Sunday, February 07, 2010

Well Don't They Look Like Fools Now!

So, the feminists blathered all over the place about a Focus on the Family ad, yapping about how it should not be allowed, and giving it lots of advance publicity so that we were watching for it. We have satellite so we get the American commercials. If the feminists hadn't created such a fuss, I would have had no clue that this commercial was an anti-abortion ad. See for yourself:



I see nothing wrong with the ad and if more people go and visit Focus on the Family, that's the whole idea isn't it? I think all the feminists look like fools right about now, but that is nothing new for them. I guess they are just jealous because they didn't think of creating their own ad. I suspect their problem is that it's hard to create a positive ad about abortion. Maybe they can team up with Iggy, and he can talk about abortion as a means of contraception for women in third world countries, that would be a real hoot!

If you want to see all the Superbowl ads, go here! I'm not sure the video is going to work, so if it doesn't, you can see it at the Focus on the Family site. They actually have two ads, but I only saw one of them during the game. By the comments at the Superbowl ad site, the ad had a very big impact, all because the feminists couldn't shut their mouths, exactly the opposite of what they wanted. HA!

My favorite Superbowl ad is the Doritos: Dog gets Revenge.

22 comments:

Patrick Ross said...

Oh, but Hunter! Don't you realize? Anti-abortion speech inherently violates the pro-abortion movement's rights! It's oppression!

It doesn't matter how benign it is!

maryT said...

Knowing that most SB ads get a lot of publicity and TV showings about two weeks before the game, I thing Focus on the Family counted on this, and the furor it would cause. And it was a very tasteful and truthful ad.
Wonder what the ratings were for the game, with all those feminists watching so they could complain tomorrow. I wonder if iggy watched it, hoping he could find something to support his plan to deny women the right to have children.

CanadianSense said...

We should encourage the pro-abortion side to rush to the ramparts again.

Iffy has made a tactical error and has not learned his lesson yet.

The Catholic and religious vote were heavily supportive of the Liberal Party. The loss of this group was responsible for the loss of many liberals.

If they are going to repeat the games of pitting each group each other let them reap what they sow.

Canadians may decided it is time for the "woodshed" with the Liberals. Let's hope, we need a loyal opposition with real ideas and not props and stunts to help keep our government accountable.

East of Eden said...

I have to wonder why these baby-killers have to call themselves 'feminists'. They aren't feminists. They are murderers of the most vulnerable members of our society. Real feminism does not embrace the cold-blooded murder of babies living inside their mothers' bodies. Sorry, these are not feminists - they are hate-filled murderous cowards who prey on vulnerable women and their even more vulnerable babies. And, yes, a foetus is a baby, as far as I am concerned. Life begins whem Mr. Sperm and Miss Egg hook up.

Lynn said...

I had no idea this was an anti-abortion ad, didn't really see what the message was, but then I don't pay much attention to commercials.

My favourite SB ad has to be the Betty White/ Snickers one,and wasn't that Quarterback in the last shot Abe Vigoda of Barney miller?

DMorris

Cameron Campbell said...

CBS refuses to run ads from anyone who is pro-choice: http://www.examiner.com/x-26492-Tucson-Liberal-Christian-Examiner~y2010m2d5-CBS-suddenly-decides-to-accept-advocacy-adsas-long-as-they-encourage-women-to-ignore-their-doctors

Cameron Campbell said...

And no one is "pro-abortion"...

hunter said...

No-one is pro-abortion??? WHAT! Are you kidding me?

Then what is Family Planning all about? They don't want young girls to have to tell their parents about getting an abortion, why would that be? They only offer one option to family planning and it's called abortion, that seems pretty pro-abortion to me.

CanadianSense said...

I agree Hunter by requiring we provide funding for abortions in the third world, the Liberals are not about choice as they are about population control and being pro-abortion.

Just more social engineering policies.

Are we suprised? The current leader was in support of Jefferson's Empire building and stated he was not going to lose any sleep over the death of 14 civilians in Qana.

I am not sure how one can see the statement of Iffy any other way.

Patrick Ross said...

Hey Cameron, let's test this "no one is pro-abortion" statement.

I suppose you would like us all to believe that you're pro-choice. Let's test that to see if you are pro-choice or simply pro-abortion.

Would you support the right of a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion they deemed unethical?

CanadianSense said...

Patrick Ross,

Uncle....

Pro-choice is a code word for "my choice" or views only.

Cameron Campbell said...

Patrick (I'm going to try very hard to be polite with you, could you try to do the same?), please define "unethical".

"Pro-choice is a code word for "my choice" or views only."
Really. Let's see: I support the right for women to decide that to carry to term or not.

You support the right for them to carry to term.

Hmm.. one seems like a choice and the other doesn't. This is confusing.

Hunter, no one wakes up and says "Abortion yay!" That would be pro-abortion. You can redefine it how ever you want.

Cameron Campbell said...

I should also like to redirect conversation, at least partially, back to Hunter's original point.

Would anyone like to explain how people who aren't allowed to run ads are foolish for not running ads?

Cameron Campbell said...

You know, it would be easier to have a conversation here if you didn't moderate all your comments...

hunter said...

Cameron I agree, I really don't like moderating comments, but certain trolls (they know who they are) keep on disobeying the rules.

Every time I stop moderation, they come back in force and no constructive conversation is possible.

maryT said...

Cameron, apparently you do not spend much time around young girls who do talk about such things.
I wonder how many would go under the knife or suction machine if they had seen the results of what was in their body via a sonogram.
I think that the one thing those of us on the pro life side would like is for girls going for an abortion were told the truth. It is a living human life they are killing. It is not a blob, or just a fetus, it is a potential human.
Then let them make their decision.
OT, but have you heard of iggy's latest attempt to get the women's vote. His favorite sport in the olympics is women's curling. Does he know the both Canadian teams this year are from ALBERTA.

Cameron Campbell said...

Hunter? I would most assuredly be sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that many of the people who you don't class as trolls behave as badly, or worse than those you do.

Patrick Ross said...

Cameron, I'm not sure why you think that we need to define unethical in order to discuss whether or not you believe doctors should have the right to refuse to perform abortions that they consider unethical.

For the purpose of this conversation, Cameron, we will treat "unethical" as a subjective framework beginning from accepted principles of medical ethics, then consider how these issues may or may not impact the conscience of any particular doctor.

Not material to this conversation will be the matter of whether or not either one of us agree with the beliefs of any one particular doctor.

Moving forward from that point, would you support the right of a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion that they deem to be unethical?

Cameron Campbell said...

Patrick, because I wanted to see what you said.

In your imaginary construct where all doctors do abortions and will be presented with this sort of moral quandary, and in my imaginary construct where there is another abortion provider in close proximity to this one, then yes, they certainly can decide to not do abortions for ethical reasons.

That's why there are specialization's.

Patrick Ross said...

It sounds like you're making some progress on this issue compared to some of your cohorts, Cameron.

I'm fully aware that abortion is a specialized procedure. Many of your cohorts don't understand this.

In fact, an argument posed to be by (if my memory serves me) Lulu was that if a doctor in a remote community refuses to perform an abortions, that he's restricted a woman's right to choose.

(Regardless of whether he has the proper training or facilities at hand or not.)

Evidently, you're smarter than one of the resident lunatics of the Groupthink Temple -- and may actually be pro-choice, as compared to so many of your cohorts who are merely pro-abortion.

All this, to date, would address the question of whether or not a doctor can choose to not perform abortions on a general basis.

This would cover if a doctor's ethical objection were based on his religious beliefs or personal morality.

But what about particular abortions a specialist may deem to be unethical? Suppose a doctor decides that he considers late-term abortions to be unethical. Would you support that doctor's right to refuse? Would you do so regardless of whether or not another abortion clinic is available to the patient?

Cameron Campbell said...

Lulu is right.

And I'm discussing abortion, not varieties there of.

In my experience the only reason anyone ever starts dividing up abortion types like that is as a debating tactic to back the other person against the wall.

I do like how, even when you're being reasonable(ish) you're still a condescending jerk.

Patrick Ross said...

Cameron, I sincerely doubt that you understand the deeper implications of such an argument.

First off, Cameron, let's remember that abortion is a specialized practice. Not all doctors are trained in it.

Do you really think that doctors with no training have any choice but to perform abortions just on the basis of their location?

Furthermore, is there really any reason why a doctor's freedom of conscience should be impeded on that same basis?

Think this through, Cameron. Then try to comprehend the irony of you trying to label anyone as "condescending".