NBC rejects pro-life Super Bowl ad

WOW! So tell me, when did it become "advocacy" to run an advertisement on TV that celebrated life? Oh, yes. I forgot. Barack Obama and the Democrats are now in power in this country. The advertisement should have been pro-abortion. I'm sure that would have passed the NBC smell test. What a sick and twisted country we are quickly becoming!

This is the first time I have visited this blog, but it will not be the last. I was surprised to discover that this ad was not shown, because it is certainly not controversial!
Thank you for posting this.

Liberals routinely use the very same situation that B.O. was born in as an excuse to kill a harmless little human being. NBC is pro-abortion. Pro-abortionists don't want real live human beings revealing that the pro-abortion message is a selfish one that kills good people.

You want a cure for breast cancer? Maybe the scientist that would have made a breakthrough discovery was chopped up by his mother.

You want a female president? Maybe she was shredded by a vacuum in her mother's womb.

You want a new Rev. King? Maybe a white guy dismembered him before he was born.

You want the next Nelson Mandela? Maybe the money Obama sends to Africa will pay for him to be cut to pieces.

NBC and other pro-abortionists don't want you to think like that.

why to reject such a brilliant commercial, the thruth hurts I guess, even the most radical pro choice can't say anything wrong about this, we are going to boicot NBC starting with the Superbowl, I'm not watching neither my Catholics Brothers you'll be hurt more en the near future

"Liberals routinely use the very same situation that B.O. was born in as an excuse to kill a harmless little human being. NBC is pro-abortion. Pro-abortionists don't want real live human beings revealing that the pro-abortion message is a selfish one that kills good people.

You want a cure for breast cancer? Maybe the scientist that would have made a breakthrough discovery was chopped up by his mother.

You want a female president? Maybe she was shredded by a vacuum in her mother's womb.

You want a new Rev. King? Maybe a white guy dismembered him before he was born.

You want the next Nelson Mandela? Maybe the money Obama sends to Africa will pay for him to be cut to pieces."

I'm not saying I'm pro-abortion or anti-abortion, but surely you can see what an inane argument this is?

You want another Hitler? Maybe he was 'chopped-up' in his mother's womb. You want another Stalin, Pol Pot, etc, etc. An unborn child has potential either way and assuming the positive is just silly.

"We should boycott the Superbowl and NBC if they do not accept people's freedom of speech."

Freedom of speech is meant to be from government censorship, not to force private companies to air commercials they don't want to.

What is our country coming to? To not allow opposing views of the trendy legislation is that is the "darling" of the media strkes me as leaning toward socialism. We are abandoning God, our very principles. This country is so ridiculously divided.

I think of the thousands of people who died on 9/11/01 and I yearn for the praying, focused country that existed on 9/12/01. Must we suffer another calamity to pull us away from our divided God-less society?

Cameron, there's more, if you want to know it:

The "well-loved-liberal" columnist and editor of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution Cynthia Tucker wrote, in September 2004: "In Western Europe, sexually active adults (and adolescents) are much more likely to use contraceptives than Americans are."

Tucker also raved about what Planned Parenthood's Allan Guttmacher Institute calls the "'pragmatic European approach to teen-aged sexual activity' that does not pretend adolescents are not sexual beings".

Well, every prochoice person in the land who can lift and read a newspaper or turn on a computer knows Cynthia Tucker as one of the mouthiest and most premier of champions of abortion and free sex and condoms and all things abortifacient.

She HAS to know what SHE's talking about, right? After all, simply EVERYONE believes what she writes, right? (Even while she never cites any sources,never mind objective, nonabortionbiased ones, and no one challenges her to do so, 'cept of course, me)

That same year, SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE TUCKER WROTE THAT, Associated Press and CBS had news stories on Feb. 23, 2004, reporting that “[t]he virus that causes AIDS is spreading again in Western Europe and is rampaging through Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where it infected 250,000 people last year, a United Nations health official said Monday. Eastern Europe and Central Asia are experiencing the fastest-growing HIV epidemic in the world, said Peter Piot, the executive director of the U.N. AIDS organization. In 1998, Piot noted, there were only 30,000 people known to be infected with HIV in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. That figure has since risen to 1.5 million…Western European AIDS death rates fell to 3,500 last year from more than 20,000 in 1996. But Western Europe registered 30,000 to 40,000 new infections last year…”

So much for that wonderful "pragmatic European approach to teen-aged sexual activity" and "using more contraceptives than Americans".

I know that, to prove this isn't just dismissable coincidence, there would have to be studies done and vetted and published. Perhaps there have been. I just don't have the time to go spelunking for them.

Maybe you do. Feel free. Just do your research on BOTH sides of the issue, like I do, or it doesn't wash.

And consider that no one WANTS this result to be discovered, so if they do find it to be the case, that this isn't a coincidence, that there is some causality or relationship, they won't talk about it or God forbid, publish a news article about it, oh, no.

How about the December 2003 public health conference in Washington DC, where licensed medical doctors cited evidence of an epidemic of STDs among the nation’s teenagers, and CITED "SAFE-SEX" PROGRAMS AND CONDOM-DISTRIBUTION AS CONTRIBUTING FACTORS OF THE PROBLEM. Dr. David Hager gave these statistics: within the U.S. each year, chlamydia cases increase by 4 million, pelvic inflammatory disease by 1.2 million, gonorrhea by 2 million, genital herpes by 1 million and human papilloma virus (HPV) by 5.5 million. And that was four years ago. The rates have probably increased since then.

Remember this: in 1967 (when there was virtually no sex education), 1 out of 32 sexually active people contacted sexually transmitted diseases. In 1983, 1 out of 18 sexually active people contacted STDs. In 1996, 1 out of 4 sexually active people contacted STDs. Those numbers come straight from the CDC.

Back in 2004 when I first looked up all these numbers, the American Social Health Association reported that 3.8 million of these and other STDs are contracted by U.S. teens: almost 45% of all teens and young adults are infected with at least one STD by their mid-twenties.

NOW, five years later, they say that fully half get infected: "One in two sexually active persons will contact an STD/STI by age 25."

Hello?? That's an 11% INCREASE in the past 5 years alone! From 45% to 50%.

And this happens after all that safe-sex education we've been giving our kids over the past 5 years???

Yet note how carefully they couch their support for condoms on that website: saying that condoms are good enough in some cases "when the infected area or site of potential exposure is covered and protected" (they don't say that the infected area isn't always covered by a condom!)

Even that site indicates that abstinence is better for avoiding STDs than condoms are. Doesn't that tell you something? It should tell you that condoms aren't as good as you think they are at preventing STDs like AIDS.

Planned Parenthood says, “Safer-sex practice allows couples to reduce their sexual health risks. Safer sex is anything we do to lower our risk of sexually transmitted infection.” But groups like Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the American Cancer Society, and the National Institutes of Health all have found that the claim that condoms help prevent STDs isn’t supported by the data. If condoms were effective against STDs, the increase in condom usage would correlate to a decrease in STDs overall, but the reverse happens.