Your daily source of news & videos on science & religion since 2007
Ow, never listen to BillO with headphones on. THERES NO NEED TO SHOUT.
I am definitely pro-choice, but I find myself siding with free speech and dare I say Bill O'Reilly!However, I do wonder...How would the religious right respond to an ad showing the results of pregnancy illnesses that have caused massive disabilities and suffering - not that anyone would fund it!I agree with Jehmu that 'Focus on the Family' is definitely pushing its pro-life agenda (that is all it knows how to do), but how can you prove it and as Bill said, you have to evaluate the ad, not the sponsor!
BillO is being disingenuious. This isn't a free speech issue (free speech is in reference to governmental censorship, not individuals/corporations deciding what they do and do not want to air). This is an issue about CBS changing their long standing policy on advocacy advertisements. I don't think I would normally care too much except that it's the Super Bowl. This is one of the most watched things on TV, it's something that does bring the country together for af we hours. To air something that is divisive during the event is in poor taste, in my opinion. Focus on the Family is definetly pushing it's pro-life agenda, and even if they've toned things down for the ad, they are pretty explicit in stating that they want Roe v. Wade overturned. You can't realliy make an argument that that isn't the point of the ad. Of course it is, you wouldn't spend $2.5 million on an ad that doesn't work towards your goal. They're willing to tone it down and not be explicit about their goals in the ad because, even toned down, their ad will reach a huge freaking audience.If you don't evaluate the sponsor when looking at the ad, you're being niave. You wouldn't look at an ad about global warming being fake and not look to see that it's being paid for by the coal industry, would you?
I love it when Bill drops the "That's your interpretation" or "that's your opinion." It's like he thinks stating that fact would somehow make the person's opinion less valid, as if everything that comes from his mouth is truth.
I'd happily help fund a 30 second "You can be good without God." still just so I can watch the shitstorm ensue.
Right behind you. It would be glorious! Would likely all the way over to europe. And old Billy Boy would go ab-so-lute-ly mental. :) I'll bet you he wouldn't go on about "let's not judge the organisation" if someone were to fund a positive ad about living a happy and fulfilling life without god. I predict a subtle change of tune in Mr O'Reilly then....
Too bad that this woman's mother didn't exercise her right to have an abortion. 'Twould only be fair, now wouldn't it?
I think it's hilarious how Bill O'reilly is sayin things like "why you tryin to censor these guys" when I cannot count the number of times I have heard him call for atheist or free thought advertisements to be pulled/cancelled. About as fair and balanced as fox can be, I suppose
"2 Million dollars for a 30 second commercial, if you can believe it!"--Bill says this like they've hiked the price or something (it's so unfair, however will the right be heard?). Superbowl ads are notoriously expensive, it's nothing personal. What is is personal, Bill, and ridiculous is think that asking, "Would you be happier if Tebow had never been born?" Whaaat?! I can't even get mad at you anymore. It's like arguing with a, oh, I don't know. I was going to say a dog, or a wall--but I like dogs, and walls serve a purpose.
In what universe is this an acceptable comment?Being pro-abortion (yes, I use this term instead of pro-choice) doesn't negate, invalidate, or attack the decision to bring a child to term.What this ad does, however, is attack the tiny minority of expecting mothers whose pregnancies are dangerous and medically inadvisible. Don't listen to your doctors, ladies! Your sons will be born healthy and grow up to be NFL players- don't heed those warnings about preeclampsia or Tay-Sachs disease.
Totally with Bill on this one. Freedom of speech! I'm pro-choice and I'll argue for it, but that doesn't mean I have a right to ban or pro-life advocacy. Especially when it's not promoting a law, but promoting the idea of making the choice not to have an abortion.
<span>On the side of free speech here, but CBS has no obligation to air the ad if they choose not to.And I'd love to see an Atheist group run an ad in the Super Bowl.</span>
First of all, I have no problem with this organization getting ad time. If they can pony up, that's fine with me.Unfortunately, I don't think Ms. Greene was very clear in explaining the real issue with this ad, which is a difficult task when you are being interviewed by the caliber of host who is quick to break out the suggestion that you perhaps wish that Tim Tebow had been aborted. What I wish Ms. Greene would have been able to say is that this isn't simply a positive message about choice. It's an anecdotal argument intended to undermine choice. Its intention is to have a viewer, or a woman in a similar position, think about how awful it would have been had the famous football star not been given the chance at life; part of it is playing on both the cult of celebrity and also the hopes all parents have for their children's success, but mainly it's just reinforcing the idea that Mrs. Tebow made the correct choice and you should too. It's undermining choice by trying to apply this example to every woman's situation. Of course, the truth is that each woman needs to make a decision based upon her own circumstances. In many cases, things won't turn out as well for that woman as they did for the Tebow family, all football success aside.The problem is not that an ad like this is on televison. The problem is that it's very difficult to go on a show like this and really explain what is going on. You're rarely given a fair shot at doing so.
Umm.. I don't think it was meant to be a positive message about "choice". The message would be why would you want a choice. Every life has potential to greatness. To persevere the difficulty of shows like this is the whole reason for protesting in the first place. To create enough controversy to ensure maximum media coverage. Should you get "beaten up" on O'Reilly so much the better. Then folks will flock to blogs, twitter, places like this in outrage to further spread the message your trying to get out. Which in this case and the more recent controversy about a Focus on the Family ad seems to be spreading the agenda to destroy Focus on the Family because they dare to speak out against what is popular, "progressive" thought of the day. Interesting that those thoughts do change almost daily while Focus on the Family remains consistant in their teaching.Though I am not saying the "right" doesn't employ the same tactics. That's what is so unreal in watching these explosions: both sides act the same way yet constantly point fingers at the other. The scary part is how often the timing coinsides with a need to bolster one side or the other. Which means for the most part we're all just being manipulated.
What about the tiny minority of babies who survive late term abortions and are permanently damaged by the procedure?The truth is there are difficult stories on both sides of the depate. It is also true that our society is negatively impacted by all this argueing and anger. The value of life has deminshed as evidenced by the suggestions that maybe someone should have aborted. Some would say abortion is responsible for this but I wonder if the hostility has risen to the point that each side would really like it if the other side did not exist.The real choice is what do you as an indiviual believe and what do you choose to base life decisions on. We each have to right to make that decision for ourselves. So, if that is our right why does the government get to tell either side how to live or what decisions to make. Most social agendas are private, personal decisions that someone decides needs to be pressed on the rest. I say keep it private. I believe these agendas are shouted from the rooftops and gov. dragged in because people are not confident in themselves and they need the rest of us to tell them there alright.
To funny!! I would think that is every commercial only without the slogan. Do this, wear that, go here, .....it's all GOOD. Though you would get your storm if you expressed it so succintly. For everyone shouting there would be many more shaken our heads. For we know full will that you can be good without God. Being good is not the point and many "Christians" miss that point. The point is that God desires to have a relationship with us and "goodness" is just a by procuct of that relationship. And, of course, you get to decide whether or not you believe. I believe many "Christians" are good without God because while their actions are "for" God they produces from self discipline and will power.
Sorry for the terrible grammer. I do not see a way to edit post.