If you've got the money, you can buy the ad

Ah. Wrong thread, what was posted below.

:)

So, how bout it. Any Christians care to skip over this whole 'martyring each other' thing?

If you ever wonder why history class gets kind of tedious after Caesar, it's cause, well, it's actually pretty tedious, even if not quite so tidy as they teach in Bible school.

""Seems like a simple principle: if you have the money, you can buy the airtime. If pro-choice advocates are not happy about a pro-life ad during the Superbowl, their best recourse is a pro-choice rebuttal, either in the form of an ad of their own during the Super Bowl..."

The only problem is... That's not the case.

For several seasons, now, the Religious Right has been able to buy airtime for the Superbowl, for anti-gay and anti-women's rights 'messages,' ...while such groups as the UCC were *not* allowed to so much as run an ad that says, "We welcome everyone" with who might be presumed to be a gay couple in it.

Even in this one, both LBGT rights groups and someone running adating service couldn't pay cash money for 'controversial' (messages of tolerance) while half the commercials they *did* run seemed to play off homophobia in one way or another.

So, what you say would be 'nice' ...Assuming all defamed people had lots of money, and, of course, if it weren't actually just untrue.

CBS is a private company that should be able to use any ads they want provided that the ads are in fact legal and etc. It is a scary thing to say that they should be regulated just because some people have their feelings hurt or do not like the ad. If you don't like the ads that CBS picks to use, don't watch their channels/shows or switch the channel during the ad. That is the wonderful thing about the free market system.

Freedom of speech is supposed to guarantee that you don't suffer retribution from the government for your stated ideas and principles. Buying ad time has nothing to do with FOS. Airing a bought, one sided position during the highest rated program of the year and refusing others the same privilege, CBS is being unfairly biased.

Thank you, UKBA; there is some real agreement to disagree.

Let me make a comments in the spirit of clarification. We might be closer to agreement if, rather than "fetal homicide" laws, we called them "potential human killing" laws. You legitimately might say these are the same, but I differ. Take my assumption that a fetus is a clump of cells. If they aren't a person, they pretty well have to be part of the mother. Whether it's a bullet through the uterus or a first-term abortion, if it's involuntary, it's a violation of the woman's choice to try to deliver a baby. Note my words: they are not deliver a fetus, just as I don't regard voluntary removal of a fetus to be doing anything to a baby. Taking that first breath outside the uterus is pretty black and white, although the second and third can be pretty dicey in neonatology. I've had obstetrician colleagues that differ on, for example, taking aggressive action to start an anencephalic baby breathing if it doesn't do so spontaneously. THAT is not black and white.

Take the two cases I gave. We seem to be in reasonable agreement on the second. We are going to disagree about the inherent value of an fetus unwanted by a woman that took contraceptive measures to the best of her ability. With all due regard for Godwin's Law, and taking Mike Godwin's waiver for historical events, the close relatives of Adolf Hitler chose not to reproduce. Even if I believed a fetus was human, I don't think I could look them in the eye if they proposed to abort, and use the "it might be Beethoven" argument.

To Berkowitz,

You wrote: “Now, for the record, I do not regard abortion at any stage as murder, because my position of conscience and faith is that human life -- as opposed to cellular life -- begins at birth.”

This is really a touchy subject for the main reason that it is not a black and white issue. There is no clear cut moral guide that can help us come to a decisive conclusion. We agree to disagree. I for one do not refer to fetus as just a clump of cells because as a human being you and I and everyone else are made up of many cells; a trillion of them to be exact. What you refer to as ‘cellular life’ is more than mere huge number of cells. A baby to be with developed major organs like a beating heart, lungs, sexual organ, liver and kidneys, is not just a lump of cells. It is like referring to the vast cosmos as just a bunch of protons and electrons. At the same time I know it is not a true human being in the literal meaning of the word. Is a baby to be at thirty eight weeks just a grouping of cells or is it more than that? How about right before birth, say one hour before birth? Is the baby to be just cells then? Obviously, to you the answer is yes. This baby to be can be done away with without hesitation. It is after all a lump of cells. I disagree and so do many states; twenty nine of them who will prosecute the slaying of a pregnant woman as a homicide under what is called the ‘fetal homicide laws.’

You went on to give me two examples of unwanted pregnancy. You went on to say that “the woman has been absolutely conscientious but doesn't have the training in pharmacology to catch the physician's error. What's your opinion of her responsibility?” I say carry the baby to full term. Why do we have to view a baby to be as just nuisance? That baby to be could be the next Einstein or Darwin with great potentials. We should treat it as precious creature with a sacred life.

Your second example involves “pregnant woman [who] is diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor.” I think the health of the mother to be comes first. There is no hesitation there. It is only common sense. If the baby to be is lost because of the treatment there is no blame or burden on the mother. And the doctor should not have a choice in the matter.

I know that in certain situation abortion is the only choice. There has to be a way to accommodate that grey area. But that does not justify the ‘drive thru abortion’ mentality we have these days if you don’t mind my exaggeration.

10 points to Ruminant.
Only 'acceptable' propaganda is allowed at CBS.
Maybe it is time for their parent company to lose its Corporate Charter, for certainly they no longer serve the public interest (a requirement of all Charters of incorporation).

UKBA,

The issue in this thread is that CBS is being selective about the controversial position it runs. If, for example, when they changed their position from the United Church of Christ example, and had publicized it and offered spots to anyone with the money, I'd be less concerned.

Nevertheless, you generalize abortion to a convenience for "people who can’t keep their pants on or are careless in keeping up with their contraception." Now, for the record, I do not regard abortion at any stage as murder, because my position of conscience and faith is that human life -- as opposed to cellular life -- begins at birth.

But let's return to your example. Take, for example, a woman who has never missed taking an oral contraceptive. A physician prescribes clarithromycin or ciprofloxacin for an infection, theophylline for asthma, or phenytoin for a new convulsive disorders. Said physician forgets to mention that each of these affects estrogen metabolism and can inactivate oral contraceptives. The woman has been absolutely conscientious but doesn't have the training in pharmacology to catch the physician's error. What's your opinion of her responsibility?

Take a different situation. A pregnant woman is diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. Radiation or chemotherapy palliation, with cure being a long shot but not impossible. Many oncologists will refuse to treat the woman unless she aborts. Most cancer chemotherapy drugs are Pregnancy Category X, because they attack any rapidly dividing cells. Radiation might give a bit more of a chance to the fetus, although not a good one -- and many malpractice insurers will advise the oncologist to refuse the liability.

It is entirely possible that the woman could abort, get the treatment, go into remission, and then carry a pregnancy to term. Are the pants you have in mind the ones she would remove before treatment?

No, having the money won't get you aired. In 2004 CBS rejected ads from moveon.org, PETA and the United Churches of Christ because, "airways should not be used for public debate," and CBS stated it did not accept advocacy ads. This year the victim of its discrimination was a gay dating site. In a sense, money does talk, but not the money for the ad, rather the money the ad generates for the product. CBS apparently thinks the core audience for the Super Bowl does not support a liberal stance on the issues. Isn’t this a suppression of free speech, as much as is capping contributions by special interest groups? It seems some groups are more special than others.

I agree; as much as I disagree with most what of FOF stand for I think they should be heard. Abortion is an important issue that touches a lot of people. And yes it is a divisive and polarizing subject however that is not a good reason to muzzle its opponents.

Pamela says: “Are we going to move away from the historical stance that abortion is a private moral choice rather than a public one?” It’s only matter of votes and that can change any time; like the saying goes: “a democracy is nothing more than mob rule.” A case in point: racism was legal for centuries until it was decided that it was wrong and should be abolished. The widespread of abortion is a byproduct of the sexual revolution and that should run its course. No matter how one looks at the issue and tries to justify it, abortion is still wrong. There has to be other ways of tackling the problem that would not involve the needless ‘killings of babies.’ Because in the final analysis that’s what it is. Consequently, it doesn’t help the dialogue along to just say abortion is only a private matter when a great number of people regard it as an inhumane way of birth control if not outright murder by people who can’t keep their pants on or are careless in keeping up with their contraception.

That sounds nice in theory, but reasonable voices have already been silenced by CBS. Witness CBS's refusal to air United Church of Christ ads advocating religious tolerance during Super Bowls in recent years.

So, it goes beyond having the money - there's also the politics.