Sally Jenkins, Washington Post sports columnist, makes excellent point after excellent point in writing in defense of Tim Tebow’s pro-life commercial to air during the Super Bowl. I urge all of you even remotely interested in Tim Tebow to read the column.
However, it’s the closing paragraphs that resonated the most with me:
Let me be clear again: I couldn’t disagree with Tebow more. It’s my own belief that the state has no business putting its hand under skirts. But I don’t care that we differ. Some people will care that the ad is paid for by Focus on the Family, a group whose former spokesman, James Dobson, says loathsome things about gays. Some will care that Tebow is a creationist. Some will care that CBS has rejected a gay dating service ad. None of this is the point. CBS owns its broadcast and can run whatever advertising it wants, and Tebow has a right to express his beliefs publicly. Just as I have the right to reject or accept them after listening — or think a little more deeply about the issues. If the pro-choice stance is so precarious that a story about someone who chose to carry a risky pregnancy to term undermines it, then CBS is not the problem.
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.
I’m not sure if Sally Jenkins’ picture is currently being used as a bullseye at NOW headquarters, but let’s just say that she won’t be invited to any NOW functions anytime soon, if ever. If so, I’m sure that would be OK to Ms. Jenkins. Hanging out with intolerant people isn’t much fun anyway.
H/T: Melek
Filed under: Uncategorized
So much for all that “tolerance” liberals are famous for. They’re tolerant, alright…
“Hanging out with intolerant people isn’t much fun anyway.”
[Restraint, restraint... phew that was close]
Now seriously. I agree with what Ms. Jenkins says. Part of being pro-choice is supporting the right of Tebow’s mother to carry out her risky pregnancy.
However, as an advocacy ad, it’s very shortsighted. Pam Tebow’s situation was never about morally or ethically making a decision about abortion, therefore her story has little bearing on somebody who may be wondering what’s the best decision. It was a rare and serious medical problem, placental abruption, one that causes many stillbirths and kills many expectant mothers. More so in the poor section of the Philippines where she was living at the time. (The reason for her abrupted pregnancy were the drugs she was given to bring her out of a coma cause by malaria)
As William Saletan puts it succintly, her decision to go against the advice of her doctors could have had a much different result:
“Being dead is just the first problem with dying in pregnancy. Another problem is that the fetus you were trying to save dies with you. A third problem is that your existing kids lose their mother. A fourth problem is that if you had aborted the pregnancy, you might have gotten pregnant again and brought a new baby into the world, but now you can’t.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2243218/
I know that for people who believe you can’t choose abortion no matter what, for religious reasons, this argument does not carry water. However, many other people face this difficult decision on moral, ethical and emotional grounds. This spot is a disservice to those people.
I don’t follow your logic, Alex. Pam Tebow risked her life to carry her unborn son to term. She chose not to terminate (kill) the fetus. Whatever would’ve happened as a result of that is one thing, a sacrifice Mrs. Tebow was willing to make on behalf of her unborn son. To say, however, that killing the fetus for the “moral” reason of saving her own life and giving future fetuses a chance at life holds absolutely no water. Killing an innocent being can never be justified in my opinion, no matter how people like William Saletan try to spin it.
You know what Poodle, I love my mother very much and I would not have wished her dead. How about you? Would you be so selfish to wish her dead so you can be born? See how dumb this game is, asshole?
Robert and Alberto: Like I said, if your personal religious beliefs can’t let you accept abortion, then the argument doesn’t work. You can’t argue with an absolute. But for the rest of us, for who abortion is not the easy breezy choice you portray Alberto, while acknowledging Pam Tebow’s story may be admirable to some, it is a poor societal example. What Saletan contemplates is not a spin, especially his third point. She had other children. She put her life at risk knowingly and could have left her other children orphans. Weighing those options is a moral and ethical choice that involved not only her personal sacrifice but sacrifices imposed on others.
Does it make sense to sacrifice yourself, your other children and possible future children for the low probability of an abrupted pregnancy being carried out successfully? Is it one success story worth obscuring the medical risks? That’s the logic. I haven’t seen the ad, but if it’s aimed to tell expectant mothers “no matter what your doctors tell you, trust God and carry out that pregnancy” then I think it’s a disservice. Saletan calls compares it to survivor bias in the financial industry: we believe mutual funds beat market averages only because we don’t know (and publicize) those who fail.
And Alberto, I do have kids. In fact, I have a daughter about the age of Obama’s. And I agree with him that for her having a baby at 16 would be a punishment if FORCED onto her, which is what Obama said. If she doesn’t have the choice, which is what anti-abortion activists want. I don’t want anybody to have an abortion, including my daughter. It’s a harrowing choice, but a choice that must be preserved.
I understand your point, Alex. And you are right, you cannot argue against an absolute belief. My point, however, was that many of the pro-abortion organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, want abortion to be considered nothing more than an outpatient surgical procedure. They do not want their clients thinking troubling thoughts or God forbid, that the mass they are about to have removed from their womb may grow up to be Heisman trophy winner or in the case of one particular unwed mother, president of the United States.
Although you are pro-choice, you are reasonable and view the choice to have an abortion as a harrowing one. So much so that you wish your own daughter never has to make that decision. For that I commend you.
But the abortion industry (and it is an industry with billions of dollars in revenue) does not want people thinking like Mrs. Tebow thinks, and they don’t even want people thinking like you think. That would be bad for business. That is why they are so vehemently opposed to the ad.
Ho hum. Another leftist who condones the murder of innocents. I guess after 100 million dead thanks to your satanic philosophy, you guys don’t care about few million more that happen to be unborn. You must be very happy your mother made the right choice, though, right? Hypocrite.
Alex:
Any woman who chooses to carry a pregnancy to full term, regardless of whether it is a dangerous or normal pregnancy, must make a moral and ethical decision. She must choose whether to adjust her life during the pregnancy to ensure the child growing inside her is not put in danger, or to continue living as if nothing is different. Some extreme examples are woman who are smokers, alcoholics, or in the worst case, crack addicts. When these women become pregnant, they must choose between continuing their harmful habits and put their child’s health and well-being at risk, or change their lifestyles for the welfare of the child.
A less extreme example is the choice presented to a typical pregnant mother whether or not to seek out prenatal care. As a father of three children, I certainly know that when a woman becomes pregnant, doctors recommend a slew of lifestyle changes, vitamins, prohibited foods, etc. Every pregnancy carries with it a moral and ethical choice for the mother.
As far as Tebow’s ad being shortsighted, it is still much more profound than the pro-abortion message organizations such as Planned Parenthood offer, which basically states that abortion is a perfectly acceptable form of birth control. Where Tebow’s mother celebrates the unexpected and incredible success she and her son personally experienced by choosing to go full term with a potentially dangerous pregnancy, Planned Parenthood’s “success stories” are mostly made up of how they saved woman from “being punished with a baby at a young age.”
(I know I don’t have to tell you who I quoted in that last sentence.)
If you have any children, Alex, you know that pregnancy is a highly personal matter. But the pro-abortion organizations have tried for decades now to make it seem as just another medical decision–like deciding whether or not to have that cyst on your arm removed. It is not that simple.
The Tebow ad terrifies the pro-abortion groups because it restores pregnancy to its rightful place: an incredible miracle that brings a life into this world. It’s hard to sell a service that provides billions in revenue in this country if the public believes that little creature growing inside is indeed a miracle.
Another example of Planned Parenthood’s unwillingness to cooperate with pro-life initiatives is their vehement opposition to the 2008 Florida bill (shot down) which would have required women seeking an abortion to get an ultrasound:
http://www.floridaplannedparenthood.org/news/editorial-we-think-the-state-has-no-business-forcing-unwanted-tests-on-pregnant-women
According to PP, commuter rail is a more important issue for Florida legislators to consider than a procedure that could just possibly make a woman choose life over abortion.
Robert, are you not publishing my answer?
Haven’t seen any additional comments from you. Normally, comments go straight to the blog unless they land in the Spam folder which I checked…nothing there. Can you resend?
I did, still nothing. Must be some glitch.
Sorry, I can’t figure out why your comment won’t post.
Don’t worry about it. Maybe my computer is turning right wing. on me
Alex, one of your comments went as a reply to Robert’s first comment – which threw me for a loop because you answer to Pitbull, and I hadn’t seen his comment, and well I was lost. Don’t know if that is the comment you are looking for.
In any case, while the Jenkins editorial was awesome, the Tebow ad was sort of blah for me. Yes it was cute and goofy, but God, I missed the entire pro life part.
I’m obvioulsy biased in this matter, as I view abortion as taking a life and wouldn’t recommend that option to my child. However, it seems to me that my role in that option depends on where I live, which I don’t think it should be that way.
Alex, I understand that for you the whole giving up your life for your child connundrum is kind of strange, but if a woman believes in life from the get go, this is kind of a no brainer. From the religious point of view you rely on your faith and that one small percentage that everything could work fine. I know this is a topic that I’ve discussed at length with my husband and we both agree – if it comes down to the baby or me, we both are choosing the baby.
And that’s another point of difference I have with the abortion crowd – not necessarily you. The fact that the father doesn’t count here at all.
Not that comment. Another one. I’ll see if I can post after this one.
I’m not talking about sacrificing one’s life for one’s children. Yes, we can all say we’ll sacrifice ourselves for our kids as a general idea. But this is one singular story which could have gone terribly wrong, leaving one dead mother, one dead fetus, a widowed father and three orphans. Given that reality, is ignoring doctor’s advice the best course? It may be to you personally, based on your personal beliefs. For society, and that was my point, it is very bad advice.
LV makes an excellent point about the father being involved.
I’ll jump in with a quick reply…
I understand what you’re saying, Alex. However, we don’t know when “our time” will be. We just have to accept that fact and that we don’t have full and total control of where we’re headed.
What if Pam Tebow would have followed her doctor’s advice and aborted Tim for all the reasons you stated, then died tragically in an accident two weeks later? A life gets snuffed out prematurely AND the mother dies anyway. Sure, it’s a hypothetical situation, but one that could happen to anyone at any time.
Personally speaking, it all comes down to what we know and what we can control. Making a decision to keep a life going, one that is so dependent on the human being carrying it, is a good example of this.
It’s interesting you bring up control, because that’s exactly what’s at the root of the argument here.
Pam Tebow had absolute control of her situation when she decided not to have an abortion. She prayed for a miracle outcome and it happened, but she was in control of her decision and accepted the consequences. Which is great and maybe admirable, certainly admirable in your view.
But nobody was forcing an abortion on her and there’s the difference between what happened to her and what she wants to happen to other women. Pam Tebow and Focus on the Family want to force other women not to have the control to choose what to do, like she did. You say it all comes down to what we can control, but by making abortion illegal you will be taking away for millions of women the ability to control their lives and forcing them to live with the consequences.
Alberto and Robert: I’m not here defending Planned Parenthood (although my position as commendable as you find it it’s very much aligned with theirs) but arguing that holding Pam Tebow’s story as an example to follow is bad advice and bad public policy.
There are extremes on both sides, so let’s not kid ourselves by saying Planned Parenthood is evil profiteering while Focus on the Family is a saintly organization with no further motives than to “celebrate family and life”. No, their intent is to make abortion illegal. They also oppose sex education, contraceptives, etc. So it’s an argument of extremes. The controversy over a bland TV spot (you saw it, it wasn’t anything groundbreaking) was beneficial to both camps but hardly beneficial to the measured debate we need to have over abortion and choice.
Or we don’t need to have. The reality is that both camps are pretty entrenched and nobody is changing anybody’s minds, Roe v. Wade is not going to be repealed and even if it was, most states will not pass an all around ban. Women living in the few states that will ban abortion will just take a flight or a bus ride over the border. Simple as that. So if you want to convince people, stop antagonizing them with terms like “pro-abortion”. Nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody looks forward to having one.
And Robert, I was also 100% against that attempt to force women to have ultrasounds. It’s an invasion of their privacy, it’s emotional terrorism and it’s the worst type of “you don’t know what you are doing” paternalism. Grown women can decide what to do on their own.
The issue here was about opposition to the ad (before it aired) and some groups’ desire for CBS to not show it, not to argue the merits, or lack thereof, of Focus on the Family. The fact that Planned Parenthood decided to publicly respond to the ad even before it was aired, as well as marginalizing Focus on the Family as holding an extreme view, means that they insert themselves into the discussion. It’s Planned Parenthood that’s making this an argument of extremes since they obviously feel threatened by this type of message. The ad speaks for itself (BTW, if the other extreme means making abortion illegal…well there are lots of worse things I can think of than that).
I have no problem with those who thought the legislation to require ultrasounds was going too far, even if I disagree. I do have a problem with Planned Parenthood dismissing it in such a manner to make it seem like they don’t all that much about reducing abortions (which IS a big part of their business, after all).
Robert, Sally Jenkins takes at face value that the spot is “soft spoken” and only aims to “celebrate family and life”. That’s all well and nice, but it would be incredibly naive to pretend the spot and the organization that’s paying millions of dollars to air it during the Super Bowl are separate and independent. Hence the controversy and yes, the threat. (And Jenkins, at least in your quote, mentions NOW, not Planned Parenthood.) If Code Pink, for example, were to run a spot celebrating freedom of speech in a soft spoken manner, wouldn’t you be in arms about it?
Code Pink advocating anything in a soft spoken manner is most definitely a hypothetical scenario, but if they ever did (and that’s a big IF), I would hold my nose and go with it. An honest and good message is always more important than the messenger.
Alex:
If we start dismissing the message because of what we speculate to be the “true motives” of groups or organizations behind it, then who is left to advocate any public policy issue? The vast majority of groups and organizations advocating for one cause or another are very often considered “extreme” by those who disagree with their point of view. If Focus on the Family is disqualified from advocating a point of view because they’re extremists, then you have to disqualify Planned Parenthood. The list can go on and on with groups on both the right and the left.
The bottom line here, Alex, is that Planned Parenthood knows that the abortion issue is a very emotional one, and they have worked very hard for many years to try and disconnect emotion from the procedure. They obviously perceived the Tebow ad as threat to their hard work and were so scared that they overreacted and actually gave the ad much more effect than it deserved.
The ad was very bland, as you put it, and if the pro-choice extremists hadn’t freaked out like they did, most of the people watching it probably wouldn’t have had any idea what it was talking about.
It’s not speculation Alberto. It’s right there in black and white on their webpage. Besides, I’m not dismissing the message. I’m giving it its true context, which is denying women the choice that Pam Tebow was able to make.
Robert, but that’s exactly the point. The message is misguided because the messenger is using it to further a social agenda. you don’t see it because you agree with the agenda. It would have been honest if instead of “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life” the tagline would have been “Make abortion illegal, so we don’t lose out on a Tim Tebow”
For an organization that is hell bent on making abortion illegal, Alex, Focus on the Family sure put together a crappy ad. It didn’t even mention the word “abortion,” let alone making it illegal.
They did, however, manage to make Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates go into a tizzy and froth at the mouth, screaming that the Roe v. Wade sky was falling. All for what turned out to be pretty much an innocuous commercial with a sports celebrity and his mom.
In that aspect, you have to admit it was a brilliant move by Focus. They looked sensible and their opponents ended up looking like knee jerk reactionaries.
This whole discussion about Focus and PP, however, really isn’t the issue, at least as far as I’m concerned. I find the promotion of abortion as a form of birth control to be offensive. It gives both women and men the easy way out for their indiscretions and bad judgment.
Remember, I’m talking about abortion strictly as a form of birth control. Not because of a rape, or because it can endanger a woman’s life, or because the child may have issues. Abortion in those instances is a highly personal issue and a decision that each person and their doctor must make since they are the ones that will have to live with that decision.
But abortion simply because a baby at that moment may be inconvenient to the mother is, in my opinion, unacceptable. My mortgage and car payments are highly inconvenient to me at this moment, but the Supreme Court is not going to rule that I have a right to abort those responsibilities without any consequences whatsoever.
I know, it’s a simplistic analogy, but it illustrates my point that if you are not allowed to shirk the most mundane responsibilities without consequences, why should you be able to shirk the greatest responsibility one could ever have–being a parent–without consequences?
Alberto, if you make a difference between abortion as a lifestyle choice and abortion because it endangers the life of the mother, then you should see my point of why Pam Tebow’s story is not the right example to broadcast.
Yes, abortion as a form of birth control is abhorrent. I don’t like it either. And I don’t see it promoted by Planned Parenthood as such. The idea that people think of it as birth control is, in my view and in the pro-choice view, a myth. Most people don’t think “oh well, if I get pregnant, I’ll have an abortion”. Every woman I’ve known that is pro-choice or has had an abortion describes it as a terrible emotional experience even if it was the right choice for them. And besides, why them many pro-life advocates oppose sex education and anticonceptives? Isn’t not getting pregnant in the first place the best way to reduce abortions?
You say “inconvenient” but raising a child when you are not prepared for it is a life-changing experience. Pro-life acknowledges it as such when they talk about giving him/her up for adoption as an alternative. It’s much more than an inconvenience. Continuing your analogy, imagine if the government forced you to continue your mortgage and car payments even if you can’t afford them. It would no longer be an inconvenience but a punishment. And just like a mother who neglects her child may end up in jail, you may end up in debtor’s jail.
(Yes, creating the controversy was brilliant from FOF but hardly original. They are just taking a page from GoDaddy. I also don’t think the spot was as bland originally and it was probably modified after the controversy erupted. But pro-choice advocates also benefited from the controversy. In you view they are knee-jerk reactionaries, in my view they were vigilant against a sneaky tactic. Nothing gained by either camp.)
Alex:
First of all, even though I understand the point you are making regarding Pam Tebow, I don’t think it is fair that you classify it as a “dangerous” message. She took a risk and had an uncommonly successful outcome. Her message is an inspirational one. But I don’t think we’ll ever agree on this, so I’m going to move on to a subject we both seem to agree on.
As you rightly stated, abortion as a form of birth control is abhorrent. However, I believe you were incorrect in stating that PP does not advocate abortion as such.
This is from their own website:
Most women want to have children. And they want to have children when they are ready and best able to care for them. But millions of women face unplanned pregnancies every year. In fact, half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned.
If you think you may be pregnant, the first step is to take a pregnancy test. Women whose home pregnancy tests show they are pregnant often go to a health care provider to have the results confirmed.
If you are pregnant, you have three options to think about — abortion, adoption, and parenting. Reading and learning about each one will help you get the facts and may help you decide. It may also help to weigh the benefits and risks of each one. Think about which benefits and risks are most important to you.
I don’t know how clearer they need to be in illustrating that to them, abortion is a perfectly acceptable option for that pesky unplanned pregnancy. When you add in the fact that abortion is a cash cow enterprise for PP, it makes this message all the more nefarious.
That brings me to the “inconvenience” portion of your reply. Parenthood is a life-changing event, and teenagers are the worst equipped individuals to deal with it. Nevertheless, what fault does the unborn child have that its parents were irresponsible? You keep mentioning the word “punish,” but which punishment is worse: death for an innocent child, or a monumental change in lifestyle for an individual?
I’d go with the death one.
Finally, I’d like to point out that you can have all the condoms, birth control pills, and abortions in the world, but if the population is not educated, they will have very little effect on the rate of unplanned pregnancies. Education is the key, and the responsibility for that education falls upon the parents of the children, not the schools or the government. The responsibility for the epidemic of teenage pregnancies in this country, in my humble opinion, falls squarely on the parents of these teenagers that never bothered to talk to them and provide them with a positive role model to follow.
Of my three kids, one is an adult and one is a teenager. I have had plenty of talks with them regarding this topic and I have always done my best to provide them with a positive role model for them to follow. This does not guarantee they will not encounter this issue during their youth, but at least I have provided them with a solid foundation. That is much more than many teenagers out there have ever received.
It seems to me, that the modern thinking is that if you are pregnant, you should choose the best option that fits with your current lifestyle: Abortion, adoption, or parenting.
As if it is just another lifestyle choice, never mind God, and the consequences to society when it is acceptable to murder your unborn children.
The amoral, bereft of warmth culture of death infects our society as a cancer, and in my opinion, none of it for the good.
I would guess that the comments left on this topic were all authored by individuals who were not born before abortion became legal, or who are too young to remember those times.
I came of age before birth control pills, and before abortions were legal. We exercised self-control, and held ourselves responsible for our actions. I know plenty who married before they planned, and many who faced an unplanned pregnancy. As adults, you dealt with it and adjusted your life accordingly. The idea of killing your baby to avoid the consequence of your action was never considered by anyone of a sound moral character.
How many murders are committed each year by someone who is alienated, or who has been abused, or who has other serious mental health issues? Should they be granted the right to murder in order to end their psychotic suffering?
I have known plenty of women who have had abortions, and not one of them faced anything other than financial hardship, an inconvenience, or a change in lifestyle. All of them were spiritually and morally compromised negatively by that decision.
[...] a good recap of the Tebow controversy, check out Robert Molleda’s blog post. Advertisement GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]