Tim Tebow to appear in Super Bowl commercial.....Its Anti-Abortion Themed

• BoatShoes

  Footwedge wrote:

  BoatShoes wrote:

  Footwedge wrote: I didn't know that this earthquake was imminent.

  Perhaps imminent was a poor word choice...but the island is stuck between two tectonic plates and the potential for an earthquake there was known.
  
  article wherein geologists discuss knowing about the earthquake risk

  There's a huge fault along the west coast as well. I mean, where is the line drawn?
  
  Spending 10 billion or so could have prevented 90% of the havoc in New Orleans too.
  
  I just think that using your analogy in preventing or reducing the aftermaths of natural disasters was a reach...in comparing to Tebow's pro life commercial.

  I suppose, personally, If I am going to spend millions of dollars I would rather spend it making stronger levees, buildings, roads infrastructure where potential loss of sentient human life could take place. I realize there are limits. But to me, I suppose I believe there is always something better to spend money on than abortion awareness. But, I suppose we just have deeply contrasting values.
• BoatShoes

  majorspark wrote:
  Suppose there is what appears to be a person...it has a heart pumping blood through it...but it has no spinal cord nor any functioning nervous system...it has no cognitive experience of the world...feels no pain...has no feelings or memories...it's just sitting there, it's eyes do not move, it breaths because it's attached to a machine making it breath and there is a tube pumping nutrients into it's stomach through its belly button. If I walked in and killed this person...do you think I should go to jail for murder?
  
  It does not have, nor has ever had a nervous system of any kind...never had any experience of the world.

  This hypothetical situation has never existed. When we can grow humans in a lab we can decide on your punishment.
  
  If one (like myself) believes in a supernatural creator who is the giver of life, then life would be defined as the moment the creater places it (the human soul) in that clump of cells. At what exact moment the creator decides to do this, I can't say. If someone can define it for me I can change, otherwise like I said I can only except the proven beginning of the process God created.
  
  If one does not believe in a supernatural creator, there still has to be a moment life enters that clump of cells. When somebody can define that exact moment in the process, otherwise I'll stick with the beginning.
  
  I would suggest if one seeks to prevent human life from occurring, they can take the necessary precations. Abstain from life making sex or use birth control.
  
  As for punishment. If one were to go to the morgue and find a clump of cells in the shape of a human body, that has no heartbeat, no brain activity, no feelings, and no potential for human life, and chop it to bits... We have laws on the books today that would land this person in jail.
  
  Now if this clump of cells happens to be in the womb of another human being with no doubt to anyone, at least the potential for human life, one can chop it to bits and cast the pieces into the garbage. This person gets no jail time.
  
  These are tough and serious issues that should not have been decided nationally for all 300 million of us by 9 men/women in black robes. It is my opinion that these issues be sorted out at the state and local level through the legislative process.
  [/quote]
  
  1. All hypothetical situations for the most part are not likely to happen...especially ones philosophers talk about. That's why they are great because they get to the root of the issue in parameters that free us from the emotion we attach to many ethical issues.
  
  2. In regards to the desecration of dead bodies, there are laws but nothing tantamount to murder. Even still, perhaps those laws are bad? To quote Frank Reynolds from "It's always Sunny" "When I'm dead just throw me in the trash"
  
  Then again, a person who was once sentient of the world and had a consciousness stemming from the matter that is inside that dead body, to desecrate that matter might seem different than a body that never, once or is not guaranteed to ever have sentience.
  
  3. I'm much rather have judges decide these issues than the mob rule of the legislature; Even Robert Bork. This is a fundamental question about the most intimate private and personal property rights of the human body and how they relate to what is to be protected under the terms of our social agreement.
• buckeyefalls

  sleeper, there is NO evidence that Hitler's mom was going to have an abortion anywhere.
  
  Unless you found some new information. If so, could you post a link to it?
  
  Thanks.
  
  

  sleeper wrote:

  Al Bundy wrote:

  sleeper wrote: Hitler's mother was going to have an abortion too, but she decided against it at the last second. If she had done it, millions of lives would have been spared from his atrocities, thank god for abortion.

  What Hitler did in executing aproximately 12 million people was one of sickest things in human history. Almost 50 million Americans have been executed by abortion since 1973. Execution of people is an extremely disgusting event. You are right in a sense that Hitler should have been stopped earlier. Good job by Tebow by taking a stand against those who are in favor of executing babies. Hopefully his work saves lives.

  Actually zero Americans have died from abortions, now fetuses, another story.

• majorspark

  

  Boy you really butchered the quotes in your reply (pun intended). You have some of my words as yours, and some of yours as mine.
  

  BoatShoes wrote: 1. All hypothetical situations for the most part are not likely to happen...especially ones philosophers talk about. That's why they are great because they get to the root of the issue in parameters that free us from the emotion we attach to many ethical issues.

  
  
  Understood. In this particular case because human life is valued differently than any other life process in this earth. I chose to not equate it to some hypothetical non human process. I think most of my arguments have been logical. I do have an emotional response in that what I have logically deduced as human life is being killed and desecrated.
  

  BoatShoes wrote: 2. In regards to the desecration of dead bodies, there are laws but nothing tantamount to murder. Even still, perhaps those laws are bad? To quote Frank Reynolds from "It's always Sunny" "When I'm dead just throw me in the trash"
  
  Then again, a person who was once sentient of the world and had a consciousness stemming from the matter that is inside that dead body, to desecrate that matter might seem different than a body that never, once or is not guaranteed to ever have sentience.

  There are varying degrees of murder and varying punishments. Desecration of a corpse can carry a sentence similar to some forms of murder. Here is one in Chicago. Sentence 6-30yrs in prison.
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/4-former-burr-oak-cemeter_n_253219.html
  
  If you think those laws are bad, which I am doubt you do, petition your state representative to get them changed.
  

  BoatShoes wrote: 3. I'm much rather have judges decide these issues than the mob rule of the legislature; Even Robert Bork. This is a fundamental question about the most intimate private and personal property rights of the human body and how they relate to what is to be protected under the terms of our social agreement.

  First off let me say. Any government body is capable of trampling personal rights. We are a republic and our legislature is insulated from mob rule. That is how the founders designed it. Although our legislature is insulated from mob rule, it still feels some heat from the people. That is a good balance. Lifetime judges on the other hand feel little heat. That can be good or bad it just depends on their character. As you know those nine judges have failed us as well and it takes decades to right their wrongs.
  
  As for mob rule. I read a post you made on the smoking thread argueing in favor of that law. A law by passed by the direct voter. The mob rule so to speak. Some feel it tramples their rights. It seems to me you would think this should be handled by the judiciary as well.
• I Wear Pants

  Have any of you standing hard and fast to pro-life even in rape situations ever had someone close to you raped?
  
  I am pro-choice until a certain point. I'm not a doctor so I don't know what point brains and such are fully developed in a fetus.
  
  Later in the pregnancy abortions should be available to those who have a health risk by having the child.
  
  Edit: I'm increasingly pro-choice though. Who am I to tell a woman what to do with her body?
• Captain Cavalier

  

  I consider it a separate human from conception using the womb until birth. Especially at the late stage when one can feel the baby move inside and when premies can survive 1, 2 and sometimes 3 months premature, it's hard for me to consider that baby the mother's body. It's in her body, using her body, moves without her permission, but I don't consider it her body.
• georgemc80

  Great story...wrong platform. The network should have shot this one down. The last thing I want a Super Bowl ad doing is starting a political debate at a Super Bowl party....
  
  Oh well, I am glad he using his celebrity (while it is at his highest) to try to make a difference....
  
  Enjoy the practice squad Timmy....actually the Texans could use you....well not really, Vonte Leach is a good fullback and Owen Daniels is one of the best TEs in the league....so nevermind.
• WGBplayer

  When will he just go away? I'm sick of him and his dumb messages and crusades. Let me decide. I'll choose what I believe and I don't need that ogre telling me about it during one of the few events of the year where there should be no political/aborotion/god/right wing/left wing/democrat/republican/ messages. Just football.
• buckeyefalls

  WGBplayer,
  
  You must be ignorant (not trying to be mean, but seriously)....
  
  SuperBowl ads run a full variety of ads trying to "sell" you things:
  
  There is NO law that states that an advertiser who has the $$ can't "sell" you their opinion.
  
  Beer companies pay millions to "sell" you the idea that their beer is better than anothers.
  Car companies the same thing.
  And the list goes on.
  
  Kudos to Tebow, or whoever tossed the $$ that way to "sell" their opinion. And why wouldn't a t.v. network allow it? They are getting their $$ and that's all they care about. You think they care what YOU want to see on t.v.? Not over the almighty buck they don't.
  
  If people like Martin Luther King never went on his crusade, look where the world may have ended up. Who knows, maybe Tebow will cause just one person to reconsider and that life spared may grow up to find a cure for cancer.
• buckeyefalls

  I'm not going to get into specifics because the case is going to court.
  
  However, I have a friend who was raped. She considered abortion (not just because of the rape, but because doctors were concerned about her health as well - physical and mental).
  
  She decided to have the child.
  
  Baby "Joseph" is now 2.5 years old and momma and baby doing great. She is VERY thankful she didn't and realizes now that God made the most out of her terrible position in life.
  
  Now, that doesn't mean that it will happen to all people, but the more I talk to through counseling who have considered abortions and didn't have them are far more happy that they didn't, then the ones that are still going through counseling because of the emotional turmoil they have experienced having an abortion.
  

  I Wear Pants wrote: Have any of you standing hard and fast to pro-life even in rape situations ever had someone close to you raped?
  
  I am pro-choice until a certain point. I'm not a doctor so I don't know what point brains and such are fully developed in a fetus.
  
  Later in the pregnancy abortions should be available to those who have a health risk by having the child.
  
  Edit: I'm increasingly pro-choice though. Who am I to tell a woman what to do with her body?

• WGBplayer

  buckeyefalls wrote: WGBplayer,
  
  You must be ignorant (not trying to be mean, but seriously)....
  
  SuperBowl ads run a full variety of ads trying to "sell" you things:
  
  There is NO law that states that an advertiser who has the $$ can't "sell" you their opinion.
  
  Beer companies pay millions to "sell" you the idea that their beer is better than anothers.
  Car companies the same thing.
  And the list goes on.
  
  Kudos to Tebow, or whoever tossed the $$ that way to "sell" their opinion. And why wouldn't a t.v. network allow it? They are getting their $$ and that's all they care about. You think they care what YOU want to see on t.v.? Not over the almighty buck they don't.
  
  If people like Martin Luther King never went on his crusade, look where the world may have ended up. Who knows, maybe Tebow will cause just one person to reconsider and that life spared may grow up to find a cure for cancer.

  My point is when was the last super bowl ad you remember being of political theme?
  
  All those things you mentioned were selling products. It had nothing to do with personal/morality issues. I honestly can't think of one. Sure there have been the donate to this and that like the red cross and katrina. I'm fine with those. But it's like someone else said. Who wants this type of thing to come up at a super bowl party? How would this go over if it was an ad slaming Obama or Bush or their affiliated parties?!?! It's all the same in my opinion and has no business being played during the super bowl.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  WGB,
  
  I'm wondering why it can't be just a feel-good type of commercial - telling a brief but heartwarming story?
  See those commercials all the time... (rescued animals in commericals asking for donations to rescue leagues)
  
  And to be frank, we all know that 99% of people that actually watch/care about the commercials during a superbowl game will not focus on any commercial that doesn't have:
  - 3/4 naked women drinking beer
  - animals drinking/talking about beer
  - 3/4 naked women drinking beer
  - somebody getting hurt drinking beer (slapstick)
  - some sort of celebrity drinking beer
  - 3/4 naked women drinking beer
  
  I doubt very many people will remember this commerical the next day. But I'm sure there will be a thread over in Serious Business polling the best SB commerical.
• cbus4life

  Waste of money, IMO.
  
  How much did they have to pay for this spot?
  
  A lot more good could be done using that money elsewhere. Like, say, in Haiti? Or for the thousands starving and homeless here in the United States?
• FatHobbit

  

  cbus4life wrote: Waste of money, IMO.
  
  How much did they have to pay for this spot?

  2.5 - 2.8 million
  
  http://www.i4u.com/article30099.html
• buckeyefalls

  cbus4life, and who is to say that they aren't spending a lot of money helping them?
  
  Additionally, Tebow has gone and helped countries like this in the past.
  
  And, if you are going to make a comment like that, then you are ABSOLUTELY correct.
  
  Why do beer companies, car companies, etc. spend the same amount when they could be donating that VERY same money to Haiti, etc.?
  
  So, if you are going to rip them for "waste of money" you BETTER rip the other places and companies as well.
  

  cbus4life wrote: Waste of money, IMO.
  
  How much did they have to pay for this spot?
  
  A lot more good could be done using that money elsewhere. Like, say, in Haiti? Or for the thousands starving and homeless here in the United States?

• cbus4life

  I never said they weren't doing those things. But, if they are, then they should have contributed this money as well, as opposed to spending millions of dollars on a 30 second tv spot that isn't going to change anyones mind, anyways. Abortion is a no-give issue, at this point.
  
  And, i'm not going to rip those companies, as they're trying to sell a product. Spending millions of dollars to get a point across that everyone already knows about, and hears about all the damn time, is ridiculous.
  
  This won't help "enlighten" people to the situation because everyone has gotten both sides of the abortion issue from everywhere else.
  
  And, if they want to make some grand statement about caring so much for human life, then that money should have been spent doing real, immediate good where it is needed most, right now.
• FatHobbit

  

  buckeyefalls wrote: Why do beer companies, car companies, etc. spend the same amount when they could be donating that VERY same money to Haiti, etc.?

  The beer companies are only looking out for their own interests. Tebow and company are trying to do what they think is right.
  
  I can understand why someone might think the money could be put to better use, but if someone wants to waste $2.5 million of their own money I have no problem with it.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Well, "they" (those companies that people wish would donate money rather than spend money for commercials) already donate alot of cash and time to help local and international communities every day and each year.
  
  In fact, a quick Google search shows that the biggest super bowl commerical company, Anheuser-Busch does just this.
  
  http://www.anheuser-busch.com/community/areasOfSupport.html
  
  I think we can lay that misguided strife down to rest.
• derek bomar

  

  first trimester abortions are fine...it gets dicey after that. I'm against most unless somehow the mother's life is in jeopardy if she carries it to term or if she was raped/incested and didn't find out she was preggers until after the first trim...then I could see it. But I think most, if done in the first trimester, are fine and I don't see the big deal. Globs of cells aren't people. It's people who think they are who are against stem-cell research...which is a whole other argument
• buckeyefalls

  CenterBHSFan,
  
  I never said they didn't. All I said is why not throw that extra 2.5 million that they were going to use towards relief as well?
  
  You ain't gonna change my mind either. I know what kind of beer I like so why waste the money on funny commercials.
  
  I also know what kind of automobile I'm driving and will drive.
  
  As for abortion cbus4life, you aren't correct. Why is it that our local agency sees several women a week who don't know what to do (abortion, or no abortion)? Why is it that these young women (sometimes couples) come in and not know the facts for and against abortion?
  
  If it isn't going to change anyone's mind (as you claim) then why so many my friend?
  
  One individual listed above in a story I shared had her mind changed by knowing some facts and is VERY glad she learned them and now has a 2.5 year old.
  
  Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you should put your twist in there that says it is a "no-give" issue. Maybe it is a no-give issue for you, but there are hundreds of women, if not more, out there that still haven't made up their minds.
  
  Your posts are so one-sided and slanted towards what YOU think is right and you make it look like everyone has their minds made up and that ONLY your side is right. Consider others for once.
• BoatShoes

  majorspark wrote:
  As for mob rule. I read a post you made on the smoking thread argueing in favor of that law. A law by passed by the direct voter. The mob rule so to speak. Some feel it tramples their rights. It seems to me you would think this should be handled by the judiciary as well.

  Perhaps I should clarify my "mob rule" statement as that might have been a little dramatic. What I mean is...the people can make the laws they want, with them presumed to be constitutional (state or federal), whether those be smoking laws or anti-abortion laws or anti-gay marriage laws, whatever.
  
  The legislature, all the time takes away freedom from the individual for the collective, etc.
  
  I have no problem, when judges, our social contract lawyers come in and tell the legislature that a law they passed violates the terms of the contract. The reason I have no problem with this is because the legislature and the people can ultimately change the terms of the contract.
  
  For instance...suppose the Ohio Supreme Court found the smoking ban unconstitutional...if the people really value that sacrifice in personal freedom for an aimed, supposed, collective good, they can amend the contract.
  
  I have no problem with judges doing their job because they're the weakest branch at all levels...they cannot enforce their interpretations with a police force and the people are free to change the terms to get them interpreted how they want.
  
  So, in the instant case, I have no problem with the federal judges protecting abortion...If America really hates the process...and apparently public opinion is swaying "pro-life", they can change the contract to nullify those nine lawyer's making family planning policy's interpretation.
• WGBplayer

  CenterBHSFan wrote: WGB,
  
  I'm wondering why it can't be just a feel-good type of commercial - telling a brief but heartwarming story?
  See those commercials all the time... (rescued animals in commericals asking for donations to rescue leagues)
  
  And to be frank, we all know that 99% of people that actually watch/care about the commercials during a superbowl game will not focus on any commercial that doesn't have:
  - 3/4 naked women drinking beer
  - animals drinking/talking about beer
  - 3/4 naked women drinking beer
  - somebody getting hurt drinking beer (slapstick)
  - some sort of celebrity drinking beer
  - 3/4 naked women drinking beer
  
  I doubt very many people will remember this commerical the next day. But I'm sure there will be a thread over in Serious Business polling the best SB commerical.

  Well I guess only time will tell on this. But from what ESPN has reported and his reputation on speeches and willingness to tell everyone what he believes is right. (Which is fine but it is getting really really really old) I'm pretty sure there is going to be a "message" in it. "Don't abort or you won't have the next Tim Tebow". "Don't take the life of one of God's children." Who knows, it just rubs me really wrong that this is the time they picked for this.
• sleeper

  

  buckeyefalls wrote: sleeper, there is NO evidence that Hitler's mom was going to have an abortion anywhere.
  
  Unless you found some new information. If so, could you post a link to it?
  
  Thanks.
  
  

  sleeper wrote:

  Al Bundy wrote:

  sleeper wrote: Hitler's mother was going to have an abortion too, but she decided against it at the last second. If she had done it, millions of lives would have been spared from his atrocities, thank god for abortion.

  What Hitler did in executing aproximately 12 million people was one of sickest things in human history. Almost 50 million Americans have been executed by abortion since 1973. Execution of people is an extremely disgusting event. You are right in a sense that Hitler should have been stopped earlier. Good job by Tebow by taking a stand against those who are in favor of executing babies. Hopefully his work saves lives.

  Actually zero Americans have died from abortions, now fetuses, another story.

  Maybe, maybe not. But for every 1 Tim Tebow that is almost aborted, there are a million Hitler's that were almost aborted, and you can take that to the bank.
• Captain Cavalier

  

  cbus4life wrote:...spending millions of dollars on a 30 second tv spot that isn't going to change anyones mind, anyways. Abortion is a no-give issue, at this point.
  
  This won't help "enlighten" people to the situation because everyone has gotten both sides of the abortion issue from everywhere else.

  It can't be proven either way though I think the odds of changing the views of some is better than none at all.