One of my weekend questions was, "Which advocacy group is the ultimate winner of [the Tebow ad] controversy, pro-lifers or pro-aborts?"
All signs are pointing to Tebow PR breaking against pro-aborts. The latest evidence is the January 30 New York Times editorial calling pro-aborts to task....
Pro-aborts are playing into pro-life hands in 2 ways, 1st by drawing so much attention to the ad, and 2nd by showing themselves to be intolerant of one of the 2 choices a pregnant mom in crisis has. They say they're pro-choice, but at times like this they show themselves to be what they really are, that which they hate to be called: pro-abortion.
Media savvy people would have recommended that pro-aborts ignore the Tebow ad, which would have helped make it go away. But pro-aborts have never been able to do that and never will. They should have backed away from the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, for instance, but they couldn't. To concede on any point is to risk losing it all. So pro-aborts are hoist on their own petard.
That the NYT found pro-abort reaction to the Tebow ad "puzzling and dismaying" shows it doesn't really understand the movement it typically defends. Here's the editorial:
The commercials during the Super Bowl, a showcase for the best (or worst) in TV advertising, often generate buzz and sometimes outrage. This year, viewers will see one ad that has already triggered a heated debate about abortion and censorship.
The 30-second spot, financed by the conservative religious group Focus on the Family, is said to recount the pregnancy of Pam Tebow, mother of the college football star Tim Tebow. After falling ill during a mission to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child, who became the 2007 Heisman Trophy winner.
The National Organization for Women, NARAL... and other voices for protecting women's reproductive freedom have called on CBS to yank it. Their protest is puzzling and dismaying.
A letter sent to CBS by the Women's Media Center and other groups argues that the commercial "uses one family's story to dictate morality to the American public, and encourages young women to disregard medical advice, putting their lives at risk" - a lame attempt to portray the ad as life-threatening. Others argue that even a mild discussion of such a divisive issue has no place in the marketing extravaganza known as the Super Bowl.
The would-be censors are on the wrong track. Instead of trying to silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about: protecting the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices.
CBS was right to change its policy of rejecting paid advocacy commercials from groups other than political candidates. After the network screens ads for accuracy and taste, viewers can watch and judge for themselves. Or they can get up from the couch and get a sandwich.
[HT: LifeNews.com; photo via The Gainesville Sun]
I don't see how this can be anything but good news for us. The fact that NYT has printed this editorial is amazing, and I am thrilled to see it. As Chris Smith says "Women deserve better. They, at the very least, deserve the truth.
And Americans and others who watch deserve to hear the story of Pam and Tim Tebow. Even pro-aborts deserve this.Posted by: Julie CUlshaw at February 1, 2010 11:53 AM
"..they show themselves to be what they really are, that which they hate to be called: pro-abortion "
Oh so true, Jill. They hide behind the word "CHOICE" until it comes back and bites them in the proverbial rear...and forces them to show their true colors.
They just can't stand seeing a woman who didn't jump at the chance to chop up her baby and throw him or her away, because that's exactly what they did. And they've fed themselves this line that they "needed" to do it, they "had" to do it, and seeing a woman in just as good or worse circumstances than theirs at the time they "needed" or "had to have" an abortion just shows them how untrue the lie they've been believing to make themselves feel better actually is. It's like shining an arclight on a cockroach.Posted by: xalisae at February 1, 2010 2:18 PM
" It's like shining an arclight on a cockroach."
A cockroach is smart enough to run away when the light comes on.
These guys should take note.
X..I would concur. These pro-aborts 'need' Tim Tebow's mom silenced so they can feel 'justifified' in their horrific position of supporting abortion.
They also 'need' to have smart young women abort their kids just so they can 'prove' their stand on life (or death) is right on.
It makes everything they fought for until now mean something....unfortunately, the TRUTH is coming out and more and more people are turning to a Pro-life stand.
The disinfecting light of truth is showing the ugly face of abortion to the rest of America and it's showing them there IS true CHOICE out there for pregnant women ...one that leads to Life. And with Life, there is Hope.
It seems to me that doctors suggested abortion not to because of risks to the mother's health but because of risks to the infant. So basically the doc thought dead is better than sick or impaired.
Of course we don't know exactly how the doctor phrased his suggestion. Was he really pushy, or did he just tell her the baby might have problems and ask her if she wanted an abortion? Obviously the doctor should tell her if the baby is at risk for whatever, but suggesting/pressuring for abortion could be seen as crossing the line ethically.
I know someone who was told she had to have an abortion when she had to have heart surgery or it would be a risk to her own life, but she is still haunted by it. I don't think she really believed it was necessary.Posted by: hippie at February 1, 2010 3:56 PM
I can't even count the number of stories I've heard about women who were told that they would die if they gave birth/their child would die shortly after birth/their child would have a severe disability - and then went on to safely deliver a perfectly healthy baby. Or who had a baby with disabilites, but still love that child with all their hearts.
One of my friends from high school was conceived when her mother was severely anorexic. Because it took her mom a month to realize she was pregnant, my friend had almost no nourishment for her first month in the womb. She was completely healthy when she was born and now she's pursuing a career as an opera singer. I could list more stories like this. The only woman I've ever personally known of who died in childbirth died completely unexpectedly.
As for having a baby with physical or mental disabilites, this isn't the 1800s, where "feeble-minded" and "crippled" children were sent to institutions and hidden from the rest of society while their families denied or ignored their existence. Millions of people have disabled relatives who are beloved and integral parts of the family. Is it sometimes difficult to take care of people with disabilites? Of course it is, but news flash: life is hard. We don't - or shouldn't - get to just destroy things because they complicate our lives.Posted by: Marauder at February 1, 2010 3:58 PM
There are tons of stories out there--both before the advanced ultrasound technology we have now, and today--about doctors diagnosing a disabling condition and being wrong. I am glad these stories are out there. And I am equally glad that there are stories where a child was diagnosed with a "defect," doctors recommended abortion, and the diagnosis was right--but the parents are still grateful for making the right choice and giving their son or daughter life.Posted by: ycw at February 1, 2010 4:00 PM
It is ironic how you are ignoring history. "Pro-life" is just PR spin for the more negative "Anti-abortion." There is not a single, not a single "Pro-choice" person who would force an abortion on anyone. Yet, every single "Pro-life" person would force a woman to give up her freedom.
Spin, spin, spin. You're awful close to sin!Posted by: Jerry at February 1, 2010 4:00 PM
How about pro-fetal-rights, Jerry? But feel free to call me anti-abortion, because I am.
There are plenty of pro-abortion people who want Michelle Duggar (and anyone else with more than 3) forced to not have more children. Trust me, not hard to find.
What you ignore is that the fetus is a human person who ought to have an inalienable right to life, and that there are certain humans whom you not only want to deprive of freedom but deprive of all rights, even the right to life. Are you pro-choice on taxes? On rape? On wife-beating? On littering? Or just on killing children? Do you think it's okay to kill two-month-olds? What if they were born 3 months early?
"Pro-choice" is just spin. You can't even admit what the choice is. And being pro-choice-to-kill-babies is not exactly a position of righteousness.
Anyone who thinks it is okay to stick scissors in the back of a baby's skull and suck his brains out is sick and needs mental help, regardless of the age and location of the child.Posted by: ycw at February 1, 2010 4:11 PM
"Pro-life" is just PR spin for the more negative "Anti-abortion.
Anti-abortion isn't a negative term. It's very positive. I am proud to be anti-abortion, and don't attempt to hide that from anyone.
However, pro-abortionists are so afraid of just admitting that they are in support of abortions. If abortion is such a positive thing, what is to be afraid of in admitting you're pro-abortion?
There is not a single, not a single "Pro-choice" person who would force an abortion on anyone.
You are so off the mark it is very sad. People are coerced into abortions every day by abortionists, their boyfriends, their parents, etc...all whom call themselves pro-choice. I talk to people who are 'pro-choice' all of the time who think it is irresponsible to carry a child to term if you are poor, disabled, uneducated. Oh yeah, and let's not even get into how pro-"choice" people talk about the Duggar family.
Incidentally, every single "pro-choice" person I have ever asked has admitted that they would force an abortion on their pre to teenaged daughter if she became pregnant for any reason.
How about you, Jerry? If your daughter became pregnant at the age of 11, would you allow her carry her baby to term?
Yet, every single "Pro-life" person would force a woman to give up her freedom.
You mean, "license". Not freedom. It is never freedom to be licensed to kill others.Posted by: Bethany at February 1, 2010 4:23 PM
YCW, great post!Posted by: Bethany at February 1, 2010 4:25 PM
There is a beautiful website called www.benotafraid.net about parents who decided to continue with their pregnancy with the diagnose of a disbility.
Jerry you are wrong, some pro-choicers would want to force abortion on woman in certain circonstances. You can read through the website and see many parents were " strongly encourage" to have an abortion. Also, the Abortionners blog brings this sentiments to the surface.
Lastly, yes I am anti-abortion. I'm also anti-murder, anti-rape, anti-torture,....Posted by: Chantal at February 1, 2010 4:29 PM
Tim Tebow played in a high profile game last year.
I do not remember the name of the other college team.
I watched and game and noticed Tebow had
'John 3:16' enscribed in white letters in the black anti-glare paint under his eyes.
I read later of the incredibly high number of hits on search engines on the world wide web seeking that name and numbers.
I would assert that the vast majority of believers in Jesus could at least 'paraphrase', if not quote, that passage from memory.
Most americans could tell you what it refers to regardless of their spiritual affiliation or lack thereof.
So who were all these people doing the search?
Dwell on that for a while.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at February 1, 2010 4:42 PM
The only people I am aware of who 'force' women to have abortions as a matter of government policy are the humanist tyrants who control the Chinese government.
The NAZI's forced Jewish women to abort.
Grandparents sometimes force their pregnant daughters to abort because the grandparents do not want to be 'punished' with a grandbaby.
Sperm donor males sometimes force their sex toy girlfriends to abort because the male does not want to be 'punished' with a baby.
Sometimes pregant womam force their pre-natal child to abort because they don't want to be 'punished' with their own baby.
And sometimes abortionists and their staff force pregnant women to abort even when the women change their minds and say, "No!"
But abortionists, like rapists, sometimes have a difficult time hearing 'NO' when they are dead set on proceeding.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at February 1, 2010 5:05 PM
There are all sorts of choices I support the right to but I don't believe in the right to choose abortion, just as many abortion rights advocates support their own right to life, the right to life for most other citizens, but not the right to life for the unborn human.
In other words, we're all 'pro-life' and we're all 'pro-choice' in many ways. Pro-abortion and anti-abortion more adequately describe the two stances, as they clearly describe what the groups are supporting. Heck, if you wanted, you could expand it to say "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights"... but that's a bit of a mouthful.
I'll proudly state that I'm anti-abortion. And, Jerry, I think you'll find that most of the individuals who identify as pro-life will openly and happily accept their title as anti-abortion. Because we see NOTHING wrong with being against abortion.
Interestingly enough, you'll find far fewer abortion-rights advocates willing to call themselves pro-abortion. Despite the fact that they think abortion is a choice we should have the right to make, they don't want to associate themselves with that choice. Why do you think that is?Posted by: maryrose at February 1, 2010 5:22 PM
How is it that a movement that champions abortion and harbors people who advocate mandatory abortions tries to claim credit for making birth available to women who "choose" it?Posted by: christina at February 1, 2010 5:27 PM