That Tim Tebow ad

[Rayado]

Dear abortion groups upset at CBS' decision to air the Focus on the Family ad:

Thank you for finally being candid about what you're really about. Thank you for proving beyond doubt that all of the 'choice' and 'reproductive health' rhetoric is exactly that--rhetoric--and that when the slightest hint of a meaningful alternative to that rhetoric comes along, the mask comes off and the fangs and claws get bared.

Because that's exactly what happened with the Tebow thing. "It's about choice," we're told. "We must protect the reproductive rights of women," we hear.

And then the Tebow ad shows up, and the pretense is gone. "It's offensive," we hear. What's offensive? That Pam Tebow decided not abort? Who could that possibly offend? "They're trying to restrict the reproductive rights of women." Really? The ad doesn't mention the legality of abortion, much less its 'morality.' How do you make the connection between "I decided to carry my baby to term" to "Abortion should be restricted or made illegal," a claim that the ad doesn't even make?

"Focus on the Family is trying to impose their worldview on others." How? How is buying 30 seconds of advertisement 'imposing their view' on others? And why isn't the attempt to squash the ad imposing a worldview on Focus on the Family and those who watch the Super Bowl? Care to explain that one, NARAL?

Thank you, pro-abortion groups, for finally showing us that it's not really about imposing worldviews on people. You don't really oppose that--unless it's anyone else doing the speaking.

Thank you, pro-abortion groups, for showing us just how brittle the case for the legality and morality of abortion really is. Thank you for showing the world that when anyone does try to make a case for a choice other than abortion, you find it intolerable. What do you really fear about this message getting out? Do you fear that women will be encouraged to carry more unborn children, even those diagnosed with illness, to term? What do you really fear from such a scenario? Nobody is claiming that the mothers or unborn who are sick will all magically get better because of this. But people might change their minds.

That this kind of reaction would manifest towards an ad so innocuous is beyond revealing. What do you really fear from your ideological opponents having the podium for thirty seconds? How much damage can thirty seconds even do?

Thank you. Thank you for showing that you fear so strongly for your worldview, and that fear, rather than reason, is what motivates its defense. Yes, please protect it against the dangerous and radical narrative of one woman choosing differently. If that's all it takes to endanger the rhetoric of choice, perhaps you have more important things to worry about.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Such hatred from the left. You think they'd be more tolerant.

[Rayado]

And congratulations to Joy Behar, who has mastered fortune-telling! (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/01/26/joy-behar-tim-tebow-just-easily-could-have-been-rapist-pedophile)

"The only argument against any of it is, that, you know, he could just as easily become some kind of a rapist pedophile."

Okay, Miss Behar, let's go that route. Let's say Tim Tebow became exactly that: a rapist pedophile. What follows from that? What about that scenario makes abortion acceptable? It doesn't. It is, however, light years closer to an actual objection to the ad, but it still reveals a little more than most pro-choicers would be willing to admit. Namely, that some acts are objectively morally wrong--but it doesn't follow that we can terminate their lives because such a possibility--mere possibility!--exists. I have neighbors I don't really trust, but I don't shoot them because of what they might do.

You see, Joy, abortion is wrong for the same reason that rape is wrong, no matter what language it's wrapped in.

Second and more importantly, it totally ignores the power of the Gospel to transform a person's life into the image of Christ. There's no one that can't be redeemed, be they football star or felon. Or morning TV show host.

[Hamster]

I don't donate to hungry children organizations on the grounds that I'm bound to accidentally support a child that will grow up to be a murderer or rapist

[mossrose]

"The only argument against any of it is, that, you know, he could just as easily become some kind of a rapist pedophile."

The really sad part about this is that Behar's mother could have aborted her. Because she might have grown up to become a loud-mouth, left-wing, fanatic talk-show host.

[Bill the Cat]

It's more proof that it's not about "choice", because when the choice to NOT abort is brought up, the pro-abortion crowd is up in arms. Pro-choice - my hairy 4 legged ass!

[RumTumTugger]

Pro-choice Riiiiiiight

:no: You are Pro-abortion and should just have the cajones to admit it rather then hide behind the so called Pro-choice label

[Rayado]

And the fun continues, this time with the National Organization of Women targeting Sarah Palin for supporting the ad. (http://www.lifenews.com/nat5942.html)

"The goal of the Focus on the Family ad is not to empower women. It's to create a climate in which Roe v. Wade can be overturned," O'Neill said. "There are always going to be women who need abortions. In this country, one in three women will have an abortion."

“Focus on the Family has cynically set it up so they can say anyone who disagrees with airing this ad is disrespecting one woman and her choice. NOW respects every woman's right to plan her own family and insists our laws do the same,” said O’Neill.

If the choices are morally ambiguous, what seems to be the problem with creating a climate that will overturn Roe v. Wade? What is it about that climate that you're really afraid of? And more importantly, I wonder where she's getting those statistics on abortion--one in four to five was the last that I'd heard.

And really, NOW is disrespecting Pam Tebow and her choice--NOW's first attack on the ad stands as Exhibit A. The pro-abortion hack that got on O'Reilly's show for the express purpose of spouting as much propaganda as she could is Exhibit B.

It's not really about 'respect.' That excuse flew out the window when everyone started hyperventilating that this ad would be aired. If NOW really respects Pam Tebow's choice, why are they so adamant that it not be aired?

Here's a proposition for you, NOW. Let the ad run. See what it really does. Answer it on its merits, or lack thereof. And let the American people decide what climate they want. We're big boys and girls and if this ad, or an argument against abortion changes peoples' minds, you'd better learn to accept it or fight it civilly.

[Sparko]

I don't donate to hungry children organizations on the grounds that I'm bound to accidentally support a child that will grow up to be a murderer or rapist

or a politician!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Or a web forum moderator

[Pilgrim]

Pro-choice Riiiiiiight

:no: You are Pro-abortion and should just have the cajones to admit it rather then hide behind the so called Pro-choice label

And this is where I get really confused. No one I know on the other side of the ticket, that is, pro choice people, ever says they actually want abortions. They all affirm that abortion for convenience is a horrendous thing, and yet, they won't agree to even the simplest legislation that would ban abortion for convenience. If we're all agreed on that point then why is there any hesitation on this point? It just doesn't make sense. People are throwing away the clear convictions of their morals for fear of not being PC enough.

[joel]

And this is where I get really confused. No one I know on the other side of the ticket, that is, pro choice people, ever says they actually want abortions. They all affirm that abortion for convenience is a horrendous thing, and yet, they won't agree to even the simplest legislation that would ban abortion for convenience. If we're all agreed on that point then why is there any hesitation on this point? It just doesn't make sense. People are throwing away the clear convictions of their morals for fear of not being PC enough.
Well, if that were all it were, then I might agree with them in their reasoning. (or at least that it would not be directly contradictory.)
For example, I affirm that white supremacist speech is horrendous. Yet I will not agree to even the simplest legislation that would ban their speech. In taking such a stand I am not throwing away the clear convictions of "my" morals. The speech is immoral, but it would be immoral to ban it. (If we are "all" agreed that such speech is horrendous, then why is there "hesitation"?)
(Also, if we were truly all agreed about something, a law would be superfluous--have no effect.)

The issue is not merely that it is horrendous, but whether it is a violent attack (to the death) of one party upon another.

Though I agree that in the case of this ad, it does seem that what they think is horrendous is not abortion but the fact that many people will be told that a woman actually chose not to abort.

[RumTumTugger]

Well, if that were all it were, then I might agree with them in their reasoning. (or at least that it would not be directly contradictory.)
For example, I affirm that white supremacist speech is horrendous. Yet I will not agree to even the simplest legislation that would ban their speech. In taking such a stand I am not throwing away the clear convictions of "my" morals. The speech is immoral, but it would be immoral to ban it. (If we are "all" agreed that such speech is horrendous, then why is there "hesitation"?)
(Also, if we were truly all agreed about something, a law would be superfluous--have no effect.)

The issue is not merely that it is horrendous, but whether it is a violent attack (to the death) of one party upon another.

Though I agree that in the case of this ad, it does seem that what they think is horrendous is not abortion but the fact that many people will be told that a woman actually chose not to abort.

These are also the groups that would force hospitals, doctors etc to perform or cause abortions all because it would be inconvenient for the woman to go somewhere else.

[Pilgrim]

Well, if that were all it were, then I might agree with them in their reasoning. (or at least that it would not be directly contradictory.)
For example, I affirm that white supremacist speech is horrendous. Yet I will not agree to even the simplest legislation that would ban their speech. In taking such a stand I am not throwing away the clear convictions of "my" morals. The speech is immoral, but it would be immoral to ban it. (If we are "all" agreed that such speech is horrendous, then why is there "hesitation"?)
(Also, if we were truly all agreed about something, a law would be superfluous--have no effect.)

The issue is not merely that it is horrendous, but whether it is a violent attack (to the death) of one party upon another.

Though I agree that in the case of this ad, it does seem that what they think is horrendous is not abortion but the fact that many people will be told that a woman actually chose not to abort.

I get what you're saying. But I don't think you can equate free speech with abortion rights. I know I know, the scotus disagrees with me, but who you gonna trust man? The preacher or the party appointed bench warmer? :teeth:

[dzstroke015]

"The only argument against any of it is, that, you know, he could just as easily become some kind of a rapist pedophile."

Or... gasp!! :flaming: A Pro-Life Christian!!!

[Rayado]

Well, now that the thoroughly uncontroversial ad has aired, NOW had to find something to complain about. (http://www.lifenews.com/nat5983.html)

"Promotes violence against women?" :lol: Then why not blast Doritos for their ads, which 1) advocate violence in general, or 2) advocate the objectification of women?

I think they realized that their little campaign blew up in their faces, and they had to find something--anything--to save face. This ain't gonna work either.

[Raphael]

Or... gasp!! :flaming: A Pro-Life Christian!!!
We actually had a particular despicable character here on TWeb once who said they preferred abortion over adoption, because they wouldn't want the baby adopted by Christian pro-lifers.

[joel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BIOTItUwvk

That is what they are so angry about? If I hadn't heard (via all this controversy) that their story was about abortion, I wouldn't have known from the ad alone. Thanks to the opponents' controversy, awareness of this ad has been much greater.

[eudyptes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BIOTItUwvk

That is what they are so angry about? If I hadn't heard (via all this controversy) that their story was about abortion, I wouldn't have known from the ad alone. Thanks to the opponents' controversy, awareness of this ad has been much greater.


...yep....in terms of sheer marketing standpoint FoF played this brilliantly....they get all the word of mouth, the attention.....and in the end those stirring up the controversy end up looking foolish. And, hopefully, the end result is a few more women choosing not to abort.

[dzstroke015]

We actually had a particular despicable character here on TWeb once who said they preferred abortion over adoption, because they wouldn't want the baby adopted by Christian pro-lifers.

Well, I suppose we can at least say that person was consistent with their hatred.

I was on Hulu today, reviewing the Super Bowl ads. (There's something wrong with the concept of "this ad brought to you by...":hmph:) Hulu has it's own vote going for the ads, and from the looks of it, the feminists are active there, too. If you're on Hulu, take a look and vote, everyone!

Oh, and if you don't email the ad to 100 of your closest friends, something bad will happen to you!:teeth: Let's take this thing viral! It's the Streisand Effect, so let's make Babs regret once again that she ever complained about that photo!:hehe:

[Faramir]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BIOTItUwvk

That is what they are so angry about? If I hadn't heard (via all this controversy) that their story was about abortion, I wouldn't have known from the ad alone. Thanks to the opponents' controversy, awareness of this ad has been much greater.

:egad:

I never actually bothered to see the add. I assumed it was some in your face pro-life ad.

People got their knickers in a bunch over that????

Give me a break!

[Darth Ovious]

Listen to this woman trying to attack the ad before air. Man, she needs to go back to the lab to get her bolts tightened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6hE2wRRCuo&feature=related

[DesertBerean]

We actually had a particular despicable character here on TWeb once who said they preferred abortion over adoption, because they wouldn't want the baby adopted by Christian pro-lifers. :stunned: :sad:

[mossrose]

Listen to this woman trying to attack the ad before air. Man, she needs to go back to the lab to get her bolts tightened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6hE2wRRCuo&feature=related
Or at the very least take the blinders off.

That seems to be the way with people who have SUCH a one-track mindset. Don't celebrate the fact that Mrs. Tebow CHOSE the road she wanted to take! Just attack the organization and throw out the baby with the bathwater......so to speak.

[RumTumTugger]

Priests for LIfe has a way to let CBS particularly know that we admire what htey did airing the Tebow ad. Here (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KQTZVV6)