Opponents of Tebow’s Super Bowl Ad Should Make Their Own

Home  »  Abortion  »  Opponents of Tebow’s Super Bowl Ad Should Make Their Own
Feb 3, 2010 3 Comments ›› Ben DuPré

Opponents of Tebow’s Super Bowl Ad Should Make Their Own

Hell hath no fury like pro-abortionists faced with the truth.

Pro-aborts like the National Organization for Women are throwing public tantrums over CBS’s decision to run an ad featuring Univ. of Florida quarterback and evangelical Christian Tim Tebow and his mom Pam during the Super Bowl this Sunday. Pam tells how, when she became ill in the Philippines while pregnant with Tim, she rejected a doctor’s recommendation that she abort her child. The Super Bowl ad, financed by Focus on the Family (http://www NULL.focusonthefamily NULL.com/about_us/news_room/news-releases/20100115-focus-on-the-family-to-air-super-bowl-ad NULL.aspx), tells this life-affirming story that, with good reason, has NOW and the like worried.

One of the best takes on this tempest-in-a-TV-spot comes from Sally Jenkins, a “pro-choice” staff writer at The Washington Post. In  Tebow’s Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are (http://www NULL.washingtonpost NULL.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102067 NULL.html), Jenkins takes apart Tebow’s feminist critics and the “group-think, elitism and condescension of the ‘National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.’” Jenkins thinks the Tebows’ story is a good one, and notes that NOW & Co. are revealing themselves to be not pro-choice, but pro-abortion. After all, they’re trying to shut down a story of a women making a choice about abortion. Jenkins notes:

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.

Jenkins even praises Tebow for his chastity and self-control, a rarity even in college sports that has largely earned him unbelieving snickers. You really should read this entire column.

Jenkins should be applauded for standing up for Tebow’s message, even if she admits she disagrees with many of his beliefs. What she does not understand, however, is that radical, pro-aborts cannot afford to have the truth about life exposed in such a public forum (and the threat that the “choice” of abortion poses to lives like other future Tim Tebows of the world).

Even The New York Times editorial board opposes the censorship (http://www NULL.nytimes NULL.com/2010/01/31/opinion/31sun4 NULL.html) that NOW & Co. are calling for in this case:

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.

In the end, CBS is standing by its decision, and the opposition to the Tebow ad has only raised awareness and support for it nationwide.

Strategically, NOW & Co. might have been smarter to ignore the ad rather than try to abort it, but, you see, it’s not in the abortion industry’s DNA to allow truth or accurate information to see the light of day, especially a day like Super Bowl Sunday.

The Times‘s suggestion of an opposing ad promoting “the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices” is more fair than censorship, but it also (necessarily) ignores the point of the Tebow ad: there would be no Tim Tebow if Pam had made a different choice. Tim’s life, from conception onward, is precious and sacred, no more and no less than Pam’s or any other unborn child’s. No thanks to NOW, women and pregnant mothers around the nation will get to see that message during the Super Bowl.

In the end, maybe NOW should run its own ad: one that shows what would have happened to Tim if his mother had made a different choice (http://morallaw NULL.org/blog/?p=1074).

Share (http://www NULL.addtoany NULL.com/share_save)

Comments

  1. James E. Reeves says:

    Would we have over 50 million Tim Tebow type citizens? How many nurses? Doctors? Statesmen? Criminals? Skilled laborers? or friends would we have had?
    Did our judges render the original intent of the “Founding Fathers” constitutional endeavor or did a Marxist strand take place as (Jurist Prudence ) legal engineering educational material suggest on page 645 ?
    Abortion can be defined.
    Due care and ethics can be defined.
    Can sin be defined today?
    Can shame be defined today?
    Can the bust of “Themis” be defined? ( A Federal Court Monument in Montgomery Ala.)
    Can God be defined?
    Does God know someone before they are born?

    What judge or lawyer will take this challenge?

  2. James E. Reeves says:

    Since many of the opponents are also evolutionist and therefore believe we evolved from a rock or by chance, please read what one of Alabama’s most creditable scientist stated. (published in America’s God & Country by William J. Federer)

    Must we light a candle to see the sun?

    Wernher Magnus Maximillan Von Braun the director of NASA and the guided missile program made these statements:

    “In this age of space flight, when we use the modern tools of science to advance into new regions of human activity, the Bible- this grandiose, stirring history of the gradual revelation and unfolding of the moral law – remains in every way an up to date book.”

    “Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator.”

    “One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all…The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based…
    To be forced to believe only one conclusion – that everything in the universe happened by chance – would violate the very objectivity of science itself.
    It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life, and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.”

  3. Tebow tackles mom but not abortion at Firm Foundation (http://morallaw NULL.org/blog/?p=1098) says:

    [...] Archives « Opponents of Tebow’s Super Bowl Ad Should Make Their Own [...]

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word