Feb 05 2010
Meet an unlikely ET: Tebow
Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post shares some provoking insights on one of the upcoming Super Bowl ads featuring Tim Tebow’s Pro-life message.
I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.
Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.
Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.
…..
You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren’t embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too — and they should step up to that.
….
Tebow’s ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it’s apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” This is what NOW has labeled “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” But if there is any demeaning here, it’s coming from NOW, via the suggestion that these aren’t real questions, and that we as a Super Bowl audience are too stupid or too disinterested to handle them on game day.
Related posts:
- Meet an ET: Gileah Taylor I’ve never met Gileah in...
I have no problem with FOTF’s ad. I am anti-abortion and not ashamed to talk about my conviction. However there airs something focus must realize as the ad airs. It opens the door for NOW and other pro-choice groups to air their own prime time pro-abortion ads. If Focus can allude to an anti-abortion message NOW can blare their messages from the highest mountain as well. If Focus can accept that consequence gracefully, and without protest then they have every right to air their ad. If they can not, they have no business playing the marketing game.
Thanks for posting this, Christa. Like Sally Jenkins, I am (when it comes to the law, at least) pro-choice. However, I am in no way “pro-abortion.” Though I think abortion should remain legal, nothing would make me happier than for all the abortion clinics in the world to never have another patient. Abstinence education is a key part of this goal, as are rape-prevention education, sex education and promoting adoption.
Even as a woman raised to believe wholeheartedly in the positive aspects of feminism (equal pay for equal work, full legal rights, unlimited educational opportunities, etc.), I nevertheless feel totally alienated from NOW. Jenkins is right when she says they increasingly support only women whose political views and agendas match their own. To me, a “National Organization for Women” should support and empower ALL women, not just politically liberal women.
More to the point, Tim Tebow’s mother made a CHOICE – a loving, selfless, admirable CHOICE that she had every legal right to make and that deserves to be celebrated. Though I identify as pro-choice, I find nothing offensive or subversive about Focus’s ad whatsoever. Frankly, it’s ludicrous that NOW (or any other pro-choice organization, for that matter) would have a problem with Focus presenting any choice other than abortion in a positive light.
Thanks for allowing me to speak my piece. I love your blog, and I admire you for continuing to highlight all the issues that affect young, Christian women.
You know, what people don’t seem to understand is that Pam Tebow was “pro-choice.” Oh, sure, it wasn’t the choice NOW and such organizations would have wanted…..because she chose life…….
The outrage that some have about this ad cracks me up. Shouldn’t empowerment in women be able to show itself in many areas…..including ones that go against the grain
But as I identify myself as pro-life, I am thrilled that the choice Mrs. Tebow made was in favor of Tim…..and as a college football fan, I am pleased about it too.
I agree, Ella! Why is the only okay prochoice option…abortion? What if a woman wants to choose life? Isn’t that something to be celebrated?
Thanks for posting this Christa! I am so glad that because of Mrs. Tebow’s decision Tim was born, and now he’s playing for my team. It’s amazing how God has blessed both of them because she did what was right.
The problem a lot of people have with the ad isn’t the message — Mrs. Tebow made a choice, and being pro-choice myself, I respect her decision — but the fact that a commercial for Planned Parenthood or a similar organization would surely not have been okay’d.
I agree. If FOTF gets an ad so does everyone. I wish the issue had stayed closed. I’m not in the mood to watch a pro-choice ad. They make me too sad.
Awesome article, Christa! Thanks for posting!
I initially read this article on Carolyn McCulley’s blog… and I love it. Thanks for posting it Christa.
As a pro-life women, I rejoiced that Mrs. Tebow’s choice is being made known. I don’t think this commercial necessarily does open up the door for other commercials on this topic. In other articles on this subject I have read, several people have brought up the idea of free speech but that doesn’t really apply to this. What ads do and do not get accepted isn’t a matter of the government but a private agency and they can choose to do what they wish. In this particular instance, it makes sense because the fetus/baby/now-adult in question is well known and successful football player. When it comes to Superbowl commercials, I think the future will show that modest will be more of an issue than hotly debated political issues, especially now that they see what a tricky thing they can be marketing-wise.
Christa, did you (and the other responders) see the commercial? I was amazed when I saw it there was ANY uproar. Not once was terms like “pro-choice”, “pro-life” or even “abortion” used. It was a sweet commercial showing a Mom proud of her son for being a fighter and grateful she still has her healthy son. If I wouldn’t have heard the story behind the commercial I would’ve thought it was a St. Jude’s Hospital commercial or something.
I thought it was awesome to hear the voice of the child who’s Mom was pro-choice for LIFE!
remarkable isn’t it?
We saw it too and laughed! My dad spent the rest of the Superbowl analyzing what on earth could have made people mad about that commercial! If it hadn’t said “Focus on the Family” at the end, I wouldn’t have thought it was pro-life at all!
Oh, and I do think that the Superbowl would run a commerical for “Planned Parenthood.” Sadly.
I agree, the whole thing was much less political then I thought it would be. I’m thankful that FOTF was able to get their message across without being pushy.
Thanks for posting this article! God blesses those that stand for Him!