The gutsiest QB in the Super Bowl may be …

posted at 10:12 am on January 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

There are few athletes as visible as starting NFL quarterbacks, on or off the field.  The league protects them from injury, sponsors throw cash them, and they get most of the attention from broadcasters looking for commentary, even after the QBs have hung up the cleats.  The two quarterbacks in this year’s Super Bowl are no exceptions.  Peyton Manning has a mini-empire of endorsements, while Drew Brees has emerged as a rallying point and morale leader for the renaissance of New Orleans, and both do good work in their communities.  They’ve had to dodge defenses all year long to make it to the final game, but a quarterback who has yet to sign his first NFL contract may be dodging heavier criticism by the end of the game:

He’s not even in the NFL yet, but former University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow is making a starring appearance at the 2010 Super Bowl in Miami.

While the Indianapolis Colts’ Peyton Manning and the New Orleans Saints’ Drew Brees will be the quarterbacks on the field, the Heisman Trophy-winning college star will appear with his mother, Pam, on TV in an ad for the pro-life Christian group Focus on the Family that will air during the game.

The 30-second ad’s theme is “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life” and a Focus on the Family press release said the Tebows agreed to the ad because “the issue of life is one they feel strongly about.” As a result, the ad is widely expected to focus on Mrs. Tebow’s pregnancy with Tim, when she was encouraged by doctors to abort him.

Reportedly, CBS approved the ad because it doesn’t make an explicit political argument.  Instead, it will tell the story of how Mrs. Tebow contracted amoebic dysentery while pregnant with Tim, and had to take harsh antibiotics in order to rescue her from her coma.  Her doctors assured her that her child would be either stillborn or unable to survive long after birth and encouraged her to get an abortion.  Instead, she decided to go full term with her pregnancy, and Tim Tebow was the result.

LaShawn Barber can’t wait to see the commercial — and the reaction:

America will see Tim Tebow (who wears “John 3:16” on his eyeblack) and his mother during the Super Bowl next month. They’ll deliver a pro-life message in a commercial sponsored by Focus on the Family. Naturally, pro-aborts are having a collective hissy fit. “Shut up and play ball!”

This country needs more young Christian men like Tebow, men who stand for what’s right and don’t cave to peer pressure. Young people struggling to live the Christian life (yes, Christians do struggle!) could use a few high-profile Christians bucking the system and risking ridicule. If he decides to go public with a sexually- abstinent-until-marriage message, even better.

I received one hint of the reaction yesterday in an e-mail for a post on the hysterical-Left site AlterNet, which framed the ad as “Football Player Tim Tebow on What Should Happen in Your Womb” — without either of us, of course, having seen the ad or the script.  The description sounds much more like personal testimony than political harangue, and perhaps that’s why there will be such outrage over it.  It’s very hard to dispute the fact that Tim Tebow isn’t stillborn, isn’t damaged, and that his parents’ faith allowed them to make the right decision and take a chance on life.

Expect to see this kind of hysterical criticism reach a crescendo when the ad airs, and then a quick deflation afterward.  It’s just another form of advertising, after all, but instead of a new beer or bar of soap, it advertises faith in a personal and indisputable manner.  Personal witness is the most powerful form of testimony that there is, and the most effective … which, again, is why we see the reaction that just the idea of it generates.

Tebow might have calculated that an NFL career is fraught with risk, and that his initial contract (which will be eight figures) could be his last due to untimely injury.  Keeping his mouth shut may have allowed him to fully exploit the arena of personal endorsements, while making such a public stand on a contentious issue like abortion may very well cost him money in the short (and perhaps long) run.  Tebow made a gutsy call on the biggest national stage outside of an election that he could possibly choose.  Maybe that alone will have people listening to Tebow instead of dismissing him, much as his mother’s doctors did.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

–I always had trouble blaming Pilate for the crucifixtion. But I think his problem was that he knew the right thing to do and didn’t do it. Sorta went along with the crowd.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Agreed. But it was worse — Pilate deliberately chose to do the politically correct thing, even when counseled otherwise by his wife:

While Pilate was sitting in the judgment hall, his wife sent him a message: “Have nothing to do with that innocent man, because in a dream last night, I suffered much on account of him.”

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 12:19 PM

–So what about the Jews and the people on the pro-choice side? There are “established” scholars and people who read the original Hebrew which would disagree with you.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:15 PM

They, too, are lost.

As a right-wing nutjob, I never trust the scholars in any area of expertise, be it politics, economics, or the sciences. Given the dark history of the Church in the middle ages, and the fact that the scholars of the day were responsible for arranging the execution of Christ, I see no reason why any of us should trust Biblical scholars more than any other scholar.

It is given to each and every person to understand for himself. I would be hesitant to place my trust in any ‘experts’, even and especially in this.

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 12:19 PM

–The Catholic Bible translates this verse the same way.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM

The Catholic Bible also has the apocrypha in it, so I don’t really see your point.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:06 PM

As Esthier already pointed out, Pilate tried to avoid killing Jesus.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 12:20 PM

It’s positively enough to make one bang one’s head against a wall sometimes, when the stark realization of what we, as a nation, a people, and a race, are doing to ourselves, and how we got to this point. One feels the need to scream.
//
Exactly,we have discussed that many times since the campaign and election as to how we have gotten to this place.The stark reality,we took God out of everything,..schools,courthouse etc. and He has answered by letting us do as we please.We are seeing the fruit now.It is only by His mercy and love for us that we are still alive and not blown to bits yet.

ohiobabe on January 26, 2010 at 12:20 PM

–I did not mis-cite the verse, re-write it or take it out of context. I said there were various translations.
Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM

You forgot the “I did not misinterpret the verse”. Covers a world of sins.
unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Sure, but he typed his idiocy a lot LOUDER this time – and that makes it “true.”

Never try to argue theology, or politics, with a moonbat. A consumate narcissist is the ultimate zealot. Words exist only to make him feel good about himself. What the words happen to be, and the particular order they happen to be placed in, are nothing but infinitely plastic means to that singular end.

logis on January 26, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:56 AM

God’s Word to us was in Hebrew and Greek. WE have no excuse for ignoring what the words actually say just because somebody wanted to twist them to mean what they want them to say. In fact, if you read Revelation you will find that God has strong words against people who seek to twist the meanings.

And Jews can twist meanings just like anybody else. Many Jews are actually atheists now; does that mean that if they say God doesn’t exist that means the Bible actually says God doesn’t exist – since the Jews know best?

If you look at the oldest Jewish texts, they say that abortion is wrong. (See Josephus, for instance). In the passage you and I both cited, Philo (writing around the time of Christ) says that there should be a smaller penalty if the man has no way of knowing that the woman he injures was pregnant. Some have twisted his words to say that Philo is saying the child isn’t worthy of protection until it reaches “quickening” but the context shows that he’s talking about whether a person is guilty of the same crime if he doesn’t KNOW there’s a child involved.

They’re talking about what penalties should be demanded when there is ACCIDENTAL injury – and they’re still saying there should be a penalty, an eye for an eye.

There’s no way you can stretch that to say that the deliberate killing of a child is fine.

And the text I mentioned before – which you didn’t address – specifically talks about child sacrifice to Molech, which included aborted children. I’m sure there were Jews who could claim they knew the most about YHWH who justified their child sacrifice to Molech even though God said this, but everyone would do well to hear the word of the Lord:

The LORD said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his peole; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.” Leviticus 20:1-5)

I would say God takes this very seriously. Ignore His words at your own peril.

justincase on January 26, 2010 at 12:22 PM

I think Tim Tebow’s throwing motion and Urban Meyer’s disinterest in developing him as a quarterback will cost him more money than this commercial.

Theworldisnotenough on January 26, 2010 at 12:22 PM

–So, put another way, the all-knowing and all-seeing God made such a big mistake in originally setting the laws that he had to come down here and get himself killed in order to save us?

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Again, sir, you make the mistake of misinterpreting the very nature of God.

His Laws are aspects of Himself. He. Is. The. Law.

The bar does not move and the Lord does not change. There was no setting of the bar overly high, the bar was always there before any of us ever existed. The Lord himself is the bar.

Our failure to measure up to that bar is no way a failure of the Lord. The law doesn’t change for anyone, or anything. The Lord simply loves that much, that he stepped in to take the chopping block, instead of us.

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 12:22 PM

–So what about the Jews and the people on the pro-choice side? There are “established” scholars and people who read the original Hebrew which would disagree with you.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:15 PM

And again, these are also the same people who don’t believe Jesus is the Messiah, even though he fulfilled their prophesies.

You don’t have a problem calling them wrong on that point, and it’s the most important point, far more important than even this discussion here. If they could be wrong on that, why do you trust them on the more trivial questions?

Or rather, why don’t you trust them on the issue of Jesus?

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:23 PM

If you crack open a fertilized egg, you may be in for a pretty big surprise, because your scrambled eggs may contain feathers, or even blood.

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 12:09 PM

A farmer would have to let the egg incubate for many days for that to happen. When they grab the eggs the same day they are laid and then refrigerate them, the diner doesn’t know if the egg is fertilized or not.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 12:24 PM

And sorry to be full of contradictions. It makes sense to me, but I know almost all of you disagree with me.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:06 PM

This could be a personal learning experience, if you wanted it to be. You’re being effectively and, for the most part, respectfully, corrected on what look to be some some shaky-at-best interpretations of Biblical verses.

As Esthier said on the last page, it looks like you already made up your mind and are looking for some way to justify what you recognize as a convenient, but morally wrong, position. There’s no reason that has to be.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 12:26 PM

A farmer would have to let the egg incubate for many days for that to happen. When they grab the eggs the same day they are laid and then refrigerate them, the diner doesn’t know if the egg is fertilized or not.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 12:24 PM

I found a little black round thing in one once. I’m partially convinced it was a chick.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Sure, but he typed his idiocy a lot LOUDER this time – and that makes it “true.”

Never try to argue theology, or politics, with a moonbat. A consumate narcissist is the ultimate zealot. Words exist only to make him feel good about himself. What the words happen to be, and the particular order they happen to be placed in, are nothing but infinitely plastic means to that singular end.

logis on January 26, 2010 at 12:20 PM

–You know what? I never have used capital letters in this discussion. I don’t think I’ve ever used them in any other posts here, either. Go ahead and be dismissive of me for some made-up thing; it’s what some of the liberals do to conservatives.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Financial penalty for miscarriage (in this translation); eye for an eye for killing a human being.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM

You’re killing me here, man. Financial penalty for accidently killing a human. Eye for an eye for intentionally killing a human.

It’s starting to be pretty clear that you’re avoiding the distinction on purpose.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:52 AM

God provided cities of refuge where the person who had accidentally killed somebody would be safe from the avengers in the family of the one who had been killed. Nowhere does God say that a person who accidentally killed somebody should be killed in return, unless their accident was because of gross negligence.

justincase on January 26, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Jimbo, I really believe that further and greater study into Scripture will be of vast utility to you. I pray earnestly that you will find the knowledge needed, and that the Lord will bring you to understanding.

As for myself, I need a shower, and a workout, in that order, because the very existence of this conversation (that is to say, that abortion exists at all) is making me go crazy, just sitting here, and I require stress relief.

^(o.o) God bless!

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Hey, if it drives atheists, communists, or feminists up a wall, I’m all for it.

Akzed on January 26, 2010 at 12:30 PM

There’s no reason that has to be.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 12:26 PM

And no one even needs to use the Bible when you can pray and talk to God. The Holy Spirit convicts those who are doing the wrong thing and will make the issue clear if that’s the prayer’s intent.

This isn’t about who’s right or wrong, but, Jimbo, if you’re going to counsel your daughter to do something, I would think you’d want to be sure.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:31 PM

And sorry to be full of contradictions. It makes sense to me, but I know almost all of you disagree with me.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:06 PM
This could be a personal learning experience, if you wanted it to be. You’re being effectively and, for the most part, respectfully, corrected on what look to be some some shaky-at-best interpretations of Biblical verses.

As Esthier said on the last page, it looks like you already made up your mind and are looking for some way to justify what you recognize as a convenient, but morally wrong, position. There’s no reason that has to be.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 12:26 PM

–Thanks, Badger. I actually made up my mind about thirty five years ago when I read the Catholic Bible (I think it’s the New American Standard version–I have it at home). I said (to myself): “Well, this isn’t what I remember hearing in Church. If they’re wrong about this (or at least, that this verse could be taken in several ways), I wonder what else they’re not saying.”

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:32 PM

As for myself, I need a shower, and a workout, in that order,

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Seriously? I tend to reverse the order myself, but to each his own. Enjoy.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:32 PM

CBS will pull it.

Let me revise that. The only thing which is keeping CBS from pulling it right now (or already) is Tebow’s fame and popularity.

Maybe they keep it. It would be nice to see CBS show some fortitude.

catmman on January 26, 2010 at 12:33 PM

–So what about the Jews and the people on the pro-choice side? There are “established” scholars and people who read the original Hebrew which would disagree with you.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Not just me. My Church, and other churches besides mine, as well as many Jews. This site is instructive::

The fact that the Torah requires a monetary payment for causing a miscarriage is interpreted by some Rabbis to indicate that abortion is not a capital crime4 and by others as merely indicating that one is not executed for performing an abortion, even though it is a type of murder.5 There is even disagreement regarding whether the prohibition of abortion is Biblical or Rabbinic. Nevertheless, it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion.

It seems (a) that Jewish thought is not uniform on this matter, and (b) that the informed Jewish author of this piece has interesting “almost but not quite human” viewpoint with regard to the fetus. That viewpoint, like yours, is powered by visual observation (“the fetus looks like a tadpole”), but we have more powerful scientific tools today like DNA analysis (which can even assign a sex to your so-called tadpole) and ultrasound to see the movement and development of the “tadpole” in the womb.

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Keeping his mouth shut may have allowed him to fully exploit the arena of personal endorsements, while making such a public stand on a contentious issue like abortion may very well cost him money in the short (and perhaps long) run.

What a defeatist, negative attitude that I am not surprised at all about. The Scott Brown election showed what I have hoped for a very long time. The American people are a conservative living people who try to live their lives in a traditional, principled, good (or even Godly) manner and now know that their government and the media don’t believe in the same principles they do. The problem has not been the core beliefs of the American people but the delivery of the message and the dishonesty of the media and our politicians. Things are bad right now and despite their best efforts, the media and the politicians cannot hide the truth. The American people are starting to wake up. Tim Tebow’s faith, principles, ethics and good works show he walks the walk and will be (and likely is but the media doesn’t want to say it) appreciated by the newly awakened America. Who does America’s parents wants their sons to grow up to be like? What kind of man do American women want? Tebow’s speaking out for his faith will be seen as a strength and testament by more people then those who have a cynical, morally relativist view of America.

peacenprosperity on January 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Jimbo, I really believe that further and greater study into Scripture will be of vast utility to you. I pray earnestly that you will find the knowledge needed, and that the Lord will bring you to understanding.

As for myself, I need a shower, and a workout, in that order, because the very existence of this conversation (that is to say, that abortion exists at all) is making me go crazy, just sitting here, and I require stress relief.

^(o.o) God bless!

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 12:29 PM

–You, too, Kinley. Enjoyed talking to you. Have a great run/jog/whatever.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Suicide and drug abuse rates among medical professionals involved in abortion are very high. They know it’s a baby. I think they justify it by claiming that the lives these kids would live would be worse than death. Never mind that child abuse rates are directly proportional to abortion rates. Where there is more abortion there is more child abuse. And the people most likely to abuse children are those who have already aborted a conceived child because they were waiting for circumstances to be perfect for them to have their perfect child that they would name after themselves.

I’m sure Pam Tebow’s doctors were convinced the baby would be a grotesque monster who was better off dead.

justincase on January 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Jimbo, are you sure you don’t want to withdraw your plea of “Christian”? You don’t seem to have much of a handle on what the word means.

For example, if you said the Torah was too strict for fallen man to follow perfectly, I’d agree with you. But simply “too strict” implies that God messed up. It implies that we don’t need salvation because of our sin, but because of God’s error. That’s TOTALLY inconsistent with the teachings of scripture.

Also, I read where someone said you claimed to be an attorney. In a way, I’m inclined to believe that — after all, you continue advocating for your “client” (the POV that abortion is consistent with Christianity), against overwhelming evidence. But if you are an attorney, you must be a dreadful one. You have got to have the worst logic skills, and among the worst persuasion skills, of any attorney I’ve ever met. You didn’t fully prepare a consistent case before you began your opening argument. Now you’re getting blown away from every side by amateurs!

RegularJoe on January 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM

(or at least, that this verse could be taken in several ways)

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:32 PM

All verses can be taken in several ways, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a correct way to take them. That’s why it’s important to pray when reading the Bible.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:52 AM

God provided cities of refuge where the person who had accidentally killed somebody would be safe from the avengers in the family of the one who had been killed. Nowhere does God say that a person who accidentally killed somebody should be killed in return, unless their accident was because of gross negligence.

justincase on January 26, 2010 at 12:28 PM

–Justin, of course the other verses say that someone who kills a human being should be put to death. If that wasn’t the case, why would they have needed the cities of refuge?

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Also, I read where someone said you claimed to be an attorney. In a way, I’m inclined to believe that — after all, you continue advocating for your “client” (the POV that abortion is consistent with Christianity), against overwhelming evidence. But if you are an attorney, you must be a dreadful one. You have got to have the worst logic skills, and among the worst persuasion skills, of any attorney I’ve ever met. You didn’t fully prepare a consistent case before you began your opening argument. Now you’re getting blown away from every side by amateurs!

RegularJoe on January 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM

–I am a lawyer. I’m not trying to persuade. I’m trying to explain my position. This isn’t a court room. (And I also know to listen to people who disagree with me, while understanding that sometimes they want to rattle me.)

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:38 PM

I found a little black round thing in one once. I’m partially convinced it was a chick.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:27 PM

It is more likely from a local farm than a commercial producer where the hens never see roosters.

The egg/chicken question might come down to whether one believes that essence precedes existence or existence precedes essence.

For people who believe that we are the material realization of some perfect or eternal form, then a fertilized egg is as sacred as an adult. However, U.S. law evidently requires some material existence, beyond an idealized form, before conferring rights.

Few people show a concern for newly fertilized human eggs, at least until they afix to the uterine wall.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM

why would they have needed the cities of refuge?

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Because the family of the dead person would kill them. That was the accepted practice. It was accepted in most countries for thousands of years until people agreed to let the law handle matters.

But it was not the law.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM

RegularJoe on January 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Sometimes I really wish we could delete posts. I got a little caught up in the heat of the debate, and more attacked than refuted Jimbo3. For that, I ask first his forgiveness, and also that of others.

RegularJoe on January 26, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Fetus = Human Being with rights. Deal with it.

A woman’s right to do as she wishes with her body does not give her the right to kill someone else.

The sick thing is how pro-abortion Democrats claim to be for “the little guy.” That should read “The littlest guy that can vote/give campaign contributions.”

TheUnrepentantGeek on January 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM

It is more likely from a local farm than a commercial producer where the hens never see roosters.

I have no idea, but it looked a little meaty.

Few people show a concern for newly fertilized human eggs, at least until they afix to the uterine wall.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM

I would assume that’s primarily because we rarely know of its existence at that point. I’ve heard that it’s common for women to miscarriage that early without ever knowing they were pregnant.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM

The passage you cited, when read in the Hebrew, makes no distinction between the mother being harmed or the child being harmed. The Hebrew text confirms that God makes no distinction between the two.

What you are arguing is that THE PEOPLE WHO TRANSLATED IT THE WAY YOU WANTED IT TO BE TRANSLATED said that. I’m not interested in what they say. They are not God. God’s actual words show no distinction between the woman and her child. Not in that passage nor in the multitude of passages where God affirms that all human life belongs to Him, at every stage.

justincase on January 26, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:32 PM

I’m not trying to patronize you, and I won’t give you the grief that some commenters who don’t know you might. You’re proven yourself to be a smart and rational person over time, which is why this thread is frustrating beyond belief.

But from my perspective, it looks like you’ve put some extremely long blinders on in order to narrow your focus down so that you only see what you want to see on this issue. That’s, in my opinion humble opinion, is dangerous.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 12:44 PM

I’m surprised the NFL & CBS haven’t pulled it. Anything that reminds people that there is a world beyond beer, cars, gadgets, and beer can’t be what’s best for the sponsors.

Good for Tebow though. If he can win at the NFL level, he’ll find plenty of endorsement deals.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 12:46 PM

while understanding that sometimes they want to rattle me.)

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:38 PM
//
Sounds like your ,well-ordered world, needs to be rattled.

ohiobabe on January 26, 2010 at 12:48 PM

in my opinion humble opinion,

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Is Tebow’s stance controversial? If anyone wants to put up an opposing ad, one with the stance “we should abort more babies”, that might be interesting as well.

hawksruleva on January 26, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Re: LaShawn Barber–we know Christians struggle. Part of that is the insane sexual repression their religion forces on them. Abstinence is a great birth control method, but it’s a lousy way to go through life, especially when your body is programmed to enjoy sex.

If Tebow or whoever wants to pimp life, right on. But the idea that “no sex until marriage” is a reasonable lifestyle choice is just silly and unworkable for the vast majority of people. Sex is a sin until you show up at a church one day with your significant other and repeat a bunch of phrases and THEN it’s okay? What a ridiculous thing to tell children.

God needs to spend less time worrying about our private sex lives and more time worrying about the economy. Why are God’s priorities so out of whack?

Enrique on January 26, 2010 at 12:49 PM

God’s actual words show no distinction between the woman and her child. Not in that passage nor in the multitude of passages where God affirms that all human life belongs to Him, at every stage.

justincase on January 26, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Indeed. To God, your actual birth is a minor detail, as he has known all the details of your life since before the Creation.

hawksruleva on January 26, 2010 at 12:50 PM

I would assume that’s primarily because we rarely know of its existence at that point. I’ve heard that it’s common for women to miscarriage that early without ever knowing they were pregnant.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:43 PM

That is true, but if the value of that fertilized egg was equal to a child, we’d be looking for ways to prevent those early miscarriages. That isn’t the case.

Breast feeding will make the blastocyst less likely to implant, but most couples will have sex while the women breast feeds without concern over the increased risk to new human life.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Jimbo, are you sure you don’t want to withdraw your plea of “Christian”?
RegularJoe on January 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Then how could he be a Seminar Poster?

For all I know, he might even be telling the truth: that he’s the only guy in the whole world who worships the Moonbat Bible he made up. But I can’t believe such an esteemed jurist as the Mighty Jimbo (OK, technically he’s only self-esteemed, but still…) has never heard of the concept of slander. You don’t get to call yourself a “Christian” – or a member of any religion for that matter – if you proselytize the virtues of killing babies.

Of course words never matter to moonbats, but liberalism isn’t even technically a religion at all. The term for a group of people who practice such rites as baby-killing, enforced communal living, and ritualized fetishism is: “cult.”

logis on January 26, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:36 PM

They needed cities of refuge because they didn’t have cops in those days. The families avenged their own deaths. The cities of refuge were to protect people from the vengeance of the family whose member was accidentally killed.

justincase on January 26, 2010 at 12:53 PM

God needs to spend less time worrying about our private sex lives and more time worrying about the economy. Why are God’s priorities so out of whack?

Enrique on January 26, 2010 at 12:49 PM

So money is more important than life? There’s other alternatives to abstinence and abortion, btw. Adoption, for one. Or raising your child.

From a pragmatic standpoint, marriage helps maintain stable family relationships, and reduce single-family households, and all of the disadvantages they provide for the children of those households.

hawksruleva on January 26, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Let’s see how it plays out…..could be gutsy, watch the crucifixion begin…

Message to Tim: Prepare to be Palinized.

PappyD61 on January 26, 2010 at 12:58 PM

–Justin, of course the other verses say that someone who kills a human being should be put to death. If that wasn’t the case, why would they have needed the cities of refuge?

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Cities of refuge were for accidental death (just like the verse states). Execution was for willful murder.

dominigan on January 26, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Seriously? I tend to reverse the order myself, but to each his own. Enjoy.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Let me rephrase:

A shower, then a workout, then another shower. @_@ Off to the gym!

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Ackk…my laptop died on me in the middle of responding to Jimbo3, but I figured everyone would be jumping on him (out of concern) for his error. ;) Well most are out of concern… I love you guys.

Of course, I can’t go through and read all 4 pages of comments so I’ll just respond as I was trying to. Sorry for repeating what others have already said if I do.

Jimbo3, I say this with all charity. You are endangering your soul and if you were to lead your daughter into such sin you would be held responsible, but so would she if she followed your advice.

I see that the way you are interpreting the verse you use in Exodus has been well refuted so I won’t belabor the point. I would just like to point out that you are using the standard pro-abort tactic of twisting words to suit your view. I have checked online and I can not find one version of the bible that uses the word fetus in this passage. Yet you continue to do so and say that if the fetus dies…blah blah…It is a pregnant woman or a woman with child. Not a woman with fetus…please be honest.

And you completely dismiss this.

I was cast upon thee from the womb. From my mother’s womb thou art my God. Psalm 22

Thou hast protected me from my mother’s womb. Psalm 139; 13

But he answered thus: Behold thou shalt conceive and bear a son: beware thou drink no wine, nor strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite of God from his infancy, from his mother’s womb until the day of his death. Judges 13:7

And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations. Jeremiah 1:4,5

God knows us as distinct beings, his cherished creations, from even before the moment of our conception in the womb.

And while the specific argument against abortion might not be spelled out in the Bible to your liking, obvious as it is, it was spelled out by the Twelve Apostles, who were given the duty and authority to teach the way to eternal life, by Jesus, as we know from the Bible.

From the Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), a document from the first century.

But the second commandment of the teaching is this.

2:2 Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not commit pederasty; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use soothsaying; thou shalt not practise sorcery; thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born; thou shalt not covet the goods of thy neighbour;

That’s pretty explicitly dealt with.

Please, from one Christian to another, do not delude yourself with these lies. They are evil. And please do not lead your own child into sin.

But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.

Please…

pannw on January 26, 2010 at 1:02 PM

BREAKING LIB NEWS…..

Coordinated Media Stoning of Tim Tebow at Super Bowl to begin in 5….4….

PappyD61 on January 26, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Enrique on January 26, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Wow… way to completely twist scripture…

Sex OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE is a sin. Sex INSIDE OF MARRIAGE is a good thing!

Catch the difference? I highlighted the key words in case you missed it…

dominigan on January 26, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Tim Tebow: Man of character.

Is it ironic that the “Blue Mountain State” ad is running right next to this column with the graphic of the girl riding a football?

ted c on January 26, 2010 at 1:04 PM

I would assume that’s primarily because we rarely know of its existence at that point. I’ve heard that it’s common for women to miscarriage that early without ever knowing they were pregnant.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:43 PM

That’s one in four of each embryo that attaches itself. But, before that, two out of three firtalized eggs die because they fail to attack to the uterine wall.

Count to 10 on January 26, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Sex OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE is a sin. Sex INSIDE OF MARRIAGE is a good thing!

Catch the difference? I highlighted the key words in case you missed it…

dominigan on January 26, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Though, based on available statistics, over 90% of Americans married in the past 20 years began their sex lives before their married lives.

Abstinence before marriage may be a good idea, and the only moral course of action allowed by religious teaching. However, public policy, and parenting, needs to take into account that sex will probably be engaged in before a trip to the altar.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 1:11 PM

God needs to spend less time worrying about our private sex lives and more time worrying about the economy. Why are God’s priorities so out of whack?

Enrique on January 26, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Right, because the real important thing in life should be whether or not Enrique can afford that new big-screen 3D television.

We get you.

Gregor on January 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM

They needed cities of refuge because they didn’t have cops in those days. The families avenged their own deaths. The cities of refuge were to protect people from the vengeance of the family whose member was accidentally killed.
justincase on January 26, 2010 at 12:53 PM

A lot of people don’t realize that the Old Testament “eye-for-an-eye” thing wasn’t a call to violence: it was a plea for moderation. Before that, theft was punished by amputation; and a perceived slight to an important individual was often avenged by killing someone’s whole family.

It’s bad enough that kids aren’t taught this anymore, but liberals have taken a lot of what were originally good lessons and turned them into a collection of bizarre perversions.

logis on January 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Abstinence before marriage may be a good idea, and the only moral course of action allowed by religious teaching. However, public policy, and parenting, needs to take into account that sex will probably be engaged in before a trip to the altar.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 1:11 PM

I wonder if this is a walls-around-walls problem.

Count to 10 on January 26, 2010 at 1:15 PM

“This country needs more young Christian men like Tebow, men who stand for what’s right and don’t cave to peer pressure.”

This may become a disturbing trend for those on the left who wish to ban all references to Christianity and religion from public view. Check out Colt McCoy’s supremely gracious and heart-felt post-BCS sentiments.

VoyskaPVO on January 26, 2010 at 1:16 PM

“Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life”

The fact that this statement could be controversial is pretty pathetic.

forest on January 26, 2010 at 10:16 AM

+1

mizflame98 on January 26, 2010 at 1:17 PM

God needs to spend less time worrying about our private sex lives and more time worrying about the economy. Why are God’s priorities so out of whack?

Enrique on January 26, 2010 at 12:49 PM

God isn’t Santa Claus. The rule about sex isn’t to harm us but to help us. The truth in that is that sex is powerful and isn’t properly contained in other more temporary relationships.

If that’s what you want to settle for, no one’s forcing you to do otherwise, but you do yourself no favors by continuing to insult everyone who disagrees with you. It’s just childish.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 1:18 PM

–Thanks, Badger. I actually made up my mind about thirty five years ago when I read the Catholic Bible (I think it’s the New American Standard version–I have it at home). I said (to myself): “Well, this isn’t what I remember hearing in Church. If they’re wrong about this (or at least, that this verse could be taken in several ways), I wonder what else they’re not saying.”

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Did you ask, rather than assuming an answer on the basis of a private interpretation? There are Catholic bible study groups which address exactly these rather difficult to interpret passages. There are priests and bishops in abundance, and this type of “hard” question is one reason why, ostensibly, they exist to answer.

This site is instructive. And this is also instructive.

In the first reference, the author indicates that the NASB has an amplified description of what it means by “miscarriage” in the side notes. Perhaps your version has these side notes (there are many NASB’s, including study versions, so it’s unclear which one the author indicates; my NASB has no side notes of this sort).

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 1:18 PM

A lot of people don’t realize that the Old Testament “eye-for-an-eye” thing wasn’t a call to violence: it was a plea for moderation. Before that, theft was punished by amputation; and a perceived slight to an important individual was often avenged by killing someone’s whole family.

It’s bad enough that kids aren’t taught this anymore, but liberals have taken a lot of what were originally good lessons and turned them into a collection of bizarre perversions.

logis on January 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Theology aside, evidence points to Judaism and Christianity being made for civilization.

Count to 10 on January 26, 2010 at 1:27 PM

That is true, but if the value of that fertilized egg was equal to a child, we’d be looking for ways to prevent those early miscarriages. That isn’t the case.

Maybe, but again, we’re talking about something most people rarely knew ever existed before the miscarriage. We don’t have effective ways of letting women know they’re pregnant at the moment of conception.

And often miscarriages, even in longer pregnancies, can’t be prevented no matter what the woman or her doctor do.

Breast feeding will make the blastocyst less likely to implant, but most couples will have sex while the women breast feeds without concern over the increased risk to new human life.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 12:52 PM

For one, you could probably count on one hand the number of people who know this, and for another, increased risk doesn’t mean that it’s impossible. In fact, shortly after giving birth women are more fertile than normal.

But if we’re to the point where we’re not calling it a child until it’s implanted itself, I’d take it. It would severely reduce the number of abortions.

And personally, I don’t fault anyone for causing the miscarriage of a pregnancy they didn’t know existed. It’s why I’m not against the morning after pill.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Sure, but he typed his idiocy a lot LOUDER this time – and that makes it “true.”

Never try to argue theology, or politics, with a moonbat. A consumate narcissist is the ultimate zealot. Words exist only to make him feel good about himself. What the words happen to be, and the particular order they happen to be placed in, are nothing but infinitely plastic means to that singular end.

logis on January 26, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Sorry, I disagree. Jimbo is arguing from what he knows. His arguments are entirely reasonable from what he knows. My arguments are entirely reasonable from what I know.

There may be things Jimbo knows which I do not, and things which I know which Jimbo does not. I’m not going to elevate myself to being Jesus, who IS the WORD.

Jesus himself provides an example, going into the Temple and discussing Scripture with other people. How do you learn?

I might not agree with Jimbo, but he is certainly not an idiot.

We come here to have fun and to gore each others virtual oxen. And if Jimbo wasn’t here, Ed would only have 20 comments here, all sheepishly agreeable.

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 1:29 PM

And personally, I don’t fault anyone for causing the miscarriage of a pregnancy they didn’t know existed. It’s why I’m not against the morning after pill.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 1:29 PM

That is an … interesting way of looking at it. Ignorance allows the violation of rights?

Count to 10 on January 26, 2010 at 1:33 PM

That is true, but if the value of that fertilized egg was equal to a child, we’d be looking for ways to prevent those early miscarriages. That isn’t the case.

Breast feeding will make the blastocyst less likely to implant, but most couples will have sex while the women breast feeds without concern over the increased risk to new human life.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Hmm. How do we know that breast feeding will make the blastocyte less likely to implant? That implies a bit of research, does it not? And, by your reckoning, that elevates the value of the fertilized egg, does it not?

Those are, of course, Socratic questions.

And as for the behavior of the “most couples” you cite — well, is that behavior done in full knowledge, or in ignorance? If in full knowledge, you have a point as to their feelings on the matter, but if done in ignorance, you do not.

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 1:34 PM

However, public policy, and parenting, needs to take into account that sex will probably be engaged in before a trip to the altar.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 1:11 PM

I’d agree that this should be understood by parents, etc., but I think we’ve made a serious error in saying this when speaking to children who are not already having sex. This “I know you’re going to do it anyway” approach only adds another persuasion to teens who start to feel that everyone else is doing it.

I don’t see any reason you shouldn’t set high goals for your children. Accept that they might not reach them, but I don’t see a reason to put that disclaimer in when describing the goal other than to say the child will always be loved no matter what.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 1:35 PM

And personally, I don’t fault anyone for causing the miscarriage of a pregnancy they didn’t know existed. It’s why I’m not against the morning after pill.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 1:29 PM

The morning after pill is taken because of the possibility of pregnancy. Anyone taking such a pill is fully aware of its therapeutic effects, including the possibility of an abortive pregnancy. They are taking it to prevent the pregnancy, or to kill it if it has started. That’s why I’m against the morning after pill, and would prefer that pharmacists have a freedom of conscience exemption from filling prescriptions for same.

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Agreed. It almost seems like people think a wedding ring is magical. You can view other people as horsemeat your whole life and then once you put on a wedding ring you will miraculously be able to be chaste. It doesn’t work that way. Faithfulness is an attitude that has to be nourished.

justincase on January 26, 2010 at 1:39 PM

That is an … interesting way of looking at it. Ignorance allows the violation of rights?

Count to 10 on January 26, 2010 at 1:33 PM

This often works legally. If I didn’t know a person was deathly allergic to peanut butter, I’m not a murderer if I include it as a secret ingredient in food given to that person.

But if I know about the allergy, I am a murder.

The Bible even addresses it in the issue of intent.

28 “If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.

If the bull owner had no reason to believe his bull would kill someone, he isn’t at fault. But if he did know, and let the bull loose anyway, he is.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 1:41 PM

’d agree that this should be understood by parents, etc., but I think we’ve made a serious error in saying this when speaking to children who are not already having sex. This “I know you’re going to do it anyway” approach only adds another persuasion to teens who start to feel that everyone else is doing it.

I don’t see any reason you shouldn’t set high goals for your children. Accept that they might not reach them, but I don’t see a reason to put that disclaimer in when describing the goal other than to say the child will always be loved no matter what.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 1:35 PM

The problem here seems to be the one-size-fits all public schooling approach to something that is much better suited to parents. Mostly, I would say that it is the attempt to apply the methods for instructing kids with delinquent parents to kids that have concerned parents: the first has the potential for undermining the second.

Count to 10 on January 26, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Then you are not really talking about rights, but culpability. Additionally, there is the issue of letting all people behave as if they were as ignorant as most people.

Count to 10 on January 26, 2010 at 1:43 PM

and would prefer that pharmacists have a freedom of conscience exemption from filling prescriptions for same.

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 1:38 PM

I agree with this but not with the rest.

The morning after pill is compared to very strong birth control, which is also taken so that someone can have sex, knowing pregnancy is possible. One of the ways birth control stops pregnancy is by making the uterus an unwelcome place for a fetus.

So I don’t see much difference between the two and have never considered the pill to be immoral.

But that’s just my personal opinion.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Faithfulness is an attitude that has to be nourished.

justincase on January 26, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Good point. If you’ve lived previously with the idea that sex is to be enjoyed whenever and however you like it, being monogamous is likely more difficult than for someone who has always viewed sex as something to be enjoyed in marriage.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 1:45 PM

But if we’re to the point where we’re not calling it a child until it’s implanted itself, I’d take it. It would severely reduce the number of abortions.

And personally, I don’t fault anyone for causing the miscarriage of a pregnancy they didn’t know existed. It’s why I’m not against the morning after pill.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 1:29 PM

I agree that a pragmatic approach is what is ultimately workable, though I think it will end up at several weeks further along in the pregnancy.

Whether we find fault with a mother or not, the millions of lives lost should be a concern–that is if they are equal to lives of other citizens, once conception has occurred. If, however, society increases the value it puts in the fetus during the gestation period, then we can dismiss the millions of fertilized eggs that die every year as a byproduct of fertility.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Theology aside, evidence points to Judaism and Christianity being made for civilization.

Count to 10 on January 26, 2010 at 1:27 PM

I’m not sure I get what you’re saying here. Please expand.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 1:51 PM

The problem here seems to be the one-size-fits all public schooling approach to something that is much better suited to parents.

Count to 10 on January 26, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Certainly. This should always be the job of parents. Education should be the job of schools.

Then you are not really talking about rights, but culpability. Additionally, there is the issue of letting all people behave as if they were as ignorant as most people.

Count to 10 on January 26, 2010 at 1:43 PM

That’s how this whole thing first started, with the law. Ignorance should always legally be permitted. Morally is another issue.

But sin itself is knowingly disobeying God. It’s the intention of the act, rather than the act by itself.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 1:51 PM

I would hope for a strong negative attack from the immoral minority. Their attacks on Gov. Palin in 2008 are what caused me to seek truth and wisdom. I found out that God’s son Jesus gave me the path to eternal life with the Father by taking the bullet, jumping on the grenade, sacrificing himself so that we may be forgiven our fatal sins. I have the right kind of hope and a grateful heart today because of the commies that hate the one who loves.
Jesus did for mankind what Michael Monsoor did for his buddies, only he knew what had to be done all along. It was his mission, his life, to die in order that we would be saved from our own misery and death.

Texas Tom on January 26, 2010 at 1:52 PM

I am just happy that HotAir is learning the awesomness of one Timothy Tebow, a fact we have known for many years here in Gator Country.

Squid Shark on January 26, 2010 at 1:56 PM

And as for the behavior of the “most couples” you cite — well, is that behavior done in full knowledge, or in ignorance? If in full knowledge, you have a point as to their feelings on the matter, but if done in ignorance, you do not.

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 1:34 PM

If the couples are ignorant, those with strong views that conception is the moment that life becomes precious would be morally compelled to get the message out on breast feeding and other factors that effect the ability of the blastocyst to implant. At least some couples would be receptive, reducing abortions by thousands.

I see your point on the Socratic question. Yes, research would imply some value.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 1:59 PM

That’s cool if Tebow wants to make a pro-life ad. Celebrities should use their influence to promote causes they think are important. That would make them pretty shallow if they really believed in something but didn’t do anything about it.

The anti-medical undertone to the story disturbs me a little, though. It sounds like it would fit right into the “doctors aren’t always right, so you should never listen to them” mythology. Hopefully the ad won’t have the same contempt for the medical establishment as those stories.

Not really sure how it’s gutsy, either. The NFL is one of the most Christian workplaces in the world. He’s not really risking anything except a few nasty op-eds.

RightOFLeft on January 26, 2010 at 2:05 PM

RightOFLeft on January 26, 2010 at 2:05 PM

I think that certain teams who might have been the ones to give him a shot would shy away now.

Squid Shark on January 26, 2010 at 2:07 PM

dear lord a pretty boy football player says he’s happy to be born and this is a “daring stand”? did I mention he has a girlfriend with huge breasts? Look I don’t have a problem with what he’s saying but if this is the height of moral courage than maybe you should go do some service with the homeless. At least Tebow does go and do volunteer work I wonder when the last time that noisy talking heal Labarber did anything to help humanity.

Zekecorlain on January 26, 2010 at 2:08 PM

The anti-medical undertone to the story disturbs me a little, though. It sounds like it would fit right into the “doctors aren’t always right, so you should never listen to them” mythology. Hopefully the ad won’t have the same contempt for the medical establishment as those stories.
RightOFLeft on January 26, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Quite a leap you make there.

Doctors aren’t always right, as a matter of fact. The best ones know this.

When it comes to health policy, too many folks blindly follow the loudest megaphone/most “authoritive” voice. Good science is important, but not infallible. Just because a doc says “this baby will almost certainly have (x,y, z) condition due to (a, b, c)” doesn’t mean it’s true.

True science incorporates new data on an ongoing basis.

cs89 on January 26, 2010 at 2:16 PM

I wonder if this is a walls-around-walls problem.

Count to 10 on January 26, 2010 at 1:15 PM

I’m not familiar with the exact term, but two examples come to mind. First Julius Caesar in Gaul using two walls to defeat a superior force. More recently, with information systems, we’ve had to frequently deal with multi-factor authentication, and carry around SecureID cards to get at private information.

If the goal is stopping unwanted pregnancy rather than simply stopping sex, then a two-factor approach seems better than a single factor. We do it all the time with drinking and driving for young people–”don’t drink, but if anyone drinks absolutely don’t get in a car”.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 2:16 PM

I think that certain teams who might have been the ones to give him a shot would shy away now.

Squid Shark on January 26, 2010 at 2:07 PM

I think he’d be more of a hot potato if he had made a pro-choice advert. If the league can handle Kurt Warner, Tim Tebow shouldn’t be a problem. Any controversy over the ad is going to be overshadowed by his prospects of on-the-field success.

RightOFLeft on January 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM

I think he’d be more of a hot potato if he had made a pro-choice advert. If the league can handle Kurt Warner, Tim Tebow shouldn’t be a problem. Any controversy over the ad is going to be overshadowed by his prospects of on-the-field success.

RightOFLeft on January 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM

I know the perfect Bible Belt Team that is in desprate need of a QB….his hometown JAGUARS! :)

Squid Shark on January 26, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Whether we find fault with a mother or not, the millions of lives lost should be a concern–that is if they are equal to lives of other citizens, once conception has occurred. If, however, society increases the value it puts in the fetus during the gestation period, then we can dismiss the millions of fertilized eggs that die every year as a byproduct of fertility.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Society can’t feel a loss it doesn’t know it’s had. It’s beyond practical. Your argument here is similar to saying that we’ve all lost species of animals that have gone extinct in remote areas of the jungle before we even had a chance to learn what they were.

Maybe it’s true, but it isn’t felt by anyone.

Knowingly exterminating the animals once they’re discovered though, is something else.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 2:34 PM

And that Focus on the Family probably shelled out 3 million (that’s how much CBS is charging for 30 sec spots), money gathered not from the coffers of the struggling organization, which has had to lay off hundreds of employees, but private individuals who channeled their money through Focus on the Family specifically to fund the ad.”

Alternet is so dang hypocritical and so are the people who pay attention to them. Last week they rail against Corporations having the ability to override Average Joe’s Free Political Speech with a SCOTUS decision. Today, the rail about Average Joe pooling their money together and using their Free Political Speech. It’s all you need to know about the Left. Free Speech simply means let ONLY Leftists speak, speak loud, speak cost-free, and speak often.

Sultry Beauty on January 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Gee. I wonder how many mothers he will kill with his bad anecdotal medical advice…

tommylotto on January 26, 2010 at 2:40 PM

At least some couples would be receptive, reducing abortions by thousands.

dedalus on January 26, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Considering most women don’t even know they’re pregnant before implantation, how do you get a number like this, especially considering that many women do manage to get pregnant while breast feeding?

Besides, you haven’t mentioned a way to prevent these miscarriages aside from not having sex or not breast feeding. Having a child after 35 also carries increased risk of miscarriage, but that doesn’t mean it’s morally wrong to get pregnant late in life.

I’m just not sure what you’re trying to do here except prove that we don’t care about life at inception, but that’s difficult to prove since it’s impossible to know you’re pregnant at the moment of conception.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Gee. I wonder how many mothers he will kill with his bad anecdotal medical advice…

tommylotto on January 26, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Anyone stupid enough to base their entire medical health on the advice of a kid who’s glad to be alive because his mother didn’t abort him is also stupid enough to drink rubbing alcohol when the beer runs dry. I wouldn’t worry too much over the choices of stupid people.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 2:47 PM

The anti-medical undertone to the story disturbs me a little, though. It sounds like it would fit right into the “doctors aren’t always right, so you should never listen to them” mythology. Hopefully the ad won’t have the same contempt for the medical establishment as those stories.
RightOFLeft on January 26, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Pointing out that doctors. do not always make the right diagnosis is not “anti-medical” nor is it showing “contempt”.

If you want to see contempt though, try going to a doctor’s office visit with a woman who has decided not to abort a child that doctors have diagnosed as having a serious, possibly life-threatening defect. You’ll see contempt all right. But it won’t be aimed at the doctors.

Lily on January 26, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5