. For G-d’s sake, your party tells us how much water our toilets can use! You are the Nanny statist, cradle to grave people.
Funny to point out how you’re mother choose life, huh? Tebow is one of those people who actually knows how close he was to having his brains sucked out and is pretty happy they weren’t.
CBS=hypocrites. Tebow=NOT
I never understood all this irrational hatred towards pro-life supporters…And what on Earth does “fetus-loving” have to do with “gay-bashing”? I don’t see how you connect the two. The assumption that you can’t have one without the other is downright ridiculous. I, for one, am pro-life, but I also support gay rights and gay marriage. The assumptions that all pro-life supporters are Christian and/or that all pro-life supporters are motivated solely by their religious beliefs are also wrong. To me personally it’s not just about religious beliefs. To me there’s simply no getting around the fact that life begins at the moment of conception. Not because it’s some “belief” that I hold, but because it’s a medical scientific fact. And that whole “my body, my choice” or “my life, my choice” argument is completely immature and selfish IMO. Yes, you do have a choice – use contraception or abstain. Once you get pregnant, it’s too late – it’s not just your life anymore, it’s not just your body anymore, and it’s not just your choice anymore. I do believe that exceptions should be made – in case of rape or for medical reasons.
And no, I didn’t expect to be “coddled”, but I have come to expect certain things from Deceiver – certain standards, certain style. It’s not “how dare you post something I disagree with” – there’s been plenty of posts and opinions here I didn’t always agree with, but it was always, always very well written. This post and recent posts about Sarah Palin are just so…juvenile and bitter. There’s a difference between snarky/sarcastic and hateful.
I generally try not to be too sensitive (a necessity when you lean conservative), but some of the comments are definitely meant to be hurtful. Both sides are doing it. There are pro-choice and pro-life people who have made perfectly reasonable posts, and while I don’t necessarily agree with them, I can appreciate the polite expression of opinion. Perhaps we should all emulate such control.
I do think that most of the initial irritation over the post was prompted by the tone of the post, not the subject. Anyone who thinks the conservatives on this site can’t take criticism of fellow conservatives needs to read comments more closely. Most people here are equal opportunity.
The person who thought it was funny to say Jesus “hung out” with lepers and whores should read the Bible more carefully. He healed the lepers and other sick people, and counseled the whores and sinners to repent and sin no more. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of leprosy and prostitution.
@Beige- “What is Planned Parenthood FOR, anyway? Isn’t providing “access to affordable birth control and education about safe sex and ‘pregnacy’ prevention” their whole raison d’etre in the first place? Isn’t that why they locate most of their clinics in lower-income/inner-city neighborhoods? ”
Not it is not. It is their cover story.
The simple fact is that CBS needs money (as all of the networks do).
Overall television viewership continues to decrease, as do advertising revenues. I would imagine that the income generated from Super Bowl ads is a HUGE part of CBS’ annual operating budget.
It makes perfect sense that they would change the network policies on what constitutes acceptable advertising. Focus on the Family has money, CBS needs money, change the policies. Duh.
Planned Parenthood is a joke, always has been. Abstinance is the only true “safe sex” everything else is a gamble.
@ Ronin:
Would you rather, as a taxpayer, pay MILLIONS of dollars subsidizing birth control, or BILLIONS of dollars on the babies that the people who don’t use birth control, or have abortions, have? A brief google search suggests the cost of raising one baby to adulthood is over $100,000. Also, as a taxpayer, keep in mind the added amount of people going on welfare to support said babies. Do you really want to add that to your tax burden too?
So laws, such as seatbelt laws, which save people’s lives and reduce traffic fatalities, are bad and an example of inappropriate government interference. Laws that prohibit or restrict people from marrying the person they love are good, and an example of perfectly acceptable government interference. I totally get your logic.
Although I obviously support some liberal causes, I never said I was a liberal or a member of the Democratic party.
I personally don’t believe killing a clump of cells is a person. So what if it has DNA? Can a 8-week fetus live outside it’s mother’s body? If you don’t believe in abortion, that’s fine. Then don’t have one. Just don’t try to force me to abide by your personal belief of right and wrong.
@ D—
“Whatever your opinion is, abortion is a medical procedure. If conservatives believe in a less intrusive government why do they accept the interference of government into a medical decision? You would think less government would be less all the way around.”
I too would like less gov’t involvement. But there are certain rules (laws) we put up with for the protection of life, liberty and the pursuit (not the guarantee, BTW) of happiness, such as laws against murder, stealing, running red lights, stop signs, etc. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems that every law exists to prevent something from occurring. I bet that everything started out in this country as permissible until a law was made.
“The problem I have … when do we decide a fetus/baby can be considered a seperate entity from the mother. If you say at the zygot stage, you loose me.”
In Vitro is when a fertilized egg is created outside the human body, which becomes a zygote, and remains outside the body…otherwisw known as a test-tube baby. Granted, it’s not outside for weeks on end due to inadequate technology (but I bet they’re working on it), but only until there are enough cells to somewhat ensure a viable implantation and survival inside the woman.
“One other note: just because you believe in a “soul” doesn’t mean everyone does.”
I was actually trying to be very open-minded about the definition of soul. Whether one believes in zero gods or 20, there is some essence, soul, mind, personality, whatever you want to call it that makes a person “them.” When does it appear? Whoo boy — I’ll start the bidding at sometime from conception to the actual birth, and narrow that down to no later than 6 months in the womb. It certainly doesn’t seem that what appears to be a fully-formed, yet unborn baby at 8 mo 30 days, could be void of the “soul” just a few seconds before birth. I doubt there’s something magical about passing from the womb to the outside world, that triggers a little switch on the way out which causes that “soul” to be implanted. At conception? I dunno. What does it take to contain that “essence”? 1 cell, a couple million, or only when the brain has reached a certain stage? I’m inside my head somewhere, not my arms or legs. I dunno. But this one thing I know … whenever it appears, it is marvelous.
I won’t boycott Deceiver until the day I check the site and my computer speakers loudly announce that Stan is surfing the internet instead of working. Sarah Jessica’s posts never really put me out until this one. I’m not a Christian, my wife (then girlfriend) had an abortion when I was 20 (I’m 33 now) and she was 25 that we both regret. I’m pro gay marriage and love my football. Be that as it may even I found the tone of this article to be very condescending and offensive. While it is under the guise of exposing CBS’ hypocrisy it was in fact meant to demean and humiliate Christians like Tim Tebow and it would seem especially his mother (who I’m sure was happy to give birth to Tim regardless of his future NFL employment status and income). While my beliefs may be different from Tebow’s and even my fellow readers of this fine site they didn’t deserve the derision shown in this post.
@caroline.
We ALREADY spend BILLIONS on this problem! DUH! health & human services ( READ:welfare) have a bigger budget than the Pentagon. Birth control is a chunk of that.
Who of us has said “gee I love G-d and all of that but these kids are expensive. Suck out their brains next chance you get?”
Again with Gay Marriage. I said you can do it you just can’t call it marriage! The name’s taken, has been for thousands of years. If the rights granted by civil unions are so important why are you fighting for the name?
A lump of cells can’t live without its mother. So it doesn’t count. Baby’s don’t live so well either. In fact I bet my 9 year old son wouldn’t live long with out me. Hmmmm come to think of it. Neither would my infirm Mother N law.
So back the the safety laws. Seatbelts etc… How about they make a law then that says you can’t get pregnant until you are ready? I mean it’s to protect ‘you’ after all.
“Although I obviously support some liberal causes, I never said I was a liberal or a member of the Democratic party.” Sorry I am opposed to abortion & support carrying a baby to term so it has a chance at a full life…..but I never said I was Pro-life.
Your personal belief in right and wrong? So again your personal beliefs trump mine or the laws? Must be nice to know things so much better than the rest of us….
You should know I was pro choice until I was about 24 or so. and then I realized life wasn’t just about me, my needs and wants. See a lot of people grow up. I got married 4 years later & had kids 2 years after that so it wasn’t like forced with a decision & changed. I saw there is more to life. I wish you would.
So after all this, did anyone’s opinion on the issue of abortion get changed?
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/01/26/pro-lifers-outnumber-pro-choicers-500-to-1-at-massive-s-f-abortion-rally/
Enjoy
“….since the pro-life marchers were themselves mostly young women ….”
Surely, there is a statistic to prove this reality false!!! 90% of somebody doing something somewhere, right????
One thing I don’t get is the argument that “the fetus is dependent on the mother, therefore it’s her right to terminate it.” There are severely disabled children who cannot survive without constant care from parents, machinery, etc. Does that give us the right to kill them?
@blueblue details.details…
I had meaningless sex without protection & now want to kill the baby so I can continue to fit in to my jeans…You got a problem with that?
Okay, so, I know I never post anymore, so probably nobody even remembers me . . . but I thought I’d just say it to make it official. The last two years were fun, but I gotta say it . . . you really ruined yourselves.
Good-bye, Deceiver. Oh, and we miss you, Simon. Where the hell did you go?
I can’t believe people would quit coming here over ONE post.
if anything the excitement of this thread ( regardless of opinion) shows what a vibrant community we have here. Don’t leave just as it gets interesting!
I agree. I miss the heck out of Simon and am no huge fan of SJS, but I think we should stick around. If we just cry “I’m leaving!” we’re no better than commenters at lesser blogs.
That and I’m an incurable optimist and harbor a slight hope that Simon will return with a “Surprise! I was just kidding ya’ll.”
For every loss, we gain a few. The cycle of life continues…….oops.
I for one am not going anywhere. I love this place. Pointing out hypocrisy (from both sides, keep all the b*stards honest) is great.
I just don’t enjoy SJS’ posts and, as such, am going to scroll past them from now on.
How much you wanna bet SJS “is” Simon, but channeling his alter-ego ?
I’m with D.
And pretty much anything else I have to say on this subject has been said by someone else. Just please, everybody calm down already. Stop with the fetus-loving gay-basher comments, and stop with the abortion-loving irresponsible sluts who can’t keep their legs closed retorts.
For just once, I wish people could have a calm, rational discussion concerning this subject.
I guess I’ll get that about the same time Obama puts a unicorn in every front lawn and people finally recognize that I deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.
My wife, daughter, mom and grandma all gave me their proxies so that’s four pro-life votes from this guy.
BTW why are people that are pro-education when it comes to sex so often pro-abstinence when it comes to guns?
Tim Tebow, dude, pick a side. You can’t be everyone’s man.
there’s nothing christian or conservative about groups who seek to strip gay citizens of their civil rights. ‘funny’ how defensive the ‘religious’ people get when they get called out on their obvious bigotry. saying that being gay is wrong is like saying having blue eyes is wrong.. and don’t go pounding your bible at me because there are thousands of other admonitions in that book against things that, i am quite sure, you are doing yourself…ever had your hair cut? that’s a big no-no according to ‘god’. do you bible-believin’ gals move into a hut behind the house during your ‘unclean’ monthly periods and then sacrifice a dove before being let back inside ? no ? well there’s a place in hell for you after you’re stoned to death. when you actually start following all the crazy stuff in your book then you can get back to me and we’ll talk. until then, keep it to yourself and let other people live their lives in peace and as equal citizens under the law.
Wow, EP, that was totally off-topic, as well as being a completely inaccurate description of Biblical law. I don’t want to get into a long-winded discussion of all that stuff, so I’ll just say that there’s a reason the Bible is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Gentiles who converted to Christianity were never admonished to sacrifice animals, and quite frankly, the “never cut your hair” thing was related to taking a Nazirite vow, which was never particularly common anyway.
“I personally don’t believe killing a clump of cells is a person. So what if it has DNA? Can a 8-week fetus live outside it’s mother’s body? If you don’t believe in abortion, that’s fine. Then don’t have one. Just don’t try to force me to abide by your personal belief of right and wrong.”
Don’t believe in murder, don’t do it, but don’t force others not do it. Don’t believe in rape- don’t do it, but don’t force others not do it. Don’t believe in stealing- don’t do it but don’t force your personal opinion of right and wrong on others.
Don’t believe in owning slaves, don’t do it, but don’t force your morality on the slaveowners. And yes, that was the slaveowners’ talking point against abolitionists.
Abortionists and slaveowners are much alike- dehumanize those they want to enslave or destroy, then tell others that is a matter of privacy and property, and that they have no right to tell them to abide by their morality.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102067.html
I’m so glad you posted that, Beige! I’ve been passing that article around today too.