PDA

View Full Version : Is Tebow's Mother Lying????



Gayle in MD
01-31-2010, 07:45 PM
A commercial featuring Tim Tebow and his mother Pam that is likely to air during Super Bowl XLIV <span style='font-size: 14pt'>may be rife with inaccuracies, according to power lawyer Gloria Allred.</span>
The ad, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>which is expected to promote an anti-choice message, </span>will be based on the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." <span style='font-size: 20pt'>The Christian conservative group Focus on the Family has paid for the spot. James Dobson, the group's founder, has a history of inflammatory statements and once said that gay marriage will "destroy the earth."</span>
Despite resistance from women's groups, the ad is expected to air during the Super Bowl. It is believed that the commercial will focus on Pam Tebow's 1987 pregnancy, during which time she fell ill in the Philippines. According to reports, doctors recommended that she abort the pregnancy, but she chose to go through with the birth of her son Tim.

Tebow grew up to be one of the most accomplished and celebrated stars in college football history, capturing two national championships and becoming the first sophomore to win the Heisman trophy.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Because abortion under any circumstance has been illegal in the Philippines since 1930 and is punishable by a six-year prison term, Allred says she finds it hard to believe that doctors would have recommended the procedure.

The attorney, who has represented a roster of famous clients, claims she will lodge a complaint with the FCC and FTC "if this ad airs and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time Ms. Tebow made her choice," according to RadarOnline.</span>
Tebow has unabashedly displayed his Christian faith: Bible passages written on his eye black became a weekly occurrence during Florida football games.



<span style="color: #000066">And some people don't want to admit that this is an anti-abortion ad????

Go Get 'Em Gloria!

G.</span>

sack316
01-31-2010, 10:02 PM
from the Penal Code of the Philippines and UN study of the law:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Grounds on which abortion is permitted:

<u>To save the life of the woman</u> Yes
To preserve physical health No
To preserve mental health No
Rape or incest No
Foetal impairment No
Economic or social reasons No
Available on request No

Additional requirements:

Authorization of an abortion requires consultation with a panel of professionals
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Although the Penal Code does not list specific exceptions to the general prohibition on abortion, under the general criminal law principles of necessity as set forth in article 11(4) of the Code, an abortion may be legally performed to save the pregnant woman’s life. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Despite the severity of the law, abortion appears to be widely practiced in the Philippines as a means of birth control and is rarely prosecuted. </div></div>

http://www.chanrobles.com/revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook2.htm

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/philippines.doc

Keep reaching, Gloria.

Sack

LWW
01-31-2010, 11:48 PM
Are you implying that the left would pimp false data?

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-01-2010, 07:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">from the Penal Code of the Philippines and UN study of the law:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Grounds on which abortion is permitted:

<u>To save the life of the woman</u> Yes
To preserve physical health No
To preserve mental health No
Rape or incest No
Foetal impairment No
Economic or social reasons No
Available on request No

Additional requirements:

Authorization of an abortion requires consultation with a panel of professionals
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Although the Penal Code does not list specific exceptions to the general prohibition on abortion, under the general criminal law principles of necessity as set forth in article 11(4) of the Code, an abortion may be legally performed to save the pregnant woman’s life. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Despite the severity of the law, abortion appears to be widely practiced in the Philippines as a means of birth control and is rarely prosecuted. </div></div>

http://www.chanrobles.com/revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook2.htm

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/philippines.doc

Keep reaching, Gloria.

Sack
</div></div>
<span style="color: #000066">I think that one would have to perform a complete, and full study of the law in that country, highlighting any changes and alterations, both before, and after, this date, 1930, before one could resonably suggest how the law read at the time of Mrs. Tebow's decision. IOW, one canot cherry pick, to make that determination.

It will be interesting to see what Ms. Alred comes up with... </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Section Two. — Infanticide and abortion.

Art. 255. Infanticide. — The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.
If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be prision mayor.

Art. 256. Intentional abortion. — Any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer:

1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman.
2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without using violence, he shall act without the consent of the woman.

3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the woman shall have consented.

Art. 257. Unintentional abortion. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally.
Art. 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by her parents. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a woman who shall practice abortion upon herself or shall consent that any other person should do so.

Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or either of them, and they act with the consent of said woman for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, the offenders shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

Art. 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives. — The penalties provided in Article 256 shall be imposed in its maximum period, respectively, upon any physician or midwife who, taking advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall cause an abortion or assist in causing the same.

Any pharmacist who, without the proper prescription from a physician, shall dispense any abortive shall suffer arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.


</div></div>

This has got to be one of the most sexist legal descriptions I have ever read. Looks like anyone and everyone is possibly a criminal, from the parents, to the midwives, to the pharmacist, to the pregnant woman, except, of course, the owner of the sperm involved. How very convenient for the man.

This is a sterling example of what happens when MEN have full power over determining who is dishonorable, and thereby a criminal.

IF, for example, a law was included which held to legal account, any man who for any reason, impregnated a woman, without a prior agreement that both wanted a child, and intended to have and properly raise, feed, educate, and nurture that child to adulthood, if a result of pregnancy followed, and he was also held to a criminal legal remedy, then, and only then, would their laws on this subject be equal under the law.

If men were really interested in reducing the instances of abortion, MEN would create laws holding both parties to account for unwanted pregnancies, and that would be included with any laws which sought to criminalize women for ending pregnancies.

Instead, even in the case of rape and incest, MEN seek to punnish the woman, who is left to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, alone, in many cases.

There is only one autonomous and independent, living body involved in the physical sense, of a pregnancy, the body of the woman in which a fetus is growing. The decision should be hers, and hers alone, unless, of course, the law equally criminalizes men for their reckless distribution of their own sperm, and even under that scenario, the woman's future health and well being should come before anyone else, and before the fetus.
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>
This woman, Tebow, regardless of the eventual result, had four other children depending on her. I find it extraordinarily offensive to think that anynoe would elevate her decision as "Brave" or "Heroic" in any way, given that she was willing to abandon the rest of her children, for the sake of one fetus.

I find that decision reckless, irresponsible, and beyond reasonable. Her first resonsiblity was to the children she had already brought into the world.

G.</span>

LWW
02-01-2010, 08:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that one would have to perform a complete, and full study of the law in that country, highlighting any changes and alterations, both before, and after, this date, 1930, before one could resonably suggest how the law read at the time of Mrs. Tebow's decision. IOW, one canot cherry pick, to make that determination.

G.</div></div>

I don't think one would, being that the link provided ... had you, God forbid, read it ... clearly showed that the 1930 law Ms Alred presents was amended to the posted law on 12 May, 1969.

Therefore, one could reasonably assume that neither you nor Ms Alred have any interest in presenting ... or even recognizing ... an assessment of the truth as it actually exists.

I also find your bleatings of cherry picking to be most disingenuous as both you and Ms Alred have been busted red handed as cherry pickers.

Please, do the honorable and decent thing and clear your good name by disavowing the fraud being perpetrated by the pro death camp.

LWW

LWW
02-01-2010, 08:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It will be interesting to see what Ms. Alred comes up with...

G. </div></div>

She will keep coming up with sheep that believe whatever they are told to believe.

You are a better person than this Gayle, don't be fooled by liars and charlatans.

LWW

LWW
02-01-2010, 08:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Section Two. — Infanticide and abortion.

[EDITED]

</div></div>

This has got to be one of the most sexist legal descriptions I have ever read. Looks like anyone and everyone is possibly a criminal, from the parents, to the midwives, to the pharmacist, to the pregnant woman, except, of course, the owner of the sperm involved. How very convenient for the man.

This is a sterling example of what happens when MEN have full power over determining who is dishonorable, and thereby a criminal.

IF, for example, a law was included which held to legal account, any man who for any reason, impregnated a woman, without a prior agreement that both wanted a child, and intended to have and properly raise, feed, educate, and nurture that child to adulthood, if a result of pregnancy followed, and he was also held to a criminal legal remedy, then, and only then, would their laws on this subject be equal under the law.

If men were really interested in reducing the instances of abortion, MEN would create laws holding both parties to account for unwanted pregnancies, and that would be included with any laws which sought to criminalize women for ending pregnancies.

Instead, even in the case of rape and incest, MEN seek to punnish the woman, who is left to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, alone, in many cases.

There is only one autonomous and independent, living body involved in the physical sense, of a pregnancy, the body of the woman in which a fetus is growing. The decision should be hers, and hers alone, unless, of course, the law equally criminalizes men for their reckless distribution of their own sperm, and even under that scenario, the woman's future health and well being should come before anyone else, and before the fetus.

G.</div></div>

Absolutely irrelevant to the point at hand.

But, you already knew that.

LWW

LWW
02-01-2010, 08:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>This woman, Tebow, regardless of the eventual result, had four other children depending on her. I find it extraordinarily offensive to think that anynoe would elevate her decision as "Brave" or "Heroic" in any way, given that she was willing to abandon the rest of her children, for the sake of one fetus.

I find that decision reckless, irresponsible, and beyond reasonable. Her first resonsiblity was to the children she had already brought into the world.

G.</span> </div></div>

<span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'><u>HOLD THE PHONE!</u></span></span>

Did you not in the same post say "The decision should be hers, and hers alone" sister Gayle?

And yet when she makes this decision you wish to impose your will and your morals upon her.

The reality is that you seem to not actually believe in choice at all sister Gayle?

What drives your hatred of choosing life?

You are a kinder soul than this.

LWW

Deeman3
02-01-2010, 08:12 AM
If Gloria Alread is involved, this has to be an important issue as she certainly is not an attention whore.

Maybe it is not too late and these poor folks can try to arrange an abortion now on Tim Lebow.

For crying out loud, no wonder noone takes this abortion crowd seriously anymore. Why can't there be an anti-abortion message out there? There is certainly room for pro abortion messages and marches. If you are not a Florida fan and pro-abortion, is it so upseting that Tim was not aborted and someone wants to use that as a positive message about not getting one on occasion?

LWW
02-01-2010, 08:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For crying out loud, no wonder noone takes this abortion crowd seriously anymore. Why can't there be an anti-abortion message out there?</div></div>

Because dearest leader forbids it comrade. Those are dangerous thoughts. Be careful lest you be charged with crimethink.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-01-2010, 08:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Gloria Alread is involved, this has to be an important issue as she certainly is not an attention whore.

Maybe it is not too late and these poor folks can try to arrange an abortion now on Tim Lebow.

For crying out loud, no wonder noone takes this abortion crowd seriously anymore. Why can't there be an anti-abortion message out there? There is certainly room for pro abortion messages and marches. If you are not a Florida fan and pro-abortion, is it so upseting that Tim was not aborted and someone wants to use that as a positive message about not getting one on occasion? </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">I don't think that is a fair assessment, Dee. This is an anti abortion message, designed to ridicule and disgrace wll women who made different choices.

But, regardless of one's opinion on the subject of abortion, The Super Bowl, is not the right venue for the right to spread around their messages of religious slander against women's rights, and a legal right, which is a woman's Constitutional right.

I am sick and tired of the right, attacking women as criminals, when they access their legal right.

g. </span>

LWW
02-01-2010, 09:05 AM
How can you say that when you haven't seen the ad ... other than you were told that this is what it is.

As for me ... I'm sick of pro death people demonizing women who chose life for making a decision which doesn't fit their pro death agenda.

LWW

pooltchr
02-01-2010, 09:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How can you say that when you haven't seen the ad ... other than you were told that this is what it is.

As for me ... I'm sick of pro death people demonizing women who chose life for making a decision which doesn't fit their pro death agenda.

LWW </div></div>

The left has become more and more intollerant of anyone who goes against their little rules.

Steve

sack316
02-01-2010, 10:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I think that one would have to perform a complete, and full study of the law in that country, highlighting any changes and alterations, both before, and after, this date, 1930, before one could resonably suggest how the law read at the time of Mrs. Tebow's decision. IOW, one canot cherry pick, to make that determination.
</div></div>

Exactly! And that is what the UN report that I linked to did. Allred's contention is that Mrs. Tebow's story is false on it's face, and can not be true based on her own interpretation and cherry picking of the law (though, admittedly a logical conclusion based on the reading of the statutes themselves). But it only takes a small amount of research (took me all of 5 minutes) to discover there is the articles on the books about abortion there, and there is the reality of the procedure there. The reality is that Mrs. Tebow's story is not only plausible, but in fact likely. Allred's claims are as misleading as she is claiming Tebow's story to be.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This woman, Tebow, regardless of the eventual result, had four other children depending on her. I find it extraordinarily offensive to think that anynoe would elevate her decision as "Brave" or "Heroic" in any way, given that she was willing to abandon the rest of her children, for the sake of one fetus.

I find that decision reckless, irresponsible, and beyond reasonable. Her first resonsiblity was to the children she had already brought into the world.

G. </div></div>

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. I'm sure Mrs. Tebow's opinion was that the life growing inside of hers was every bit as valuable and precious as her own and her other children. There's nothing that says both trains of thought can't be brave or heroic.

In the end, it was HER decision... and afterall, isn't that the point?

Sack

Gayle in MD
02-01-2010, 11:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I think that one would have to perform a complete, and full study of the law in that country, highlighting any changes and alterations, both before, and after, this date, 1930, before one could resonably suggest how the law read at the time of Mrs. Tebow's decision. IOW, one canot cherry pick, to make that determination.
</div></div>

Exactly! And that is what the UN report that I linked to did. Allred's contention is that Mrs. Tebow's story is false on it's face, and can not be true based on her own interpretation and cherry picking of the law (though, admittedly a logical conclusion based on the reading of the statutes themselves). But it only takes a small amount of research (took me all of 5 minutes) to discover there is the articles on the books about abortion there, and there is the reality of the procedure there. The reality is that Mrs. Tebow's story is not only plausible, but in fact likely. Allred's claims are as misleading as she is claiming Tebow's story to be.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This woman, Tebow, regardless of the eventual result, had four other children depending on her. I find it extraordinarily offensive to think that anynoe would elevate her decision as "Brave" or "Heroic" in any way, given that she was willing to abandon the rest of her children, for the sake of one fetus.

I find that decision reckless, irresponsible, and beyond reasonable. Her first resonsiblity was to the children she had already brought into the world.

G. </div></div>

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. I'm sure Mrs. Tebow's opinion was that the life growing inside of hers was every bit as valuable and precious as her own and her other children. There's nothing that says both trains of thought can't be brave or heroic.

In the end, it was HER decision... and afterall, isn't that the point?

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">No, that isn't the point at all, to me.

You'll notice the question marks which are included in my title. I don't know what the law was at the moment she made her decision. The fact that I don't agree with it, AT ALL, is my opinion, having raised three children who lost their mother when they were very young. That does not mean that I think I have any right to pass a law, forbidding a woman from making her own decision. This woman, is using HER decision, to push for the criminalization of OTHER women, being able to make THEIR OWN Decisions.

Not only do I think the Super Bowl is no venue for what she's doing, but I have NO RESPECT, either for her decision, and even less for her using it as a means to promote taking away other women's rights, to make their own decisions.

I find this act, on her part, truly repulsive, and in fact, her previous act, saving a fetus, even if that meant taking a chance on not being around to raise the children she had already brought into this world.

To me, both she and her son, are religious fanatics. He goes into a football game with verses from the bible painted on his face?!!! Give me a break! she's a disgrace to her gender, IMO.One need only consider who paid for that ad, to see that she has offered herself up to the religious right, in an effort to disgrace all women who make the reverse decision.

Repulsive!</span>

sack316
02-01-2010, 11:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In the end, it was HER decision... and afterall, isn't that the point?

Sack </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, that isn't the point at all, to me.
</div></div>

Then I musta had it wrong all this time. I thought the fight for equality and all that good stuff was for a woman to be able to make her own decision and her own choice. Guess I stand corrected.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
02-01-2010, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In the end, it was HER decision... and afterall, isn't that the point?

Sack </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, that isn't the point at all, to me.
</div></div>

Then I musta had it wrong all this time. I thought the fight for equality and all that good stuff was for a woman to be able to make her own decision and her own choice. Guess I stand corrected.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">I think I made myself clear in the above post, Sack.

I do not question her right to make her irresponsible decision. It was hers to make.

Nor would I support anyone forcing her into a different one. That is the difference.

She is offering up her personal decision, at a very inappropriate time, to join with the religious right's effort, to force (by changing the abortion laws, which is their mutual goal) so that other women can be forced by law, into make the same decision which she made.

She's a traitor to her gender.


Please don't twist my words.

Thanks,
G.</span>

pooltchr
02-01-2010, 11:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[ This woman, is using HER decision, to push for the criminalization of OTHER women, being able to make THEIR OWN Decisions.

</div></div>

Wow! A woman making her political stand heard??? Using her experience to promote her agenda???

How perfectly revolting!!!!!

And here I thought it was always men who were trying to tell women what to do!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

sack316
02-01-2010, 11:31 AM
I'm not trying to twist your words, and do apologize if it seemed that way.

But it just seems to me that part of the Women's struggle and fight, for the right to their own bodies and their own personal freedom of choice also included the right to do so without fear of being judged and criticized for exercising those rights... especially from one of your own.

Now, from all accounts (and admittedly, none of us have seen the ad) this particular story will be one of positivity. How she chose life and it was good FOR HER. Were she to be on camera saying "I did this and I am right, and all you women who choose abortion are evil and wrong" then that would be a different story entirely, and I would be in complete agreement with you. And who knows, it may turn out to be exactly as you say it is, and in the end I may be in agreement with you. But for now, all I have to base my opinion on is what I have read and what I have been told. And a positive portrayal of a life choice is far different than a negative portrayal of choice period. And to my knowledge, this ad is the former.

Sack

pooltchr
02-01-2010, 11:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
She's a traitor to her gender.



G.[/color] </div></div>

No, she just places a different value on life than you do.

Steve

Gayle in MD
02-01-2010, 11:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not trying to twist your words, and do apologize if it seemed that way.

But it just seems to me that part of the Women's struggle and fight, for the right to their own bodies and their own personal freedom of choice also included the right to do so without fear of being judged and criticized for exercising those rights... especially from one of your own.

<span style="color: #000066">Well, no, not really. Reasonable women know they will be judged by other women and by men. You can't prevent people from having their own opinions. That is a different thing, entirely, than working to prevent, or take away, another person's right to control their own decisions, and their own choices in life. The fact that the Religious right has forced circumstances, already, without a change in the laws, which make it harder for other women to make that legal choice, by bombing abortion clinics, and killing Doctors who preform abortions, and degrading other owmen, for choosing to have an abortion, those are the actions to which I speak, and am totally against. That is forcing other women into relinquishing their right to make their own personal, private decision.</span>

Now, from all accounts (and admittedly, none of us have seen the ad) this particular story will be one of positivity.

<span style="color: #000066">There is nothing positive about this commercial, IMO. It's goal is to disgrace other women, who have made, or may make other coices than the choice that this woman made. It's deeper goal, is to force into law, a change in the law, criminalizing women who make the choice to abort. IOW, her goal, and the goal of the organization for which she is making the commercial, is to FORCE OTHER WOMEN, to do as SHE (THEY) SAY, and thus, suspend women's rights to control their own bodies. That is a vicious, presumptuous, and disgraceful act on her, and their part.</span>


How she chose life and it was good FOR HER. Were she to be on camera saying "I did this and I am right, and all you women who choose abortion are evil and wrong" then that would be a different story entirely, and I would be in complete agreement with you.

<span style="color: #000066">That is exactly what she is doing, in effect. That is the goal of both Tebow, her son, the organization which she supports and which paid for the ad, and James Dobson a raging radical religious fanatic, who has demonized gays, and women for decades..

. She's a disgrace to her gender. She's totally disgusting to me, as is the entire organization in which she is involved.</span>



And who knows, it may turn out to be exactly as you say it is, and in the end I may be in agreement with you. But for now, all I have to base my opinion on is what I have read and what I have been told. And a positive portrayal of a life choice is far different than a negative portrayal of choice period. And to my knowledge, this ad is the former.

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">And to my knowledge the finer points of exactly what is in the ad, are of no interest or consequence to me at all. The intention behind the ad is to remove choice, disgrace other women, who have made a different choice, and overturn Roe V. Wade, PERIOD!

That is precisely what that organization has been about all along. Their goal is to remove a woman's legal right to make her own decision, PERIOD. This woman, though this action, is supporting that quest.

G.</span>

pooltchr
02-01-2010, 12:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[the finer points of exactly what is in the ad, are of no interest or consequence to me at all.
</div></div>

So the factual information doesn't matter to you? You just don't like the idea that a woman is taking a stand that you don't agree with, and you would prefer to not allow her to express her opinion in the manner she has chosen?

Surprise!

Steve

eg8r
02-01-2010, 02:01 PM
LOL, so Gloria is going to sue on the basis that she does not "think" a doctor would offer the correct diagnosis and treatment even if it meant they could be punished by law. Hilarious. Wow, this woman's right to her own body bullcrap only goes as far as one is willing to agree with the women's lib movement.

This is just another case of one woman trying to restrict the free speech of another woman.

eg8r

eg8r
02-01-2010, 02:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do not question her right to make her irresponsible decision. It was hers to make.
...She's a traitor to her gender.</div></div>LOL, now that is some funny crap. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
02-01-2010, 02:08 PM
Hey Dee, any chance you could help me out. Since the superbowl is not the right time to talk about women's rights, when would be a better time? I know it is tough to have to miss one more beer commercial.

eg8r

eg8r
02-01-2010, 02:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle Today at 07:32 AM </div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am sick and tired of the right, attacking women as criminals, when they access their legal right.</div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle Today at 10:17 AM </div><div class="ubbcode-body">She's a traitor to her gender.</div></div> Looks like a lefty doing the attacking.

eg8r

LWW
02-01-2010, 02:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is just another case of one woman trying to restrict the free speech of another woman.

eg8r </div></div>
That's what statists live for ... to impose their will on others.

LWW

LWW
02-01-2010, 02:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do not question her right to make her irresponsible decision. It was hers to make.
...She's a traitor to her gender.</div></div>LOL, now that is some funny crap. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

Doublethink in it's purest form.

LWW

pooltchr
02-01-2010, 02:23 PM
Have some pity here. Poor Gayle is seeing that she does not think or speak for all women. It must be a devistating discovery for her.

Steve

Deeman3
02-01-2010, 03:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD

<span style="color: #000066">I don't think that is a fair assessment, Dee. This is an anti abortion message, designed to ridicule and disgrace wll women who made different choices.


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif[/img]

Even demonizing Tebow's mother on the suposition that she lied about her desire to have the little tyke. I think you are really reaching here. Funny, if this had not been made so big an issue, the 30 second spot might have passed almost unnoticed. Now it will be seen by hundreds of millions just to see what it is all about. </span>

g. </div></div>

Gayle in MD
02-01-2010, 03:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD

<span style="color: #000066">I don't think that is a fair assessment, Dee. This is an anti abortion message, designed to ridicule and disgrace wll women who made different choices.


<span style="color: #FF0000"> I was certainly not aware that this ad involved ridicule and don't seriously think CBS would allow an advertisement during the Super Bowl that was of that nature. Have you seen the ad? I have not.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif[/img]

<span style="color: #000066">This is not a positive message, at all. It is an attack ad simed at women's rights., concealed inside a BS religious venue.</span>

Even demonizing Tebow's mother on the suposition that she lied about her desire to have the little tyke. I think you are really reaching here. Funny, if this had not been made so big an issue, the 30 second spot might have passed almost unnoticed. Now it will be seen by hundreds of millions just to see what it is all about. </span>

g. </div></div> </div></div>
<span style="color: #CC0000">I think you are really reaching here. Funny, if this had not been made so big an issue, the 30 second spot might have passed almost unnoticed. Now it will be seen by hundreds of millions just to see what it is all about. </span>

<span style="color: #000066">I think you are really reaching to suggest that this ad is anything but yet another attempt to demonize women, work toward suspending their current right to an abortion, and seek to stir up guilt for those who made different choices.</span>

<span style="color: #000066">
So, the intent of the ad then is just to celebrate the fact that Tebow's mother, put a fetus, in front of her own life, and in front of her desire to be around to raise her existing four children.


Pahleeze! We all know what Dobson is all about. And what the intention behind Tebow's, and this organization, and Dobson, really is, and that intention is to degrade women who have abortions.</span>g.

Deeman3
02-01-2010, 03:25 PM
On a much more positive note, CBS did decide not to accept an ad from a man-on-man dating site. They may, in fact, be waking up to why they have lost so many viewers in the last couple of decades. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

pooltchr
02-01-2010, 06:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[

<span style="color: #000066">No and I don't have to see it to know the intent behind it. </span>

</div></div>

How can you form an intelligent opinion about a topic about which you know nothing????????????????

Oh, I forgot. You are Gayle almighty.

Most people form opinions based on what they know...not on what they think they might know.

You are one of a kind!

Steve

LWW
02-02-2010, 08:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have some pity here. Poor Gayle is seeing that she does not think or speak for all women. It must be a devistating discovery for her.

Steve </div></div>

Good analysis.

BRAVO!

LWW