PDA

View Full Version : NBC won't air pro-life commercial during Superbowl



jellyben
02-02-2009, 06:43 AM
My H is an ardent pro-lifer, and he wanted to know my thoughts on this. I am pro-choice but this bugged me. If they don't allow advocacy ads, then why were they willing to show the PETA ad with changes? Thoughts?

CHICAGO, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- NBC has rejected an uplifting and positive pro-life ad submitted for its Super Bowl broadcast this Sunday. After several days of negotiations, an NBC representative in Chicago told CatholicVote.org today that NBC and the NFL are not interested in advertisements involving "political advocacy or issues."
Brian Burch, President of CatholicVote.org reacted: "There is nothing objectionable in this positive, life-affirming advertisement. We show a beautiful ultrasound, something NBC's parent company GE has done for years. We congratulate Barack Obama on becoming the first African-American President. And we simply ask people to imagine the potential of every human life."
"NBC told CatholicVote.org that they do not allow political or issue advocacy advertisements. But that's not what they told PETA," said Burch. "There's no doubt that PETA is an advocacy group. NBC rejected PETA's ad for another reason altogether."
According to an email posted on PETA.org, Victoria Morgan, Vice President of Advertising Standards for Universal, said: "The PETA spot submitted to Advertising Standards depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards." Morgan even detailed "edits that need to be made" in order for the spot to run during the Super Bowl.
"NBC claims it doesn't allow advocacy ads, but that's not true. They were willing to air an ad by PETA if they would simply tone down the sexual suggestiveness. Our ad is far less provocative, and hardly controversial by comparison," said Burch.
"The purpose of our new ad is to spread a message of hope about the potential of every human life, including the life of Barack Obama," said Burch. "We are now looking at alternative venues to run the ad over the next several weeks."
The ad aired on BET in Chicago on Inauguration Day. It has become an Internet hit with over 700,000 views in seven days. The ad was in the top 10 "most viewed" category on YouTube on Inauguration Day last week.
The ad reads: "This child's future is a broken home. He will be abandoned by his father. His single mother will struggle to raise him. Despite the hardships he will endurethis childwill becomethe 1st African-American President." The ad concludes with the tagline, "Life: Imagine the Potential." The ad is the first of several ads in new campaign launched by CatholicVote.org.

KristiB
02-02-2009, 06:49 AM
NBC probably thought it wasn't worth angering a percentage of their viewers. As far as I know they aren't airing pro-choice commercials either.

As for the PETA commercial that's not such a hot issue for a lot of people.

bobmark226
02-02-2009, 06:51 AM
My H is an ardent pro-lifer, and he wanted to know my thoughts on this. I am pro-choice but this bugged me. If they don't allow advocacy ads, then why were they willing to show the PETA ad with changes? Thoughts?


Simple. NBC has the right to do whatever they like within FCC rules.

Bob

Robyn1007
02-02-2009, 07:00 AM
Simple. NBC has the right to do whatever they like within FCC rules.

Bob

Exactly. And Kristi's statement adds the reasoning. I would be irritated by seeing a pro-life add during the Superbowl and am willing to give up pro-choice adds to not see them.

Shugness
02-02-2009, 07:01 AM
Personally, I don't want to see any of those types of controversial commercials, regardless of whether its Pro Life or Pro Choice, don't want to see any PETA ads either. And for the record, I've never really been able to side with either one. I just know I don't want other peoples views shoved down my throat when I'm trying to enjoy my entertainment experience.

jellyben
02-02-2009, 07:04 AM
Simple. NBC has the right to do whatever they like within FCC rules.

Bob

Maybe I asked the wrong question:)

Do you think it should have aired? I do. I know the SB is a fun event, but I don't have a problem seeing an ad that challenges my beliefs. Heck, if I can sit through that dumb GoDaddy ad...

bobmark226
02-02-2009, 07:07 AM
Maybe I asked the wrong question:)

Do you think it should have aired? I do. .

I would have preferred it not, nor would I have liked to see a pro-Gay marriage ad aired during the Super Bowl.

Either would be just completely out of place and inappropriate to the occasion and probably placed just to ignite controversy.

Bob

Robyn1007
02-02-2009, 07:09 AM
I would have preferred it not, nor would I have liked to see a pro-Gay marriage ad aired during the Super Bowl.

Either would be just completely out of place and inappropriate to the occasion and probably placed just to ignite controversy.

Bob

Bob is reading my mind this morning...

I don't mind have my beliefs challenged but there is a time and place and I don't think that during the Superbowl is the right time.

bobmark226
02-02-2009, 07:12 AM
Bob is reading my mind this morning....

I'd think I'd rather see a pro-life ad. :)

Bob

Shugness
02-02-2009, 07:13 AM
Am I reading that right that you guys would be ok with the commercial as long as it wasn't during the Super Bowl? See me, I don't want to see it at all as a commercial. If a group feels that strongly about stating their views I'd prefer they do it in a way that doesn't force it on me - let me seek them out.

blazedog
02-02-2009, 07:20 AM
I am assuming this relates solely to Superbowl.

There is no absolute right to advertise and a broadcast network undoubtedly makes decision as to whether a particular ad is appropriate for a particular show or time period.

Superbowl ads have become a "thing" unto themselves and I don't think anyone (NFL, broadcast network or OTHER advertisers) wants to have one commercial become the center or controversy -- as this ad would have become.

I don't understand why PETA was mentioned as having relevance. As I understand it, their ad was not permitted because of sexuality -- when I heard about the controversy the issue was whether their ad was more sexual than the Paris Hilton Burger King ad. I don't know whether the Paris Hilton ad would have made the cut -- I don't watch the Superbowl so I don't know if every ad is "G" rated and completely appropriate in viewing for ANY person -- i.e. couldn't possibly be offensive or controversial in any way.

beacooker
02-02-2009, 07:29 AM
If I recall correctly, some left-leaning political ad (a MoveOn ad, maybe) wasn't allowed to air during the SuperBowl a few years ago, for the same reason. That bothered me then, and this bothers me now. As was said above, I would rather see a MoveOn ad or a pro-life ad then see (or have my kids see) that GoDaddy ad.

Gumbeaux
02-02-2009, 07:36 AM
Here's the commercial being discussed. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c)

IMHO, it seems to be a cheap shot to bring Obama into the ad. I'm sure the White House is glad that the ad didn't run.

testkitchen45
02-02-2009, 07:36 AM
NBC probably thought it wasn't worth angering a percentage of their viewers.

I can't see how a life-affirming ad could anger anybody--the pro-life ad creator is the problem for some pro-choicers and for NBC. If the ad screamed "baby killers!!" then yeah, I can see that (& FWIW I would be offended too), but if it's simply affirming the value of even the most disadvantaged human life, that shouldn't "anger" anybody. NBC sure doesn't care about irritating conservatives with all the boob shots and innuendo in the GoDaddy ads. T&A is fair game; a gentle pro-life message is not?


I would have preferred it not, nor would I have liked to see a pro-Gay marriage ad aired during the Super Bowl. Either would be just completely out of place and inappropriate to the occasion and probably placed just to ignite controversy.

SBowl ad time is far too expensive for controversy to be the sole aim--people pay for commercial time to spread their message (the end goal of controversy) or to sell products. I can see how a gay-marriage ad, or a pro-life ad, or any other type of "controversial" ad, could either be done very low-key in order to gently spread the message (not inherently offensive, but just potentially offensive if one disagrees with the sponsor), or it could be done very in-your-face (offensive to pretty much anyone, even to people who might otherwise support the cause). I will admit that even a low-key ad placed by PParenthood would offend me deeply, so maybe that's how y'all are feeling, but I would think the pro-choicers would also have to admit that the identical life-affirming ad, if produced by GE, for example, would be no big deal. ;)


Superbowl ads have become a "thing" unto themselves and I don't think anyone (NFL, broadcast network or OTHER advertisers) wants to have one commercial become the center or controversy -- as this ad would have become.

True about the "thing," but a few commercials become the "center" every year anyway--heck, I know a lot more people who watch the SB for the commercials than for the game. (although that may be b/c my team is rarely in it :D)

jellyben
02-02-2009, 07:52 AM
I don't understand why PETA was mentioned as having relevance. As I understand it, their ad was not permitted because of sexuality -- when I heard about the controversy the issue was whether their ad was more sexual than the Paris Hilton Burger King ad. I don't know whether the Paris Hilton ad would have made the cut -- I don't watch the Superbowl so I don't know if every ad is "G" rated and completely appropriate in viewing for ANY person -- i.e. couldn't possibly be offensive or controversial in any way.

I brought up PETA because its ad was rejected because it was deemed too sexual(it could have aired if PETA was willing to make changes) not because it is an advocacy group. The pro-life ad was rejected because "NBC told CatholicVote.org that they do not allow political or issue advocacy advertisements" PETA is also an advocacy group but they weren't rejected on that basis.

bobmark226
02-02-2009, 08:14 AM
T&A is fair game; a gentle pro-life message is not?

Given the cheerleader uniforms for almost all teams, I'd say yes, absolutely, it's part of the pro football scene. Fetus x-rays definitely are not.

Bob

SandyM
02-02-2009, 08:28 AM
NBC sure doesn't care about irritating conservatives with all the boob shots and innuendo in the GoDaddy ads. T&A is fair game; a gentle pro-life message is not?

You don't think some liberals may have been offended by the GoDaddy ads? Was GoDaddy's target aimed squarely at the right?

Just askin'. ;)

AzAnne
02-02-2009, 08:29 AM
I don't watch the Superbowl so I don't know if every ad is "G" rated and completely appropriate in viewing for ANY person -- i.e. couldn't possibly be offensive or controversial in any way.

IMHO (and i am not a prude) The Doritos ad was more PG-13

blazedog
02-02-2009, 08:29 AM
SBowl ad time is far too expensive for controversy to be the sole aim--people pay for commercial time to spread their message (the end goal of controversy) or to sell products. I will admit that even a low-key ad placed by PParenthood would offend me deeply, so maybe that's how y'all are feeling, but I would think the pro-choicers would also have to admit that the identical life-affirming ad, if produced by GE, for example, would be no big deal. ;)

)[/SIZE]

Controversy will get something talked about which can be the raison d'etre of some ads.

I am not sure how you can defend the placement of a "gentle" anti-abortion ad while finding an ad on the other side to be "offensive" -- regardless of the content -- based solely on the message.

I would imagine people who are Pro Choice would find ANY anti-abortion ad to be a "big deal" if produced by GE.

This thread and the strong opinions illustrate exactly why NBC did NOT want the ad to run -- I am sure other advertisers would also have expressed their displeasure at having it run.

stefania4
02-02-2009, 08:35 AM
CHICAGO, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- NBC has rejected an uplifting and positive pro-life ad ...The ad aired on BET in Chicago on Inauguration Day. It has become an Internet hit with over 700,000 views in seven days. The ad was in the top 10 "most viewed" category on YouTube on Inauguration Day last week.

Is this a press release from the organization that wanted to run the ad? The language is hardly unbiased or objective.

testkitchen45
02-02-2009, 08:49 AM
You don't think some liberals may have been offended by the GoDaddy ads? Was GoDaddy's target aimed squarely at the right?

Just askin'. ;)

Nothing I said implied that some liberals wouldn't be offended by the GoDaddy ads. In fact, even a cursory reading of this thread would prove that several people disliked those ads. :) I think GoDaddy's target is h*rny guys, period--they don't care if they're liberal or conservative. ;) :D

SusanMac
02-02-2009, 09:05 AM
Maybe I read this thread too quickly, but I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that this particular pro-life ad was specifically about the President!! I wouldn't want to see a pro-life ad at all, in general. But, one aimed at our President seems especially tacky.

testkitchen45
02-02-2009, 09:20 AM
Maybe I read this thread too quickly, but I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that this particular pro-life ad was specifically about the President!! I wouldn't want to see a pro-life ad at all, in general. But, one aimed at our President seems especially tacky.

I just viewed the commercial (thanks, Gumbeaux, for the link). I don't think it's tacky, but incredibly stupid as a piece of marketing--Obama is hardly a friend to pro-lifers. The text could have continued, "he will grow up to become the first African-American President . . . and he will continue his Congressional habit of making decisions that support and/or fund abortion." :rolleyes: As a pro-lifer, I would've nixed the ad for that misstep.

If Obama had been pro-life, the ad could have been very powerful in a good way--as it is, it's almost a joke. But if the ad hadn't used a central character who does not support the cause for the ad, then I don't see anything inherently offensive in a sonogram or in the ad (except that the sponsor and the underlying message offend those who support abortion as an option). A sonogram shouldn't offend--unless you think that a woman considering abortion, who needs to "know about all of her choices," as abortion supporters always say, shouldn't know what's going on in the womb she's about to empty. :rolleyes:

Robyn1007
02-02-2009, 09:42 AM
TK- I see what your saying and you have a good point. But, I just don't think that during the Superbowl is a proper time to be educating a woman on her choices even if you view it in that manner, whether it be pro-choice or pro-life. Sometimes it's nice to get away from your problems for a few hours, even if they'll be there waiting when you are done. Imagine being in a place where you're trying to make this kind of very important decision. It's on your mind all the time but you have a few hours to sit back, relax, enjoy some time with friends and laugh a little. And all the sudden in your little escape this comes on (or something from Planned Parenthood) and you're hit with the emotions all over.

Shugness
02-02-2009, 09:50 AM
I like what you just said Robyn. That's how I feel - I use TV as a way to get away from my own life for a while, remove focus from those ever nagging every day issues in my own life, but I don't watch sports, so I'd like that nice reward extended beyond just those few hours every year that is on TV, and extended to the things I actually watch all the time.

SDMomChef
02-02-2009, 10:06 AM
I actually don't have an opinion either way so long as the ad is subtle - and this ad doesn't bother me at all.

However, what does kind-of irk me is the lack of consistency by NBC. Either you will or will not do advocacy ads. If it had just rejected PETA on the same grounds as this ad, then I think it is a non-issue. Even if permissible under the FCC rules, I don't like the thought of a major broadcast network selectively deciding which advocacy ads it will air - just offends my sense of freedom of speech because of the medium (yes...I know it is a private corporation so it is not obligated to accept any ad).

blazedog
02-02-2009, 10:09 AM
Getting back to the original point, I don't have issues with NBC opting NOT to accept "controversial" ads during the Superbowl. I think the Superbowl is a unique venue for ads. It's their decision assuming they are not selecting based on the content -- i.e. if abortion is deemed off limits for any opinion.

I have TIVO and never watch ads so I could care less about being "upset" or having my entertainment experience marred by an ad that was controversial -- as far as I am concerned, ANY ad interferes with my entertainment experience. :D

Speaking only for myself, I didn't think the actual ad was relevant in terms of its content -- It is the position on reproductive freedom that was in question regardless of the stance or what the ad looked like or whether some might think it effective. In terms of effectiveness, that Obama supports reproductive freedom is completely beside the point in terms of the message the ad is conveying and who its perceived target audience is.

aggie94
02-02-2009, 10:12 AM
What bothers me more than the content of the ads being discussed is the idea that a nonprofit organization would spend millions of dollars for Superbowl advertising.

blazedog
02-02-2009, 10:13 AM
I actually don't have an opinion either way so long as the ad is subtle - and this ad doesn't bother me at all.

However, what does kind-of irk me is the lack of consistency by NBC. Either you will or will not do advocacy ads. If it had just rejected PETA on the same grounds as this ad, then I think it is a non-issue. Even if permissible under the FCC rules, I don't like the thought of a major broadcast network selectively deciding which advocacy ads it will air - just offends my sense of freedom of speech because of the medium (yes...I know it is a private corporation so it is not obligated to accept any ad).

Based on how Standards & Broadcast works (and that the initial post was a press release), I'm not sure that the issue of advocacy for PETA came up. I think PETA got what it wanted by having the commercial receive substantive airplay on the news as well as hits on Yahoo or its site.

I would imagine it was banned because of the nature of the ad -- whether a different ad would have advocated something controversial in the sense of "advocated", is difficult to know. After all, the SPCA is generally viewed as completely non-controversial -- is kindness to animals advocacy? I could see an ad sponsored by PETA that would be completely acceptable to almost anyone but a sadist. :p

SDMomChef
02-02-2009, 10:18 AM
I could see an ad sponsored by PETA that would be completely acceptable to almost anyone but a sadist. :p

I don't know...hunting is a big "sport" in this state and so there are many people around here that view PETA as an organization that wants to squash hunting rights...

newcook
02-02-2009, 10:25 AM
I just viewed the commercial (thanks, Gumbeaux, for the link). I don't think it's tacky, but incredibly stupid as a piece of marketing--Obama is hardly a friend to pro-lifers. The text could have continued, "he will grow up to become the first African-American President . . . and he will continue his Congressional habit of making decisions that support and/or fund abortion." :rolleyes: As a pro-lifer, I would've nixed the ad for that misstep.

If Obama had been pro-life, the ad could have been very powerful in a good way--as it is, it's almost a joke. But if the ad hadn't used a central character who does not support the cause for the ad, then I don't see anything inherently offensive in a sonogram or in the ad (except that the sponsor and the underlying message offend those who support abortion as an option). A sonogram shouldn't offend--unless you think that a woman considering abortion, who needs to "know about all of her choices," as abortion supporters always say, shouldn't know what's going on in the womb she's about to empty. :rolleyes:

Unless you view it differently. If Obama's mother had been pro-choice and had decided to abort, you would not have today's president. I am not advocating for either side, just mentioning they may have viewed it this way.

testkitchen45
02-02-2009, 10:48 AM
Unless you view it differently. If Obama's mother had been pro-choice and had decided to abort, you would not have today's president. I am not advocating for either side, just mentioning they may have viewed it this way.

Yes, you're right. I was reacting more to the earlier post about how a pro-life ad aimed at the President seemed tacky. I was thinking along the lines of how it seems so jarring, in light of Obama's decisions as a Congressman & in his first several days in office, to see Obama's image used in a pro-life ad. But you're right on target in saying that if she had decided to abort, Obama wouldn't have even been here.

BTW, I can appreciate the other comments that when we're watching the SuperBowl, we want escapism, not issues. I worked on MasterCook during the whole game, except for the last several minutes of it, & paid attention only during the commercials, hoping for a good laugh. :)

leightx
02-02-2009, 10:51 AM
I can't see how a life-affirming ad could anger anybody--the pro-life ad creator is the problem for some pro-choicers and for NBC. If the ad screamed "baby killers!!" then yeah, I can see that (& FWIW I would be offended too), but if it's simply affirming the value of even the most disadvantaged human life, that shouldn't "anger" anybody.

It's only "life-affirming" when you're looking it at from a pro-life position. After all, can't both sides play the "imagine the potential" game? If our country goes down the path you want it to, all abortions would be illegal, correct? I believe that is Sarah Palin's stance as well.

So, imagining a world where that's the "ideal" situation for hard-line pro-lifers, let's think of a few alternate commercial scenarios:

A 12 year old girl is raped by her father and must deliver the baby - she dies in childbirth, leaving her newborn infant in the hands of her incestuous grandfather.

A pregnant mother is faced with the horrible news that either she will die, or her fetus - abortion is not an option and she dies, leaving 3 other children without a mother. The fetus is delivered too early as a result, and dies as well.

IVF is only permitted if you are willing to transfer all viable embryos. Dozens of embryos are routinely transferred and eventually implant, leading to massive problems with the surviving babies (and mothers) that make it to delivery.

A woman who has an abortion is tried and found guilty of first-degree murder (after all, a person is a person, no matter how small). The doctor who performs the abortion is found guilty as well. Friends and relatives that knew about the abortion and did nothing to prevent or report it are held as accomplices.

Thousands of women have illegal, back-alley abortions and die as a result of the procedure, or infection afterward. One of those women "could have" eventually discovered the cure for cancer or AIDS, or become the first woman President.

Now, the tagline at the end of the commercial: "Imagine if these woman had access to safe, legal abortions when they were faced with a unwanted or life-threatening pregnancy. Imagine the lost potential."

Rolling your eyes yet? Now you know how many pro-choicers see this ad. :)


I can see how a gay-marriage ad, or a pro-life ad, or any other type of "controversial" ad, could either be done very low-key in order to gently spread the message (not inherently offensive, but just potentially offensive if one disagrees with the sponsor), or it could be done very in-your-face (offensive to pretty much anyone, even to people who might otherwise support the cause). I will admit that even a low-key ad placed by PParenthood would offend me deeply, so maybe that's how y'all are feeling, but I would think the pro-choicers would also have to admit that the identical life-affirming ad, if produced by GE, for example, would be no big deal. ;)

You'd think wrong. In fact, I would be far more appalled at such a "life-affirming" ad from GE, and would boycott their products (not that they'd ever run such a thing). It's easy enough for me to boycott the Catholic church. :)

And FWIW, I wouldn't call this ad "life-affirming" at all. I would call it one-sided and short-sighted.


I brought up PETA because its ad was rejected because it was deemed too sexual(it could have aired if PETA was willing to make changes) not because it is an advocacy group. The pro-life ad was rejected because "NBC told CatholicVote.org that they do not allow political or issue advocacy advertisements" PETA is also an advocacy group but they weren't rejected on that basis.

I think BOTH groups are merely milking the Super Bowl "rejection" in order to get more publicity. PETA is notorious for doing publicity stunts - I'm quite sure they never intended to run those ads. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the intent of the pro-life ad either.


I just viewed the commercial (thanks, Gumbeaux, for the link). I don't think it's tacky, but incredibly stupid as a piece of marketing--Obama is hardly a friend to pro-lifers. The text could have continued, "he will grow up to become the first African-American President . . . and he will continue his Congressional habit of making decisions that support and/or fund abortion." :rolleyes: As a pro-lifer, I would've nixed the ad for that misstep.

If Obama had been pro-life, the ad could have been very powerful in a good way--as it is, it's almost a joke.

I disagree with your perception of the goal of the ad. The ad wasn't intended to "preach to the choir," as it would have done if Obama were pro-life. It's trying to change a few minds - make people (especially liberal pro-choice supporters, who also presumably like Obama) stop and think, "Hmmm...you know, this baby that I'm planning to abort next week COULD grow up and be President." My guess is that most pro-choice supporters would not be impressed with an ad that implied that they could be birthing the next Sarah Palin, for example. ;) :p

leightx
02-02-2009, 10:57 AM
Unless you view it differently. If Obama's mother had been pro-choice and had decided to abort, you would not have today's president. I am not advocating for either side, just mentioning they may have viewed it this way.

I think the really offensive part of this ad is assuming that 1) Obama's mother ever considered abortion as an option in the first place, and 2) that pro-choicers have the abortion clinic on speed dial when they get pregnant.

I'm very much pro-choice, even though I wouldn't make that decision for myself, given my current situation.

leightx
02-02-2009, 11:00 AM
I also forgot to point out that if you truly wanted to flip the tables, you could just as easily show the sonogram pictures interspersed with women or children who have died at the hands of a mass murderer who was "not aborted." After all, giving birth to a serial killer is about as likely as giving birth to the next President of the United States. Both scenarios are somewhat absurd.

jellyben
02-02-2009, 11:25 AM
Is this a press release from the organization that wanted to run the ad? The language is hardly unbiased or objective.

You're right-not unbiased or objective, but the pro-life websites seem to be the only ones mentioning this story. I couldn't find any info about it on other sites.

ljt2r
02-02-2009, 11:41 AM
NBC is a private corporation. Yes they rent airwaves (for now) from the gov't, but they have an absolute 1st amendment right to not be forced to show ads taking a position on something--even if they want to show ads running the opposite. If you don't like it, don't watch NBC. It's as simple as that. I mean yes you can have an opinion, but even if you find the ad inoffensive, to be mad they did not run it is just weird in my opinion. Would you like to be forced to run an ad either contrary to your position or one that you felt might harm your business practice?

I really think people forget that our tv stations are not run by the gov't.

PS just because something is gentle does not make it less propaganda. It just makes it better written propaganda. And no I have not seen the ad--I have no interest.

testkitchen45
02-02-2009, 04:38 PM
Rolling your eyes yet? Now you know how many pro-choicers see this ad. :)

Leigh, although you cited several extreme situations, the overwhelming majority of abortions are not due to extreme situations, but rather to the run-of-the-mill desire not to follow through with the result of one's earlier choices. :( And I'm not sure why pro-"choice" folks would roll their eyes at a sonogram, other than the fact that it pictures the fetus that their actions will affect.

I understand the points you made but I have no desire to go line-by-line with the areas I would disagree with (and there were several)--not all pro-lifers feel the same way about various situations, yet I have no interest in pursuing those discussions further. I'm sure you understand that I'd rather get dinner on at this point. ;) Per the OP, I think NBC gave up its objectivity long ago anyway.

Robyn1007
02-02-2009, 04:47 PM
Leigh, although you cited several extreme situations, the overwhelming majority of abortions are not due to extreme situations, but rather to the run-of-the-mill desire not to follow through with the result of one's earlier choices. :( And I'm not sure why pro-"choice" folks would roll their eyes at a sonogram, other than the fact that it pictures the fetus that their actions will affect.

I understand the points you made but I have no desire to go line-by-line with the areas I would disagree with (and there were several)--not all pro-lifers feel the same way about various situations, yet I have no interest in pursuing those discussions further. I'm sure you understand that I'd rather get dinner on at this point. ;) Per the OP, I think NBC gave up its objectivity long ago anyway.

But do you see how the situation in the ad, implying that the sonogram might be of President Obama (yes, I do believe that is the implication they are going for) is equally as extreme if not more so? We've had only 44 presidents in this country but we've had far more murderers, women who die during child birth, etc. I don't believe the pro-choice people are rolling their eyes at a sonogram, they are rolling their eyes at the implication that it might have been President Obama.

aggie94
02-02-2009, 04:56 PM
And I'm not sure why pro-"choice" folks...

Why did you put the word "choice" in quotes?

leightx
02-02-2009, 05:02 PM
Leigh, although you cited several extreme situations, the overwhelming majority of abortions are not due to extreme situations, but rather to the run-of-the-mill desire not to follow through with the result of one's earlier choices. :( And I'm not sure why pro-"choice" folks would roll their eyes at a sonogram, other than the fact that it pictures the fetus that their actions will affect.

I understand the points you made but I have no desire to go line-by-line with the areas I would disagree with (and there were several)--not all pro-lifers feel the same way about various situations, yet I have no interest in pursuing those discussions further. I'm sure you understand that I'd rather get dinner on at this point. ;) Per the OP, I think NBC gave up its objectivity long ago anyway.

TK - I don't want to drag you into a abortion debate here, but I do hope you realize that most pro-choice supporters wished that abortions never happened. If I could wave a magic wand so that all babies were wanted, would be born perfectly healthy, and wouldn't compromise the mental, emotional or physical health of the mother, I would.

I know from your posts here that you weren't trying to offend by putting "choice" in quotations (many pro-life supporters prefer the term "pro-abortion"), so I'll just say that while I am pro-choice, I am certainly NOT pro-abortion. There is a huge difference there.

I think it's rare to find anyone who supports abortion as a method of birth control (and we know that it does indeed happen). The problem is that for most pro-choice supporters, the issue isn't black & white, as it appears to be for pro-lifers. I personally don't know where I would draw the line, but I would never equate a fertilized egg to a 5 month old fetus to a newborn baby.

No one is rolling their eyes at the picture of the sonogram - it's the implication that the sonogram is a photo of a baby who might have been aborted, but grew up to be POTUS instead. I think you would roll your eyes at the implication that a serial killer could have been aborted, but wound up killing several children instead, which is just as likely a scenario. That's all.

blazedog
02-02-2009, 05:07 PM
Leigh, although you cited several extreme situations, the overwhelming majority of abortions are not due to extreme situations, but rather to the run-of-the-mill desire not to follow through with the result of one's earlier choices. :( And I'm not sure why pro-"choice" folks would roll their eyes at a sonogram, other than the fact that it pictures the fetus that their actions will affect.

I understand the points you made but I have no desire to go line-by-line with the areas I would disagree with (and there were several)--not all pro-lifers feel the same way about various situations, yet I have no interest in pursuing those discussions further. I'm sure you understand that I'd rather get dinner on at this point. ;) Per the OP, I think NBC gave up its objectivity long ago anyway.

Are you alleging that NBC would have run a pro choice advertisement during the Super Bowl? I would seriously doubt it as most corporations bend over to avoid taking a stance on this kind of issue -- when was the last time there was a character in a show who had an abortion and it was treated as a positive action?

I am not sure what the choice was and no woman I know who opted for an abortion treated it as a "run of the mill decision" akin to choosing a new pair of slacks and tonight's dinner menu.

Are you then saying that a woman whose birth control failed should be permitted a choice? What about a woman who chooses a less effective form of birth control? You seem to indicate that any time a woman "chooses" to have sex she foregoes any further choices in terms of her body, her family and her life.

blazedog
02-02-2009, 05:11 PM
No one is rolling their eyes at the picture of the sonogram - it's the implication that the sonogram is a photo of a baby who might have been aborted, but grew up to be POTUS instead. I think you would roll your eyes at the implication that a serial killer could have been aborted, but wound up killing several children instead, which is just as likely a scenario. That's all.

Given there have only been 44 Presidents, it is far more likely that someone will grow up to kill or otherwise do great evil. :)

testkitchen45
02-02-2009, 06:21 PM
I am not sure what the choice was and no woman I know who opted for an abortion treated it as a "run of the mill decision" akin to choosing a new pair of slacks and tonight's dinner menu.

Are you then saying that a woman whose birth control failed should be permitted a choice? What about a woman who chooses a less effective form of birth control? You seem to indicate that any time a woman "chooses" to have sex she foregoes any further choices in terms of her body, her family and her life.

I never said "run-of-the-mill decision." I said "run-of-the-mill desire not to follow through"--i.e., the all-too-ordinary human emotion of regret for one's choices.

How 'bout that--yes, I do believe that sex should be only within the context of marriage, with full readiness to accept whatever children may come of that union. I do believe that when we choose to have sex, we should accept the full responsibility for the result of the choice to have sex: pregnancy, a birth-defect baby, whatever. My view is considered old-fashioned these days, but the separation of sex from marriage is what produces these controversies.

FWIW, I believe in birth control within marriage, and do not agree with philosophies saying that BC is wrong as a married couple plans the family (reference, for ex, this BB's discussion of the Duggars). I also realize that if it wasn't the woman's choice to have sex, then that opens up another can of worms entirely.

Further, when the mother's life is TRULY at risk, not her lifeSTYLE but her life, then I think many reasonable people on both sides of the fence would say that if you can only save one, save the mom. Sadly, though, I'll repeat that I think it's not the norm for most abortions.


Why did you put the word "choice" in quotes?

I find it very hard to say "pro-choice" b/c I think the real "choice" is when you choose to have sex--and yet I'm trying to be sensitive to those who find the term "pro-abortion" as rude as I find the term "anti-abortion."


TK - I don't want to drag you into a abortion debate here, but I do hope you realize that most pro-choice supporters wished that abortions never happened. . . . while I am pro-choice, I am certainly NOT pro-abortion. There is a huge difference there. . . . I would never equate a fertilized egg to a 5 month old fetus to a newborn baby.

And as usual, Leigh, you make some excellent points in a low-key way. :) I think there is much area of agreement between those who favor freer access to abortions, and those who believe abortion is wrong--both sides can agree that working to keep the numbers as low as possible is an excellent goal.

leightx
02-02-2009, 07:26 PM
Further, when the mother's life is TRULY at risk, not her lifeSTYLE but her life, then I think many reasonable people on both sides of the fence would say that if you can only save one, save the mom. Sadly, though, I'll repeat that I think it's not the norm for most abortions.

I'll agree with you there, and find "abortion-as-birth-control" truly reprehensible. :( I do think there are too many shades of grey when you talk about health issues and abortion. What if they find the mom has cancer while she is pregnant, and can not undergo treatment while pregnant. If the treatment gives the mother a 90% chance at survival, would you be ok with an abortion, even a late-term one? What if it's only a 30% chance? Unfortunately, life is not black and white, and so many of the laws proposed by the pro-life movement are. :(




I find it very hard to say "pro-choice" b/c I think the real "choice" is when you choose to have sex--and yet I'm trying to be sensitive to those who find the term "pro-abortion" as rude as I find the term "anti-abortion."

But aren't you indeed "anti-abortion"? You wish that they didn't exist, correct? I suppose when it comes down to it, I would consider myself "anti-abortion" as well (not that they were illegal, just that they were never needed in the first place). I just don't see why that term is so offensive. On the flip side, I don't know a single person, pro-choice or otherwise, who is "pro-abortion." To me, the two terms are not at all equivalent. Even so, I would never use the term "anti-abortion" since I know most pro-lifers would be offended...

The argument that the choice occurred when the couple had sex holds no water, since we're not debating sex here. One can either chose to have an abortion or not, and one can either chose to have sex or not, but only one of those acts is open for public debate and legislation.

I will add that I know it is difficult to speak up in what appears to be a somewhat pro-choice crowd (or we are at least the bigger loudmouths :p ), and I do appreciate that. :) I don't think all of this debate and discussion is meaningless (not that you've said that - but I suspect quite a few reading this thread do think so). I've questioned and reconsidered and revised my own stance on abortion throughout the years, and I have no doubt that others have as well...

aggie94
02-02-2009, 08:31 PM
I find it very hard to say "pro-choice" b/c I think the real "choice" is when you choose to have sex--and yet I'm trying to be sensitive to those who find the term "pro-abortion" as rude as I find the term "anti-abortion."

But don't you also acknowledge that it isn't always a choice? Women are raped every day. You agree, no? So to insinuate that the "choice" was made voluntarily by engaging in sex is demeaning to those who weren't given a choice.


But aren't you indeed "anti-abortion"? You wish that they didn't exist, correct? I suppose when it comes down to it, I would consider myself "anti-abortion" as well (not that they were illegal, just that they were never needed in the first place). I just don't see why that term is so offensive. On the flip side, I don't know a single person, pro-choice or otherwise, who is "pro-abortion." To me, the two terms are not at all equivalent. Even so, I would never use the term "anti-abortion" since I know most pro-lifers would be offended...

Ditto what Leigh said so well. I don't mean to turn this into an abortion debate either, but since Leigh already got it going.... ;)

SusanMac
02-03-2009, 08:20 AM
I wish I could remember Obama's exact words when this came up in one of the debates w/McCain. It was the most articulate response/discussion of abortion that I had heard! He talked about the fact that absolutely no one is 'pro' abortion.

blazedog
02-03-2009, 08:27 AM
I wish I could remember Obama's exact words when this came up in one of the debates w/McCain. It was the most articulate response/discussion of abortion that I had heard! He talked about the fact that absolutely no one is 'pro' abortion.

This is from the transcript the debate

The last point I want to make on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that -- look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views.

But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby."

Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08101601.html

blazedog
02-03-2009, 08:35 AM
I don't find the use of pro-life to be accurate since most people who claim to be "pro-life" hold viewpoints which are not consistently logical with being "pro-life (whatever that is because who is pro-death? :rolleyes:).

Most people who are against the right of a woman to CHOOSE abortion are not against war, capital punishment and are generally also not supportive of social programs that "support" lives that exist.

Pro-choice is an accurate description of those who support the continuing right for a woman to CHOOSE a legal and safe abortion because no one supports mandatory abortion or in any way would do anything but provide an environment in which a woman can make an educated and informed CHOICE. And parenthetically, many pro-choice advocates are also in favor of programs that make it easier for a woman to elect to have children by offering support systems.

Gumbeaux
02-03-2009, 09:31 AM
I don't find the use of pro-life to be accurate since most people who claim to be "pro-life" hold viewpoints which are not consistently logical with being "pro-life (whatever that is because who is pro-death? :rolleyes:).

I wonder if CatholicVote.com had an anti-death penalty commercial ready to run during the Superbowl. ;)

Shugness
02-03-2009, 10:34 AM
I mentioned I have never really sided either way on this. This topic has been very informative to me, I didn't realize really what most people who believed in Pro-Choice actually believe.

Its kind of a double sided sword for me too, because I have seen both sides of this - I've seen a woman bring several children into this world that she could not take care of, could not raise and dumped off on other people and burdened tax payers with her irresponsibility - and ultimately it has really messed those kids up. I've seen the same woman get pregnant several times and have an abortion. Both actions disgusted me. I'd rather she had done neither - I wish she would have used birth control, which she was not - it wasn't an issue of anything failing, she simply didn't want to waste her money on it, but buy drugs instead.

It really just sucks that this should even be a big deal - my issue with abortion is when its just used as birth control, like in the above instance. I have often questioned if there wasn't that other option would people be more responsible? Unfortuately I think the majority of abortions are just that - people who used it as a plan B. If you're having an abortion because your birth control really did fail (and not just you choose not to use any), you were raped, its incest, or your life/babies life is at a great risk, then I don't have so much of a problem with it.

So that's how I feel, initially I didn't think I was really Pro Choice or Pro Life. It just seems like there should be something in the middle - I'm not a die hard either way, its not something that I feel strongly enough to try and chance the laws or keep the laws the same. And this is just how I feel about it - that doesn't make me wrong or right.

newcook
02-03-2009, 10:45 AM
Not to mention the fact there are many Pro-Life who are also Pro-Choice in the sense that they would not choose to terminate for themselves, but don't feel they have a right to decide for the next person.

stefania4
02-03-2009, 11:04 AM
Not to mention the fact there are many Pro-Life who are also Pro-Choice in the sense that they would not choose to terminate for themselves, but don't feel they have a right to decide for the next person.
That person would be 100%, inarguably, pro-choice. The issue is about leaving the choice with the individual, not with strangers in the government.

blazedog
02-03-2009, 11:27 AM
I mentioned I have never really sided either way on this. This topic has been very informative to me, I didn't realize really what most people who believed in Pro-Choice actually believe.


It really just sucks that this should even be a big deal - my issue with abortion is when its just used as birth control, like in the above instance. I have often questioned if there wasn't that other option would people be more responsible? Unfortuately I think the majority of abortions are just that - people who used it as a plan B. If you're having an abortion because your birth control really did fail (and not just you choose not to use any), you were raped, its incest, or your life/babies life is at a great risk, then I don't have so much of a problem with it.


I think the "middle ground" is to create a climate in which people (starting at an early age) are educated about sexuality and birth control.

I also think social programs need to be in place of every kind to support families and children. You mentioned an extreme example -- a drug addict -- go back far enough and put in place EFFECTIVE deterrent programs -- providing viable options for kids which involves money.

Programs that provide intervention and parenting skills -- just some examples of trying to BREAK the cycle of dead end lack of education/lack of options/drug use.

Why did this woman not have free contraception available to her so that she didn't have to choose between drugs and birth control. I am not saying she is a responsible person for making that decision but certainly it's far better for society to provide birth control than have her bear more children with the odds completely stacked against them.

As for abortion, making abortion illegal would only mean that poor women are again reduced to dangerous back alley abortions because middle class and wealthy women are ALWAYS going to be able to get abortions.

jellyben
02-03-2009, 11:38 AM
I wonder if CatholicVote.com had an anti-death penalty commercial ready to run during the Superbowl. ;)

The Catholic Church has officially opposed the death penalty for 20 years.

Shugness
02-03-2009, 12:37 PM
I think the "middle ground" is to create a climate in which people (starting at an early age) are educated about sexuality and birth control.

I also think social programs need to be in place of every kind to support families and children. You mentioned an extreme example -- a drug addict -- go back far enough and put in place EFFECTIVE deterrent programs -- providing viable options for kids which involves money.

Programs that provide intervention and parenting skills -- just some examples of trying to BREAK the cycle of dead end lack of education/lack of options/drug use.

Why did this woman not have free contraception available to her so that she didn't have to choose between drugs and birth control. I am not saying she is a responsible person for making that decision but certainly it's far better for society to provide birth control than have her bear more children with the odds completely stacked against them.

As for abortion, making abortion illegal would only mean that poor women are again reduced to dangerous back alley abortions because middle class and wealthy women are ALWAYS going to be able to get abortions.

I'm all for sex education - that was part of my cirriculum in high school - it was very helpful and informative and helped me make the right decisions - nevertheless there were some girls who got pregnant. And the woman I mentioned went to that same school system years prior to me and I'm pretty sure it was part of the cirriculum then too.

There was also the D.A.R.E. program in school and we were taught the consequences of taking drugs. I'm sure this woman was in on those classes.

There were already gov't assistance she was taking advantage of - WIC/Foodstamps/Welfare - whatever they are called now. In fact, she was actually claiming two of the kids she didn't have custody of. She would get the food and formula then either sell it to her sister or take it back to another Walmart for cash. My family reported her and was told that as long as she had custody of the child 1 day a year she could claim them and get full 365 day benefits for them.

There was a non-profit - Planned Parenthood - in that area that gave out free birth control to women who were under a certain income level. I gather since she was receiving those other forms of gov't assistance she was probably eligible. She knew of their services and used them from time to time, but was not consistent about it. As I can recall it was too much of an inconvenience to go get them - I'm not sure what kind of hoops they make you jump through but apparently it was too much. And go back to the above statement - she probably sold off the free birth control pills she was given.

As for the drug use - it was only Pot as far as I know - and it was mostly my brother doing it. That wasn't the only thing they wasted what little money they had - they'd go buy music cds, new cell phones, clothes - etc, but would have bill collectors harrassing them. I'm pretty sure there are already gov't sponsored programs that were available that could have helped them with that program if they wanted help.

I don't think any of this is an extreme example - I saw it go on a lot where I used to live. Anyways, the thing is that the programs you speak of are already out there. The question is are they working? If the answer is no, what do you do, add more or label them ineffective and take another approach?

Personally I think you can only help someone so far, at some point they have to learn to take personal responsibility for their actions. I'm all for helping people out when they need it, I think we need those gov't programs, but I've seen them abused way too much. I just think the whole system needs an overhaul.

blazedog
02-03-2009, 01:38 PM
Shugness -- I don't necessarily think that throwing money at a program works nor am I naive enough to think that everyone can be saved.

FWIW, I think DARE is one of the stupider programs around because it treats drugs as a monolithic issue. I had the anti-drug propaganda when I was growing up and it was something to snicker at -- Reefer Madness :D

However, I think there are factors that are present in people's lives that make things easier or harder for them. Why are you leading a productive life and this girl's life went on a completely different track? Did she have a stable two parent household? If not, were their EARLY programs in place that recognized high risk children/high risk families and intervened.

Are programs now in place that are dealing with her obviously at high risk children? Probably not as most programs aren't funded and are there to clean up messes ineffectually after they have occurred.

Programs like Head Start are enormously effective.

I would suggest renting Season 4 of The Wire which deals with the failure of the system on every level in the persona of four young boys in the Baltimore School system -- I would recommend every season of The Wire but Season Four is more relevant as an indictment of the failure of our society to take meaningful action to try to turn the cycle of poverty/drugs around.

MKSquared
02-03-2009, 01:53 PM
For the record - only 43 people have served as the President of the United States. (Grover Cleveland, although president twice, was only born once.)

Just sayin'.

Shugness
02-03-2009, 02:24 PM
. Why are you leading a productive life and this girl's life went on a completely different track? Did she have a stable two parent household? If not, were their EARLY programs in place that recognized high risk children/high risk families and intervened.


Funny you should ask :D I'm not exactly sure what her home life was, but both her parents are hard working people, are still married. They seem to contribute positively to society and haven't ever had any trouble with the law.

The household I grew up in was quite the contrary. While my parents were married and still are, it was definately a loveless marriage. My mother doesn't have that all important mother gene and has a lot of mental issues. My oldest brother (baby daddy in this story) has went on to have contributed positively to society - works hard, has his own home/vehicle, etc, but on a more personal level his human relation skills are horrible - he's in the process of getting a divorce because of the way he treated his wife. My second brother and my sister both have went on to lead similiar lifes - drug use, criminal records, time served in jail, no marketable skills therefore always have dead end jobs, constantly being evicted or having their car repoed.

Me - I have never used drugs, no criminal record, never been to jail. I figured out at a very young age I wanted to get out and away from the situation my mother had us in. I got a job when I was 16, went to night school, graduated high school 1 year early at age 17, enrolled myself in a crappy private college close to home, worked there full time and went to school there too, earned an associate degree in 16 months at age 19. In between all that I moved in with a friend when I was 18 shortly after I met my husband (who lived in NC), soon as I completed my degree I moved down here, got a job, got married, opened my own business, pay my bills, have a home, own a car free and clear, etc. I know that doesn't sound like much, but I did it all on my own, which I am proud of.

By all accounts I should have went down that same path as the other two siblings. Compare me to my sister - there is a two year age difference, but we are like night and day - absolutely nothing in common what so ever, from day one.

Why? I have absolutely no clue, its one of lifes greater mysteries. How the heck did I overcome that? The only thing I can say is my sister is weak, she never had the determination I had - so I guess God just programmed us differently. Sometimes I actually feel sorry for her, but then I get real and realize she had the same opportunites I had.

So the ironic thing is if you base it on how we were raised, I should have been her and she should have been me.

And before you say it I will say it for you - I think this situation I just described is unique. I would definately say in most situations that there is a directly coalition between how you were raised and how you end up contributing to society as an adult - althought it surprises me. Like the whole statisic that if you're raised by an alcoholic you'll likely turn out to be one. For someone like me who is obviously programmed differently, when I saw something in life that I thought was distructive, I made a point to not do that when I got on my own. Crazy.

blazedog
02-03-2009, 03:13 PM
The Catholic Church has officially opposed the death penalty for 20 years.

The Catholic Church is also opposed to In Vitro Fertilization. :)

Shows exactly why religious ideology should have nothing to do with medical decisions -- oh wait it has -- with stem cell research for starters. :D

There is no consistency among those who oppose a woman's right to control her body.

Gumbeaux
02-03-2009, 04:15 PM
No one is rolling their eyes at the picture of the sonogram - it's the implication that the sonogram is a photo of a baby who might have been aborted, but grew up to be POTUS instead. I think you would roll your eyes at the implication that a serial killer could have been aborted, but wound up killing several children instead, which is just as likely a scenario. That's all.


Given there have only been 44 Presidents, it is far more likely that someone will grow up to kill or otherwise do great evil. :)


From looking at Wikipedia's site, there have been almost three times as many serial killers in the United states than Presidents.

jellyben
02-03-2009, 05:36 PM
The Catholic Church is also opposed to In Vitro Fertilization. :)



I guess I misunderstood Gumbeaux-I thought he was implying the Catholic Church was pro-death penalty. I'm not sleeping much these days...

blazedog
02-03-2009, 05:43 PM
I guess I misunderstood Gumbeaux-I thought he was implying the Catholic Church was pro-death penalty. I'm not sleeping much these days...

I can't speak for Gumbeaux of course but I think his point was that it was unlikely that the "pro-life" advocacy group was planning to fund any anti-capital punishment ads in the near future.

I don't support the Catholic Church's stance on reproductive rights and since most of the Catholics I know practice birth control, I assume most Catholics don't either -- so it's ALL pretty inconsistent in terms of selectively choosing what action is theoretically "pro-life".

ETA -- Catholics as a group are no more or less likely to support a woman's right to choose FWIW.

leightx
02-03-2009, 08:30 PM
There is no consistency among those who oppose a woman's right to control her body.

Actually, I know of plenty of people who believe that life begins at conception, and that is that. They are perfectly consistent on that issue. They don't believe that IVF should be legal, nor abortions at any point, or for any reason, and that a fertilized egg is absolutely equivalent to a 20-week old fetus or a newborn baby.

I question whether those people have thought through the legal and moral implications - I don't believe any sane person could extend the exact same rights to a fertilized egg as they would to a newborn baby. I'm quite sure that when considering an imaginary situation where you could save either a baby or 500 frozen embryos from perishing in a fire (let's assumed it happened at an IVF clinic) - that no one in their right mind would choose to save the 500 "potential humans" over the 1 baby. Yet many pro-lifers insist that an embryo should have the exact same protection under the law.

I think what this boils down to is how to define murder. Is it simply the taking of a human life? At what point do we define "human life" - fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, baby? Why is it not considered murder to pull the plug on someone who is brain-dead, but still has a beating heart? Is it only right when someone is theoretically at or near the end of his life? And I think the "playing God" line is a total cop-out, unless you are willing to forgo any and all medical treatment. You are "playing God" just as much when you save a life as you are when you end it.

Anyway - as I've said before, I have far more respect for those that see grey areas in this debate. I don't know where I would draw the line if I ruled the world - I personally have a problem with abortions after the first trimester. I have no problem disposing of IVF embryos (in theory - I won't say that I wouldn't feel differently if I were going through the practice). I also think the life of the mother takes precedence over the fetus, even in the third trimester, and even when a late-term "partial birth" abortion is the only option. I would never expect a woman who has been forced to have sex against her will to carry a pregnancy to term if she does not choose to.

Well, that was a long and rambling post, but I think it about sums up my current stance on abortion...basically, I don't know what the right answer is, and I don't think anyone should define it for me, so I'm unwilling to define it for other women.

testkitchen45
02-03-2009, 09:07 PM
If pro-lifers take a hard-line stance on all the related issues, they're being consistent but they're vilified as seeing the issue as too black-and-white. If pro-lifers see the grey areas and try to figure out the best decisions in each case, they're accused of being inconsistent. They (we) can't win either way. :rolleyes: :(

Rarely does the so-called pro-choice crowd realize that pro-lifers aren't a bunch of preacher-haired, gap-toothed, Bible-thumping, snake-handling cretins :p, but pro-lifers are instead wrestling with balance and priority between born life and unborn life within a value system that says conception is precious and not to be disposed of lightly.

In many of the scenarios cited, which are in the extreme and not typical of the vast majority of convenience-motivated abortions, any reasonable person--and yes, pro-lifers are generally reasonable people--would have to weigh the options within the framework of her pro-life values, to the best of her ability. I'm not interested in addressing rare scenarios that are generally designed to put pro-lifers on the spot. :rolleyes: I'm more interested in stating that pro-lifers are not a homogeneous bunch, and neither are we blithering idiots. We know that miscarrying is not the same as losing your teenager. We know that if the woman didn't choose to have sex, that opens up a host of grey areas b/c she's already been violated yet that baby is still human. We also know that most abortions have little to do with the mother's life or the mother's health. And we know that conversations such as this one are generally futile, but we keep trying. :o

leightx
02-03-2009, 09:54 PM
If pro-lifers take a hard-line stance on all the related issues, they're being consistent but they're vilified as seeing the issue as too black-and-white. If pro-lifers see the grey areas and try to figure out the best decisions in each case, they're accused of being inconsistent. They (we) can't win either way. :rolleyes: :(

TK - I'm not sure if you were referring to my post, but I probably need to clarify. I think there are pro-lifers who are perfectly consistent, but I don't "respect" (that's not the right word - but I can't think of a better one - maybe "understand?") them as much as those who understand that there are grey areas. I probably didn't make that very clear. I think the vast majority of people fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. In other words, there are a few who feel that a woman should be able to abort at any time for any reason, and a few (although obviously more) who feel a woman should never have an abortion under any circumstance. Most people fall somewhere inbetween. Being inconsistent is a bad thing at all - it means that you are unwilling to frame everything as a black and white issue. I'm inconsistent in regards to abortion - I feel it is justified some times but not others. Sorry if I gave the impression that I felt pro-lifers should be consistent.


Rarely does the so-called pro-choice crowd realize that pro-lifers aren't a bunch of preacher-haired, gap-toothed, Bible-thumping, snake-handling cretins :p, but pro-lifers are instead wrestling with balance and priority between born life and unborn life within a value system that says conception is precious and not to be disposed of lightly.

I wouldn't say "rarely" - I'd be willing to guess that most people have close friends who are pro-life. Then again, maybe they hang out with gap-toothed snake wrestlers... ;)

I'll say it again - I personally don't think the conversation is futile. I'm not trying to change any minds, but I do take thoughtful debate into consideration, and I've revised my feelings on abortion as a result (more "in favor" of the fetus, if you're interested).

jellyben
02-04-2009, 06:10 AM
I don't support the Catholic Church's stance on reproductive rights and since most of the Catholics I know practice birth control, I assume most Catholics don't either -- so it's ALL pretty inconsistent in terms of selectively choosing what action is theoretically "pro-life".

ETA -- Catholics as a group are no more or less likely to support a woman's right to choose FWIW.

Sure there is inconsistency among Catholic people, I don't think you can accuse the Catholic Church of being inconsistent with its views(if that's what you're saying). But even among the clergy there is dissent-when I went to pre-cana before I got married the priest said 'we all know the church's teaching on birth control. And we all know most of you aren't ready to be parents.' and left it at that!

blazedog
02-04-2009, 07:14 AM
My point about inconsistency is that "pro-life" as an appellation is meaningless as I earlier stated. For most people, it consists of limiting a woman's right to choose abortion as a private personal decision and other theoretically "pro life" positions are not supported.

It then becomes a personal decision to be against abortion but not against IVF, capital punishment, war, stem cell research or birth control How would those who do support those activities want birth control, IVF or stem cell research criminalized because some one else finds the practice to be wrong in their opinion.

For the record, Roe v Wade is a pretty nuanced opinion in terms of determining when the state's right to regulate overrides the right of privacy in important personal decisions and it does not treat the right to obtain an abortion as a black or white issue.

SugarNSpice
02-04-2009, 09:11 AM
I am pro-choice, don't want anyone whether it is the government or my Church to tell me what to do with my own body. I believe in IVF and contraception.... Would I have an abortion? Not now, but if I had become pregnant during high school or college I most definitely would have seen no other choice.

That being said I am so confused on WHY I am pro-choice because I do believe that once an egg becomes fertilized it is a potential person and has a soul, maybe not a brain or heart or anything else, but it does have a soul. I do believe that when women have abortions they are killing people and I don't think babies inside a womb are any different from babies outside a womb.

ARGHHH....I've never really talked about this before because I don't quite understand it myself.

I'm sure others struggle with these same thoughts, I feel like my mind runs in circles when I start to think about all of this stuff!

Robyncz
02-04-2009, 09:16 AM
My point about inconsistency is that "pro-life" as an appellation is meaningless as I earlier stated.


I think Karen's point is that earlier it was implied the the Catholic Church (as opposed to Catholic *people*) was inconsistent in its pro-life stance, and I don't think that's true. Right or wrong, the Church as an institution is pretty darn consistent on this point. Now, one may not agree with their definition of "life" or with their theological interpretation, or with their involvement in the political or legal arena (that's where I start to have issues). But the Catholic Church is consistent. AND, in defense of the Catholic Church, in addition to its stance against abortion, parishes across the globe provide social, financial, and spiritual support to pregnant women in all kinds of awful situations, unwed mothers, homeless people, and struggling families.

(**As a footnote, I am a faithful but liberal Catholic. I appreciate much of the history of the church, and I especially appreciate its social conscience. That being said, I think the Church needs to keep it's nose OUT of politics.)

blazedog
02-04-2009, 09:25 AM
I think Karen's point is that earlier it was implied the the Catholic Church (as opposed to Catholic *people*) was inconsistent in its pro-life stance, and I don't think that's true. Right or wrong, the Church as an institution is pretty darn consistent on this point. Now, one may not agree with their definition of "life" or with their theological interpretation, or with their involvement in the political or legal arena (that's where I start to have issues). But the Catholic Church is consistent. AND, in defense of the Catholic Church, in addition to its stance against abortion, parishes across the globe provide social, financial, and spiritual support to pregnant women in all kinds of awful situations, unwed mothers, homeless people, and struggling families.

(**As a footnote, I am a faithful but liberal Catholic. I appreciate much of the history of the church, and I especially appreciate its social conscience. That being said, I think the Church needs to keep it's nose OUT of politics.)

I never stated the Catholic Church's position on life was inconsistent -- wrong but consistent. :)

Most Catholics do not adhere to the CC's complete position on the "sanctity of life" -- especially birth control and probably capital punishment as well. I am not condemning those as some of my best friends are "lapsed" Catholics and Catholics as a group tend to be more socially liberal than other groups on many positions.

I was just pointing out that it becomes one of PERSONAL moral and ethical decisions and not consistent with the Church's justification for their stance.

My point was that the appellation "pro life" should more accurately be "anti-abortion" since many of the "pro life" positions which rise from the justification are rejected by anti-abortion advocates.

I don't know any pro-choice person who is FOR abortion as most are in line with Obama's position so it is accurate to say we are pro-choice.

Robyncz
02-04-2009, 09:43 AM
I never stated the Catholic Church's position on life was inconsistent -- wrong but consistent. :)

Most Catholics do not adhere to the CC's complete position on the "sanctity of life" -- especially birth control and probably capital punishment as well. I am not condemning those as some of my best friends are "lapsed" Catholics and Catholics as a group tend to be more socially liberal than other groups on many positions.

I was just pointing out that it becomes one of PERSONAL moral and ethical decisions and not consistent with the Church's justification for their stance.

My point was that the appellation "pro life" should more accurately be "anti-abortion" since many of the "pro life" positions which rise from the justification are rejected by anti-abortion advocates.

I don't know any pro-choice person who is FOR abortion as most are in line with Obama's position so it is accurate to say we are pro-choice.

I agree with each point you make here EXCEPT that in my experience in terms of which bits of the Catholic pro-life stance the people I know tend to ignore. You are correct on the bc issue. However, most of my Catholic friends are against capital punishment rather than for it. And, I'd also like to posit that most in my Catholic circle are definitively AGAINST the act of abortion, but are politically pro-choice--but it's because the idea of a government legislating morality in general, and woman's body in particular, is abhorrent--not because they want to run out and get abortions.

And while we're on the subject, a friend of mine said something the other day that made me pause. It may be a common line on the pro-choice battleground, but I'd never heard it before. He said he found it ridiculous to assume that we can't trust some women to make a difficult choice about their own bodies, but we can trust those same women to raise children. How much sense does that make?

blazedog
02-04-2009, 10:07 AM
I agree with each point you make here EXCEPT that in my experience in terms of which bits of the Catholic pro-life stance the people I know tend to ignore. You are correct on the bc issue. However, most of my Catholic friends are against capital punishment rather than for it. And, I'd also like to posit that most in my Catholic circle are definitively AGAINST the act of abortion, but are politically pro-choice--but it's because the idea of a government legislating morality in general, and woman's body in particular, is abhorrent--not because they want to run out and get abortions.

And while we're on the subject, a friend of mine said something the other day that made me pause. It may be a common line on the pro-choice battleground, but I'd never heard it before. He said he found it ridiculous to assume that we can't trust some women to make a difficult choice about their own bodies, but we can trust those same women to raise children. How much sense does that make?

Not disagreeing with any of your points at all.

I would add that many women who are PRO-CHOICE would not make the personal decision to have an abortion but feel exactly as you stated -- even if they are vehemently pro-choice. And some might not abort a "surprise" baby if their life at that point could adapt to it but would have aborted (and may well have had an abortion considering the statistics on abortion rates among women) at other points in their life.

I am not sure of the statistics but I am almost certain that as I stated Catholics (even "lapsed" ones) tend to be more liberal on social issues and I believe they are less in favor of capital punishment than the "statistical" American. ETA -- In my original post "most" should probably have been switched to some or many although I am certain that MOST evangelical Protestant ant-abortion advocates support capital punishment.