I didn’t know Focus on the Family randomly commited misogynistic murders of women.
It was an overtly religious ad but it said nothing about abortion.
I’ll grant you that Focus on the Family is a pro-life group. But that message did not appear in this ad.
I also saw a Coors Light ad that didn’t mention gay marriage.
It’s anti-abortion inasmuch as one happens to think that Focus on the Family exists only to oppose abortions. (Note: it doesn’t — it’s much more of a general social-conservative hodgepodge than that.)
Actually, the ‘crying Indian’ ads were funded by polluters, trying to fool people into thinking that littering was a major source of pollution, and distract them from industrial pollution, and undercut support for pollution control laws.
Thanks. Come to think of it, I do remember now.
Well, I’ll stick by my “subtext” comment since John 3:16 is Tebow’s favorite passage, and Tebow is also famous for his anti-abortion ad during the Super Bowl. This is as close he’s going to get to that game this year, and I’m sure the placement wasn’t accidental. I didn’t see that ad during the 9ers game earlier in the day.
So, yes, it wasn’t overtly anti-abortion, but I think most people would get that message from it, if they get any message at all.
Their team and prophet lost to the Patriots, so their views are discredited 
You know what, I love the world so much that I won’t contribute to the overpopulation of the world and I will unselfishly give up my just conceived ‘child’ by having an abortion. 
One of the big shot anti choice leaders Randell Terry worked together in anti-homosexual and anti-choice activities, with his adopted son, who later came out as homosexual.
And maybe some wealthy contributors feel that- with funding anti choice political agendas, and manipulative propaganda-they are buying their way into heaven ( Like Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of Curves fitness chain. He once spent six months in jail for failing to pay his child support, after his divorce). Or maybe they just have stocks invested in baby and children’s products, this was once discovered about a big anti choice contributor.
The Packers lost, so I no longer believe in cheeses.
Is the idea that opposing abortion rights is anti-woman really not only so controversial as to require a cite, but apparently totally unfamiliar to the people here? This is a pretty basic political reality.
‘Cite-geek’ tendency definitely runs here but after all this is SDMB.
I do not watch football on TV. American football is one of my least favorite sports. I find tennis or golf much more amusing to watch than American football. 
I think you are trying to say that the anti-abortion movement is “anti-woman” simply because it favors “pro-life” and not “pro-choice”. People who support the legalization of abortions call their positions “pro-choice” rather than “anti-life” or “pro-death”. Meanwhile, people who oppose the legalization of abortions call their positions “pro-life” rather than “anti-choice” or “pro-patriarchy”. As you can see, wording is everything. Now, before one can side with either position, one must first determine when life begins – at birth or at conception? If human life begins at conception, then is it ethical to terminate the life of a human being on behalf of the mother’s freedom to choose? It seem to me that you, Der Trihs, are perceiving the anti-abortion movement to be solely a movement against women rather than a movement against the presumed and perceived unethical characteristics of abortions. Now, I know that this thread is not about abortion, so I digress.
Do you think you invented the concept of discussing abortion on the Internet? If you think seriously about this for three seconds it becomes clear that the self-proclaimed anti-abortion people are blocking everything that actually would reduce the number of abortions in favor of things that punish women.
The idea that abortion reduces to “alive or not, therefore abortion bad or not” simply doesn’t hold up to even the most cursory analysis on either the pure philosophical level, let alone the level of trying to figure out why people hold the beliefs they do.
I don’t agree with any of those ideas except for the fifth one.
Well, the myth that yellow cheese has holes can be put to rest.
“The less teen girls have contraception and sex ed, the more likely it is that they will suffer consequences for having sex.”
This statement is true; less educated girls do not know how to protect themselves while having sex, so when they have sex, they get STD’s and unwanted pregnancies. More educated girls use contraceptives, if they choose to have sex, or avoid sex altogether. It amazes me that some people, such as Cecil Adams’ brother (I do recall reading a column about this!), finds no link between pregnancy and childbirth. Perhaps, this ignorance, in addition to have sex with joyful abandon, is what leads some girls to have sex in the first place.
If the girls had been more educated about sex, then they can choose abstinence until marriage or willfully remain a virgin.
You do realize that it generally takes two parties go get pregnant. Where is the male’s responsibility to use contraception?
Females and males should both be educated on safer sex practices or opt for abstinence. If females and males for some reason do not want to abstain from sex, then they should know how to take care of themselves, such as using safer sex practices (using a condom, birth control pills, emergency contraceptives in case the male ejaculates, etc.) to ensure that that the woman does not get pregnant. Since this birth control and disease prevention can be so complicated, it’s no wonder that more educated women would avoid sex before marriage altogether. After all, marriage, I assume, provides emotional and financial security.
When I said education, I meant education for both sexes. :rolleyes:
But the consequences are much more serous for the female, therefore she should take action to protect herself. Especially given the tendency of males to do or say anything to get sex.