Tim Tebow's Super Bowl Ad

In my experience the media is usually ridiculous, but I agree that if this was a pro-choice ad, or pro-gay marriage ad, I doubt he would be getting this sort of negative media attention. I hope Tebow continues doing what he thinks is right and I have no problem with them airing a pro-life (or anti-abortion or whatever it is) commercial even though I'm pro-choice.

 

I watch sports like football for the exact purpose of being able to immerse myself in a world where things like politics, academics, economics, etc. are not important. So unless it is a blatant, in-your-face, intentionally offensive advertisement, which I doubt it is, I probably won't think twice about it regardless of whether I agree with it.

 

I tried for a couple minutes to see if the ad itself was online yet, but I couldn't locate it.
I'd like to see it myself before I reach any real conclusions, but I don't see how a simple "pro-life" ad could possibly be "the most controversial super bowl ad ever"....

I mean, every other beer commercial seems to feature busty ladies in bikinis gyrating around and making double-entendres for 30 seconds before hawking Bud Light or whatever (especially before the thing with Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl a couple years back)... is that sort of thing really less offensive to the Super Bowl viewing public than Tim Tebow expressing his political beliefs?

Whatever.

"This anti-abortion ad is incredibly offensive to me as a woman and as a feminist! I would much rather see Candice Michelle in a tank top, being objectified!"

 

/stare

 

Tim Tebow dares to suggest that certain people don't count as people and killing them is wrong.

Of course the liberal media is going bonkers over it.

Abortion, the left's highest sacrament and the glue that holds the radical coalition that is the democratic party together, requires that people look at this:



And say, "That's not a human being, it's okay to kill that person."

Once you get the sheeple to believe in some of your lies, it makes it easier for them to believe the rest of your lies. After all, they don't want to admit they've been lied to systematically for decades.

It a nationwide version of a classic scam. Get people to invest money in something, then keep telling them "just a little bit more is needed." Next thing they know they're in $10,000, and what's another $500 if it protects the $10,000?

Who are you going to believe, your lying eyes, or the democratic party? Clearly that's not a baby. It just looks like a baby, acts like a baby, has the DNA of a baby, is self aware, feels pain, etc, etc, etc. Quit letting your lying yes deceive you, trust in the democrats.

 

I would just like to point out how incredibly airbrushed this chick is.

It's so bad I had to post about it, don't mean to jack or ninja the thread.

 

I couldn't find a better picture of her, where she looks more "natural".

I mean, she's probably like 1/3 silicone anyway, but you know what I mean.

They need to chill on the damn airbrushing.

 

Why are you trying to have the government invade people's private lives, telling them what they can and cannot do? I thought you were against that sort of thing?

I could quibble about the fact that medical evidence suggests pain can't be felt until the 3rd trimester or that a fetus doesn't really 'act like a baby' but that's not necessary...

Abortions will occur whether or not they are legal. They have been occurring in one way or the other for thousands of years and will continue to occur for thousands of years yet. All that will result from its prohibition is that abortions will become back-alley affairs and mothers will die in addition to the child.

edit: Oh, and I failed to mention in, but I have no problem with such an advert appearing

 

Why do you think women want to avail of abortions ?

Do you see women who have abortions as murderers ?

 

People will be murdered whether murder is legal or not. Therefore we should legalize murder?

People will be raped whether rape is legal or not. Therefore we should legalize rape?

People will be forced into slavery whether slavery is legal or not. Therefore we should legalize slavery?

I think I follow your line of thought here.

 

It's really a matter of natural rights and morality which becomes a question of who initiates aggression; the baby or the mother?

Some would argue the baby initiates aggression because it is within the mother's body, which is her property.

Others would argue the mother initiates aggression because the baby isn't violating the mother's property or natural rights, as the baby came into existence by way of the mother's actions.

There's also the question of defining life; when it begins and what it is. I'm of the opinion that human life is what it is primarily due to the existence and operation of the heart and brain.

I'm not against abortions across the board. 'Morning after' abortions or contraception are fine in my view, but I think it's wrong to disregard the life of a baby and violate it's right to life simply out of inconvenience or indecisiveness. It doesn't take much to prevent pregnancy these days, why should a baby's life be forfeit because of the mother's irresponsibility?

Seeing as how the government was originated to protect our natural rights, I'd suggest that if natural rights are being unjustly violated--and in either case, arguments can be made for such violation--then it is, in fact, the government's business.

Again, it's a very controversial subject, and I'm not even sure I'm 100% certain about where I stand on the issue.

 

How do we reduce the number of abortions?

By reducing the number of pregnancies right?

Okay, how should pregnancy be reduced?

 

So are you deliberately trying to misunderstand my argument to make me look like a jackass, or are you just getting confused of your own accord?

What my argument put forth is the idea that whatever degree to which suffering is occurring now (the destruction of a fetus), there will be greater suffering when these same procedures are done in an unsafe environment since the mother will also be at risk.

 

It's turning into an abortion debate very quickly. Or it already is an abortion debate. I guess it depends on when one believes the life of an abortion debate truly begins.

Tim Tebow seems like a genuinely sincere and highly talented young man; I think it's nice to see upstanding professional athletes such as him representing the face of the sport as opposed to the type that are always getting in trouble and making their respective sports look bad. There's no reason he shouldn't get to speak his mind for thirty seconds if his group pays for the ad.

Is this really more offensive to women and feminists than the Bud Light advertisement featuring busty bikinied women wrestling in mud or whatever that will inevitably take its place if this anti-abortion ad is pulled by the network? I think not...

By the way, could anyone find the ad in question online anywhere? It would be helpful to the discussion here to actually see what we're discussing... I did a half-assed google search earlier and just came up with a bunch of stories about women's groups being offended and whatnot.

 

But, the issue should not be about when life technically occurs ..

Abortions need to be stopped altogether in order to avoid the deaths of fetus.

You cannot simply say, "stop having babies, stop having sex, stop being weak, etc"

How about we try and educate people about safety?? Instead of preaching abstinence.

If number of pregnancies were reduced then abortions would ultimately decline.

I understand the "when life occurs .." debate is relevant but in no means productive.

I agree. Tebow has every right to do what he did. This is simply media crap.

 

I agree 100% with this guy I mean I dont think the government should be able to tell you that you cant I just think people that kill babies because they inconvinence them are extremely selfish people but If the mothers life is in danger thats different but as for tim tebow I dont like him because im a uga fan but have no problem with the ad at all its his freedom of speech and if it offends you you have the freedom to turn off your tv

 

abortion is the temination of an entity that has human DNA and is genetically unique. if given the time it will grow into a full human, so what right do we have to destroy a genetically unique human at any stage of life?
abortion is an absolute travasty
one of the first modern political parties to support abortion was the NAZIS. why? the nazis didn't give a shit about women's rights, it was about eliminating people with an "inferior" genotype, Margret Sangar supported abortion for the exact same reasons, this belief was called eugenics, and statistically what ethnic groups have the most abortions?
also since abortion was legalized, around 55 million american embryos where never given a chance at life, the holocaust only killed 8 million

finally, they payed for the airtime, they should be able to air what ever they want in that time, as long as it's not lewd, or grossly offensive