Tebow ad exposes the intolerance of the “tolerant” Left

posted at 11:00 am on February 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Sally Jenkins, a pro-choice columnist for the Washington Post, writes a devastating essay today on the reaction from her side of the abortion issue to the Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow that celebrates choosing life.  Jenkins says she couldn’t disagree more with Tebow on the issue of abortion, but cannot believe the kind of knee-jerk overreaction coming from NOW, which Jenkins presumes refers to “National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us.”  Jenkins says the overwrought reaction exposes the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant Left and shows that so-called “pro-choice” groups are really more pro-abortion:

I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikini selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.

As for those who say the Super Bowl is no forum for personal perspectives on life, Jenkins offers a particularly compelling counterargument:

His critics find this intrusive, and say the Super Bowl is no place for an argument of this nature. “Pull the ad,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “Let’s focus on the game.”

Trouble is, you can’t focus on the game without focusing on the individuals who play it — and that is the genius of Tebow’s ad. The Super Bowl is not some reality-free escape zone. Tebow himself is an inescapable fact: Abortion doesn’t just involve serious issues of life, but of potential lives, Heisman trophy winners, scientists, doctors, artists, inventors, Little Leaguers — who would never come to be if their birth mothers had not wrestled with the stakes and chosen to carry those lives to term. And their stories are every bit as real and valid as the stories preferred by NOW.

Shouldn’t tolerance include hearing opposing viewpoints, or at least allowing them to be aired in public forums?  After all, tolerance means putting up with something, not agreeing with it.  If the only ideas we allowed to air publicly were those that had almost-total consensus, that’s not tolerance but political correctness — a rhetorical straitjacket that goes against the very idea of free speech.

When groups like NOW want to silence people like the Tebows, they’re doing so to protect their own turf.  The ad asks people to choose life, not to ban abortion.  If NOW really was pro-choice, they’d see nothing invalid about showing the end result of one choice and the faith that carried the Tebows from that terrifying diagnosis to the pinnacle of athletic and scholarly success.  Tebow represents hope in the midst of hopelessness.  NOW doesn’t want people to have hope; they want women to buy abortions, and this ugly response has made that crystal clear.

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 7

I’m proabortion (choice is a euphism) but I think that the public needs more information from both sides, not less.

IlikedAUH2O on February 2, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion.

Nutshell.

ladyingray on February 2, 2010 at 11:04 AM

This notion that the Left is tolerant is such a bunch of BS. They are pushing their own value system on the country with as much force as any religious group.

WisCon on February 2, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Tebow ad exposes the intolerance of the “tolerant” Left

Yes, and yet it never stops them; even though no one has seen the ad.

In the end, I’d bet that CBS wont air the ad. Takers?

OSUBuciz1 on February 2, 2010 at 11:06 AM

So in other words, you think any politician who doesn’t vote to make abortion totally illegal should be killed?

Jimbo3 on February 1, 2010 at 2:19 PM
I stand by that. What would you have me say? Murder is excusable because it’s defended by current law?

To hell with your pacifistic baiting! At the top of our lungs we are screaming about fifty million dead infants, and you are trying to claim moral high ground against my supposed psychosis. Have at it as long as it pleases you, but don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

KinleyArdal on February 1, 2010 at 2:22 PM

So you think it’s morally appropriate for you to kill someone who refused to pass a law banning abortion? Isn’t that murder?

If you… as a leader… support and endorse the slaughter of our children… and vote against the laws which would protect said children… you are party… to murder… and ought suffer the penalty… for murder…

It cannot be said any more plainly.

KinleyArdal on February 1, 2010 at 5:55 PM

–It’s not just the pro-choicers who want to silence pro-lifers. (In total fairness to KinleyArdal, he now clarified his remarks to say that he meant legal processes would be followed before execution.)

–And Tebow is not playing in the Super Bowl.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 11:07 AM

I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.

Neither would I. There is no pleasure in meeting someone so irrational as that. And to top it off, in true leftist form, she probably has bad breath, body odor, and probably hasn’t washed or even combed her hair in a while.

UltimateBob on February 2, 2010 at 11:10 AM

The abortion industry is a cash cow for its participants, any message that presents alternative choices is not cool with them.

infidel4life on February 2, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Expose these people for the intolerant haters that they are.

BuckeyeSam on February 2, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Contrast the liberal reaction to Janet Jackson’s sterile nipple shot and pornographicaly terrible singing: To even suggest that such a thing might be innappropriate for children watching was a bullet to the heart of the entire concept of “free speech.”

But publically stating a POLITICAL OPINION? Shock! Outrage! Verboten! The liberal re-interpretation of the Constitution was written specifically to protect American citizens from just this sort of thing.

logis on February 2, 2010 at 11:11 AM

I’m pro-life, but my wife leans more pro-choice. I linked this article to her at work and she had an interesting response.

She has no problem with the ad airing, but as she says…

They are pro-choice and acknowledging it is easy for people like Tebow’s mom who make the “right” choice, to appear in a commercial about how great she is and her choice was. Arguably maybe those who make the “wrong” choice should feel bad, or realize how much better they might feel if they choose life, but more likely they will just feel ashamed. And all that accomplishes is further emotional trauma, and marginalization for these women.

Not to mention that it is silly to me that the argument seems to be that Heisman trophy winners are more valuable than a normal child’s life. Don’t have an abortion because, beside the fact that you are killing your potential child, you could be killing your meal ticket. I think Tebow’s mom’s choice is admirable, not because Tebow is a Heisman trophy winner, but because she was willing to put her life on the line.

Now, I don’t completely agree with the first paragraph, but I did laugh when she mentioned the meal-ticket thing as that does seem to be an unintended consequence of this ad, haha.

conservativeinthecity on February 2, 2010 at 11:12 AM

I was wondering why I didn’t see you in the last thread anymore, Jim. :D

By all means, I invite everyone to read the thread about Lila Rose on the left side of homepage. Read, digest, decide for yourself.

Nothing’s changed, Jim, nor will it, and yours is as lost a soul as any I’ve ever met.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Let us be clear. The “pro-choice” zealots are really pro-murder.

SouthernGent on February 2, 2010 at 11:12 AM

From Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech.

… what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them … suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private … The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

Substitute “abortion” for “slavery” and it is very apropos to this controversy. It’s not sufficient to allow for freedom of choice, we also have suppress any speech that would claim abortion is a bad choice.

PackerBronco on February 2, 2010 at 11:12 AM

In the end, I’d bet that CBS wont air the ad. Takers?

OSUBuciz1 on February 2, 2010 at 11:06 AM

I’d be tempted to take that bet. CBS may be politically correct, but they know ratings gold when they see it.

UltimateBob on February 2, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Seeing the story immediately above this one makes me think of how NOW could could counter the Tebow ad. NOW could create a commercial with Mrs. Abdulmutallab talking about what a loser her son is and that she should have aborted him.

behiker on February 2, 2010 at 11:14 AM

“Pull the ad,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “Let’s focus on the game.”

Terry O’Neill is such a big football fan that she hasn’t even noticed the cultural phenomenon that Super Bowl ads (usually having absolutely nothing to do with football) have been for, well, decades.

Pablo on February 2, 2010 at 11:15 AM

That’s how far we’ve come from any kind of sane viewpoint about star athletes and sex. Promiscuity is so the norm that if a stud isn’t shagging everything in sight, we feel faintly ashamed for him.

Now that is a great article! Thanks ED for posting it. The more I hear about this guy, the more I like him.

Mord on February 2, 2010 at 11:15 AM

While for most people NOW lost whatever moral standing they had 12 years ago, when they decided Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment of women and his affair with Monica Lewisky was a-OK (Gloria Steinem’s “One free grope” rationale), for many liberals, NOW has to keep coming up with new outrages to refocus their attention on what the group’s real goal are.

It would be nice if this was a move that opened Sally’s eyes forever, but odds are that like most liberals post-9/11, they’ll go back to their old beliefs once the controversy fades into memory.

jon1979 on February 2, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Expose these people for the intolerant haters that they are.

BuckeyeSam on February 2, 2010 at 11:10 AM

“… for I have seen the nipple on your soul.”

– Elaine Benes

UltimateBob on February 2, 2010 at 11:16 AM

I want to thank the pro-abortion people for drawing a huge amount of attention to an ad that would otherwise have been ignored by a bunch of drunk guys scrounging around in the kitchen looking for more snacks.

Daggett on February 2, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Repeat:

Just the Facts

I always post this link when the subject comes up. Please pass it around.

Shy Guy on February 2, 2010 at 11:18 AM

In the end, I’d bet that CBS wont air the ad. Takers?

OSUBuciz1 on February 2, 2010 at 11:06 AM
I’d be tempted to take that bet. CBS may be politically correct, but they know ratings gold when they see it.

UltimateBob on February 2, 2010 at 11:13 AM

–CBS will air the ad and may decide to air other “controversial” type ads in the future (in connection with their policy change) so long as (i) the number of people viewing the Super Bowl doesn’t drop during the time period this ad runs (while adjusting for the fact that people go get beer/food/bathroom breaks during some commericals) and (ii) no other advertiser complains that they won’t buy ads in the future because of this (or this ad’s placement in relation to their ad).

CBS is not running this ad out of the goodness of its soul. It’s doing this because it can make additional money off.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 11:18 AM

“… for I have seen the nipple on your soul.”

– Elaine Benes

UltimateBob on February 2, 2010 at 11:16 AM

That is the most oddball quote I have seen in a year of browsing. o.O It is, in fact, so odd, that I must now look it up to see what the context is.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM

Shouldn’t tolerance include hearing opposing viewpoints, or at least allowing them to be aired in public forums?

I often wonder when we’ll get the hard questions thrown at us here on Hot Air. The answer is of course, no! The Left only seeks tolerance of their belief system. Yours/ours is merely hate speech and downright Neanderthal thinking.

hawkdriver on February 2, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Love that whole fake of “this is about football, not pregnancy rights” or “let’s focus on the game” – coming from NOW of all places. Ha! Yeah, you know those NOW women are all gathered round their sets on Superbowl sunday high-fiving every skilled play.

The Superbowl has been as much about everything NOT related to football in the last 20 years as it has been about football. Superbowl commercials are in some respects bigger than the game – at least for people who don’t watch the game with much interest. Careerbuilder, Budbowls, lingerie bowls, Justin Timberlake? Come on.

Liars and hypocrites.

somewhatconcerned on February 2, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Would the correct term for Tebow’s opponents be pro-death or anti-life?

hawksruleva on February 2, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Ms. Jenkins is coming dangerously close to getting a “welcome home” from Rush Limbaugh.

forest on February 2, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Now, I don’t completely agree with the first paragraph, but I did laugh when she mentioned the meal-ticket thing as that does seem to be an unintended consequence of this ad, haha.

conservativeinthecity on February 2, 2010 at 11:12 AM

I really doubt that Mrs. Tebow was aware that Tim was going to win the Heisman when she decided not to abort him.

As to kids being a meal ticket, most kids are only to happy to help support their parents.

MarkTheGreat on February 2, 2010 at 11:22 AM

The reason NOW and other leftists don’t want the opposing view point is because the truth shall set people free and evil does not want the truth to shine. Yes, EVIL, NOW and the likes are pure unadulterated evil.

immigrantchick on February 2, 2010 at 11:23 AM

The NAGs secretly wish they could’ve married a nice guy like Tim.

NebCon on February 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM

What say you Mr. “I don’t want my daughters punished with a baby” President?

joepub on February 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM

The ad asks people to choose life, not to ban abortion.

That is why they are so vehemently opposed to this ad.

If the Tebows were out there saying that abortion needs to be outlawed, then all the pro-abortion groups would be able to point to it and say, “They want to deny you the right to reproductive choice!”

But, the “Choose Life” message is one they cannot counter.

Those of us in the pro-life movement know that getting the laws on abortion changed is a fight that is still in its infancy. But, encouraging young women and men to choose life, to not fall prey to the lies of the abortion lobby will have profound effect on the number of abortions.

Jvette on February 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Terry O’Neill is such a big football fan that she hasn’t even noticed the cultural phenomenon that Super Bowl ads (usually having absolutely nothing to do with football) have been for, well, decades.

Pablo on February 2, 2010 at 11:15 AM

I know a number of people who’s only reason for watching the super bowl is to see the ads. Can’t wait for the new GoDaddy ad. How will they top last years ad?

MarkTheGreat on February 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Many people who claim to be “pro-Choice” really are pro-abortion. They see abortion as being a societally useful thing to be promoted, particularly among the poor and minority communities.

This has been true since the days of their patron saint, Margaret Sanger. She saw abortion as a necessary part of the eugenics movement to build a better human race. In cases of pregnancies that were likely to result in children that Sanger and her ilk would consider undesirable, there was to be no choice in the matter at all.

gridlock2 on February 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM

I guess the First Amendment doesn’t apply to political thought. Maybe if the ad included some naked women being degraded by men, it would be protected speech?

hawksruleva on February 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM

MartTheGreat: you are so right, Christian kids are usually ore than happy to care for their parents, especially since their parents have given them everything, including the values to make them what they are, and this boy is a great example. I pray to God to be able to raise Godly children like Tim. What an amazing kid.

immigrantchick on February 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM

That is the most oddball quote I have seen in a year of browsing. o.O It is, in fact, so odd, that I must now look it up to see what the context is.

Well, either reference to classic Seinfeld, or a clever metaphor for the soulless “wardrobe malfunction” that is the NOW organization in their response to this ad. It would appear their skirts have been pulled over their heads.

somewhatconcerned on February 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM

But, the “Choose Life” message is one they cannot counter.

Those of us in the pro-life movement know that getting the laws on abortion changed is a fight that is still in its infancy.

Jvette on February 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM

That message and Ultrasound might make the fight moot. Fetuses look a lot like babies, to the extent that even workers at abortion clinics are disturbed by their actions. I’ve read a dozen cases of workers in the abortion industry switching sides; but I can’t think of one example of the opposite. With diligence, we can win in the realm of ideas, without a new law. Someday abortion will be some garish fad of a bygone generation.

hawksruleva on February 2, 2010 at 11:29 AM

…but more likely they will just feel ashamed. And all that accomplishes is further emotional trauma, and marginalization for these women.

conservativeinthecity on February 2, 2010 at 11:12 AM

I wish the pro-abortion side would make up their minds. Either abortion is a minor medical procedure nothing more than cleaning the body of undifferentiated cells or it is something that will cause emotional trauma.

If it is likely to cause someone emotional trauma years later wouldn’t it be best if the patient was validly informed of all options, all consequences? Make an informed decision rather than just have it dismissed as “no big deal?”

katiejane on February 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM

I would love to see what the Pro-Abortion counterpoint ad would look like.

It would be “Beth” telling her Pro-Abortion story.
“Well I got knocked up by this guy on Spring Break. He was real hot, but I didn’t get his home address. So I got an abortion so my boyfriend wouldn’t find out about it. But now I am dating this cool DJ at the hotest bar in town. I am so glad I didn’t have to get fat or anything.”

barnone on February 2, 2010 at 11:32 AM

“The science is settled…

…it’s just a clump of cells.” /sarc

Roc on February 2, 2010 at 11:33 AM

–It’s not just the pro-choicers who want to silence pro-lifers. (In total fairness to KinleyArdal, he now clarified his remarks to say that he meant legal processes would be followed before execution.)

–And Tebow is not playing in the Super Bowl.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 11:07 AM

You can’t try and punish people, let alone execute them, for acts committed that were at the time legal. So, no, he doesn’t mean legal processes would be followed.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 11:34 AM

I’m a pro-choice Republican, and this is so intolerent it is unbelievable, or I guess it is believable.. Look how NOW(only if you agree with their agenda), turned their back on Sarah Palin and let the looney left cut her down, so much for supporting women.

reshas1 on February 2, 2010 at 11:35 AM

I’ve been corresponding with a fellow film fan for over 10 years now. He’s a film historian, and he knows the filmmaker who made the Tebow ad.

This guy is as hard-left as they come, but he supports his friend’s right to make this ad. When a few of his other friends, all NOW types, started to give him flack, he had this simple response:

True liberalism means standing up for the opposing view’s right to be heard.

He’s right, of course.

Del Dolemonte on February 2, 2010 at 11:35 AM

As for those who say the Super Bowl is no forum for personal perspectives on life, Jenkins offers a particularly compelling counterargument

I have no problem with it being a forum for “personal perspectives on life”. I do have a problem with the topic of abortion appearing during the Super Bowl, because the audience includes children. I haven’t seen the ad, but if it uses the word “abortion” instead of vague euphemisms like “choosing life” it’s inappropriate (as would be any likely counter argument from the abortion rights crowd).

Buy Danish on February 2, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Watch the next attacks to be aimed at Sally Jenkins.

“How dare you betray our side! You’re just as evil as the anti-abortion side!”

rbj on February 2, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Tebow represents hope in the midst of hopelessness. NOW doesn’t want people to have hope; they want women to buy abortions, and this ugly response has made that crystal clear.

+++1000 for most eloquent quote

lovingmyUSA on February 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Super Bowl Commercials for me are usually a good opportunity to go take a leak. Thanks to NOW, Tebow’s ad has been made into Must See TV. Stretched bladders across the land…

SurferDoc on February 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I guess the First Amendment doesn’t apply to political thought. Maybe if the ad included some naked women being degraded by men, it would be protected speech?

hawksruleva on February 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM

–The First Amendment doesn’t apply in this situation. It’s not the government deciding what ads to run, it’s CBS.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I wish the pro-abortion side would make up their minds. Either abortion is a minor medical procedure nothing more than cleaning the body of undifferentiated cells or it is something that will cause emotional trauma.

If it is likely to cause someone emotional trauma years later wouldn’t it be best if the patient was validly informed of all options, all consequences? Make an informed decision rather than just have it dismissed as “no big deal?”

katiejane on February 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Pro-aborts deny that there are any lasting effects, yet claim that seeing this may make some women ashamed.

It is another way in which they must twist and spin to hide the truth. The ado about this ad reveals their schizophrenia.

Jvette on February 2, 2010 at 11:38 AM

While for most people NOW lost whatever moral standing they had 12 years ago, when they decided Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment of women and his affair with Monica Lewisky was a-OK (Gloria Steinem’s “One free grope” rationale), for many liberals, NOW has to keep coming up with new outrages to refocus their attention on what the group’s real goal are.

jon1979 on February 2, 2010 at 11:15 AM

What was so hypocritical about NOW and the other womens’ groups in that Clinton debacle was that they had no problem with him engaging in a sexual relationship in the workplace, with a workplace subordinate.

And they also totally ignored that several years earlier, Bill had his Justice Dept. successfully prosecute a female Federal employee for lying under oath about sex. She broke the law, but then they said he was above it.

Del Dolemonte on February 2, 2010 at 11:39 AM

“Well I got knocked up by this guy on Spring Break. He was real hot, but I didn’t get his home address. So I got an abortion so my boyfriend wouldn’t find out about it. But now I am dating this cool DJ at the hotest bar in town. I am so glad I didn’t have to get fat or anything.”

barnone on February 2, 2010 at 11:32 AM

That is just funny! Thanks:)

Jvette on February 2, 2010 at 11:42 AM

–The First Amendment doesn’t apply in this situation. It’s not the government deciding what ads to run, it’s CBS.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM

That is so. Therefore, we will simply not watch CBS. O.o

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Leftists: you have the right to say anything you want as long as it doesn’t upset me.

angryed on February 2, 2010 at 11:45 AM

but cannot believe the kind of knee-jerk overreaction coming from NOW, which Jenkins presumes refers to “National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us.” Jenkins says the overwrought reaction exposes the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant Left and shows that so-called “pro-choice” groups are really more pro-abortion:

I can’t believe she’s just now figuring this out.

Bob's Kid on February 2, 2010 at 11:47 AM

The First Amendment doesn’t apply in this situation. It’s not the government deciding what ads to run, it’s CBS.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM
That is so. Therefore, we will simply not watch CBS. O.o

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 11:44 AM

-The Super Bowl is on CBS (one of the US’ free tv channels). I’m wondering if you may not live in the US cause of several things you’ve recently written. Is that right?

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 11:49 AM

-The Super Bowl is on CBS (one of the US’ free tv channels). I’m wondering if you may not live in the US cause of several things you’ve recently written. Is that right?

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Born in Texas, raised in Nebraska. Whether it is free or not is irrelevant, let’s just not watch it. o.o Who cares if it hurts revenue? That isn’t the point, though it would be more telling.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Tebow ad exposes the intolerance of the “tolerant” Left.

Sort of redundant (that is, it’s not as if we needed Tebow’s ad to demonstrate “the intolerance of the ‘tolerant’ Left”) but always nice to have an important truth reaffirmed. More people might begin to get it.

rrpjr on February 2, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Pro-death
Pro-sin
Pro destruction of human life to benefit…….me.

Hening on February 2, 2010 at 11:57 AM

This ad may invite a few more chicks to watch the game out of curiosity. It may increase their audience amongst NOW hags a lot. Good money move CBS.

seven on February 2, 2010 at 11:57 AM

It is my opinion that the left only pressures on the abortion issue because it gives them yet another way to NOT take responsibility for their actions.

Sponge on February 2, 2010 at 11:58 AM

conservativeinthecity on February 2, 2010 at 11:12 AM

I would like to hear fewer women referring to children as “meal tickets,” whether they are jackpot babies, welfare checks, emotional collateral or child support payments. And God forbid your child grows up to represent the pinnacle of human achievement, whether they be an Olympic gold medalist, a Heisman trophy winner, President of the US or someone who discovers a cure for cancer!

No no no! Babies are “punishment.” /sarc

chunderroad on February 2, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Shouldn’t tolerance include hearing opposing viewpoints, or at least allowing them to be aired in public forums?

The Super Bowl, because of CBS’ policy of refusing political ads, is not a public forum. It’s like they’re renting an auditorium, posting a sign that says “No Protesters,” and then letting one side in through the back door at the last minute. Pro-life groups are not the ones being silenced here. CBS’ selective enforcement of their policy amounts to an actual policy of prior restraint on pro-choice viewpoints. That’s their right, but it’s hardly intolerance to point out the basic unfairness of their behavior.

The ad asks people to choose life, not to ban abortion.

The ad is prominently backed by Focus on the Family — a name curiously absent from Ed’s post. Focus on the Family explicitly supports banning abortion:

We desire to end the practice of abortion: making it both illegal and unthinkable.

The intent of the ad is plain:

To imply that abortion is morally wrong even when the health of the mother is at risk, and

To leverage Tebow’s celebrity to raise the profile of a radical anti-abortion group.

I don’t know how anyone has managed to convince themselves that the ad is remotely apolitical.

RightOFLeft on February 2, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Buy Danish on February 2, 2010 at 11:36 AM

From the article:

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.”

I hardly think this will be the most “inappropriate for the children” ad you’ll see all night.

Quisp on February 2, 2010 at 12:00 PM

If NOW really was pro-choice, they’d see nothing invalid about showing the end result of one choice and the faith that carried the Tebows from that terrifying diagnosis to the pinnacle of athletic and scholarly success

Agreed. It really is comforting to Roe v. Wade is so ingrained in our political landscape that even “pro-life” groups talk of making a “choice” for life. I think even they are beginning to cherish, and appreciate that choice.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 12:01 PM

CBS is free to air whatever ads they choose.
No one but the bosses at CBS has any right to determine what airs, within legal frameworks.
So if they get scared bcs of all the nutbags screaming about this ad & pull it, then that is their right.
But for the people who are screaming to stop the ad, they haven’t even seen it yet & just bcs they disagree with the mesg doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be aired.
I disagree with a lot of homosexual promoting ads on TV I’ve seen, but I don’t get all worked up about it.
I just do not watch those channels.
My right.
This is such a non-issue I cannot believe how nuts people are getting all worked up over this.

They are pro-choice and acknowledging it is easy for people like Tebow’s mom who make the “right” choice, to appear in a commercial about how great she is and her choice was. Arguably maybe those who make the “wrong” choice should feel bad, or realize how much better they might feel if they choose life, but more likely they will just feel ashamed. And all that accomplishes is further emotional trauma, and marginalization for these women.

Not to mention that it is silly to me that the argument seems to be that Heisman trophy winners are more valuable than a normal child’s life. Don’t have an abortion because, beside the fact that you are killing your potential child, you could be killing your meal ticket. I think Tebow’s mom’s choice is admirable, not because Tebow is a Heisman trophy winner, but because she was willing to put her life on the line.

Now, I don’t completely agree with the first paragraph, but I did laugh when she mentioned the meal-ticket thing as that does seem to be an unintended consequence of this ad, haha.

conservativeinthecity on February 2, 2010 at 11:12 AM

With all due respect to your lovely wife, I really think that she thinks way too much.
If a viewer feels ‘bad’ about such a decision they’ve made, or are thinking of making, that is their problem.
Shame is a good thing when used properly.
More people need to shamed into changing their bad behavior.
And I really don’t know why she would think that such a mesg. is saying one child is more valuable than another.
Unless you consider, of course, the fact that an aborted child is evidently worth less than another bcs it was killed before it ever got a chance to make its own case for life.

Badger40 on February 2, 2010 at 12:04 PM

I think even they are beginning to cherish, and appreciate that choice.
crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 12:01 PM

That’s a human life growing in a woman’s womb. Not a choice.

kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Born in Texas, raised in Nebraska. Whether it is free or not is irrelevant, let’s just not watch it. o.o Who cares if it hurts revenue? That isn’t the point, though it would be more telling.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 11:53 AM

–Kinley, we have to watch the Super Bowl. If we don’t, Tinker Bell will die. Besides, it should be a good game.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 12:08 PM

That’s a human life growing in a woman’s womb. Not a choice.

kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Why stop there? Aren’t you killing a child right now, because you’re not having sex?

See how that works?

Next.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 12:09 PM

But, the “Choose Life” message is one they cannot counter.
Jvette on February 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Of course. The implicit assumption of the pro choice position is that abortion is a morally neutral choice. Once you put forward the proposition that it’s better to choose life, you have undermined their core position. As I noted in the Lincoln quote from above, it’s not enough in their minds to allow for abortion, you also have to refrain from saying that abortion is a moral evil.

PackerBronco on February 2, 2010 at 12:09 PM

–The First Amendment doesn’t apply in this situation. It’s not the government deciding what ads to run, it’s CBS.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I think his point was that NOW pressuring CBS to not air it would be anti-first if not an outright infringement.

hawkdriver on February 2, 2010 at 12:10 PM

They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion.

Exact-a-mundo! This is the guise of the leftest position exposed for what it is…hate and intolerance.

royzer on February 2, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Why stop there? Aren’t you killing a child right now, because you’re not having sex?

See how that works?

Next.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 12:09 PM

???

That’s like saying “aren’t you robbing a bank right now because you’re not spending money?”

Really, in all of the arguments you could have made, that has to be the dumbest.

PackerBronco on February 2, 2010 at 12:11 PM

The First Amendment doesn’t apply in this situation. It’s not the government deciding what ads to run, it’s CBS.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM
I think his point was that NOW pressuring CBS to not air it would be anti-first if not an outright infringement.

hawkdriver on February 2, 2010 at 12:10 PM

–No it wouldn’t. CBS, like other broadcasters, can do whatever it wants. The First Amendment only applies to government action.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Of course. The implicit assumption of the pro choice position is that abortion is a morally neutral choice. Once you put forward the proposition that it’s better to choose life, you have undermined their core position. As I noted in the Lincoln quote from above, it’s not enough in their minds to allow for abortion, you also have to refrain from saying that abortion is a moral evil.

PackerBronco on February 2, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Not really. “Moral evil” is a bit strong, but it’s certainly not preferable. I’d rather people “choose life” and I’d gladly support efforts to rarify abortions (i.e. through wider use of contraceptives, improved sex ed.) but I think they women still have that choice available.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Really, in all of the arguments you could have made, that has to be the dumbest.

PackerBronco on February 2, 2010 at 12:11 PM

That’s not my argument, it’s yours. But I do agree that it’s stupid. You believe the potential for human life=human life. I simply flushed out that idea a bit more for you.

Welcome to the pro-choice camp.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Why stop there? Aren’t you killing a child right now, because you’re not having sex?
See how that works?
Next.
crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Huh? I’ve seen inept attempts at logic before, but that takes first prize.

kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 12:16 PM

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 12:15 PM

What do you mean “Potential human life”? That’s not a puppy growing in there. And before you say “clump of cells”, remember, you are a “clump of cells” also.

kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Huh?

kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 12:16 PM

haha, I love the initial reactions of pro-lifers when they hear that argument. First they’re confused. Then they slowly realize it’s the logical endpoint of their reasoning and they become embarrassed. It should hit you in a few seconds…

There it is : )

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM

I am willing to bet our Lord loathes abortion even more than most of us…

Matthew 19 (English Standard Version)
13Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” 15And he laid his hands on them and went away.

OmahaConservative on February 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Embarrassed? I’m embarrassed at your idiocy.

kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Liberal progressives (a.k.a. regressive utopians) want everything to be about the collective, the hive (taxes, welfare, health care, hi-def t.v., etc.) EXCEPT for the ability to obtain abortions.

Killing one’s own baby legally must remain an INDIVIDUAL right – a palatable CHOICE. And it all loops around and falls right into line with their actual goals: Money, Power & Population control (genocide). Teach the masses that there is zero personal accountability for any heinous action & your herd will be smaller, dumber, morally depraved and oh, so malleable.

Ris4victory on February 2, 2010 at 12:22 PM

What do you mean “Potential human life”? That’s not a puppy growing in there. And before you say “clump of cells”, remember, you are a “clump of cells” also.

kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Your sperm and a woman’s egg are also clumps of cells. They have the exact same “potential for human life” as an embryo. So by your logic, you are killing a child right now by not having sex.

The point being, that you have to draw the line somewhere much later…I personally would say it’s when a fetus is capable of surviving outside of the womb. It’s difficult to say that’s not “human life”.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Embarrassed? I’m embarrassed at your idiocy.

kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Again, that’s your reasoning, not mine. If it sounds stupid for you, perhaps you should reconsider your position.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 12:23 PM

I meant to add in: like crr6 (prime example)

Ris4victory on February 2, 2010 at 12:23 PM

They are pro-choice and acknowledging it is easy for people like Tebow’s mom who make the “right” choice, to appear in a commercial about how great she is and her choice was. Arguably maybe those who make the “wrong” choice should feel bad, or realize how much better they might feel if they choose life, but more likely they will just feel ashamed. And all that accomplishes is further emotional trauma, and marginalization for these women.

So people who are happy that they didn’t kill their child and grateful that it turned out ok should just sit down and shut up because someone who murdered theirs might feel bad.

But I give her credit for realizing that abortion traumatizes and marginalizes women and realizing they made a mistake makes it even worse.

Lily on February 2, 2010 at 12:24 PM

I think one of the problems the “pro-choice” side has is their “heroes” turn out to be so terrifyingly repulsive. There was an article circulating a while back that you can still find on some blogs (like here) about the difficulties abortionist face in performing second trimester abortions.

I think the reader is supposed to be inspired at how courageous the author is not horrified at their cognitive dissonance and repulsed at the description of their actions. But maybe NOW could find a way to ad some CGI affects and a nifty soundtrack and make a really compelling ad about the brave abortionist fighting the 21 week old fetus to save the mother from having to give birth after her boyfriend disappeared.

darcee on February 2, 2010 at 12:26 PM

What day into a pregancy (definition: with life) does the clump of cells go from clumpness to human?

Getting an abortion does not make you UN-pregnant – it makes you the mother of a very dead baby.

Ris4victory on February 2, 2010 at 12:26 PM

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Human Life begins at conception.

“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

courtesy princeton.edu

kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 12:27 PM

I have no problem with it being a forum for “personal perspectives on life”. I do have a problem with the topic of abortion appearing during the Super Bowl, because the audience includes children. I haven’t seen the ad, but if it uses the word “abortion” instead of vague euphemisms like “choosing life” it’s inappropriate (as would be any likely counter argument from the abortion rights crowd).

Buy Danish on February 2, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Did you really just bust out the “because of the children” argument? You have a problem with the topic of abortion being broadcast during the Super Bowl “because of the children” but not alcohol use/abuse and mostly naked women being pranced about? REALLY?

Dominion on February 2, 2010 at 12:28 PM

kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM

No, he’s not a clump of cells; he’s an ugly bag of mostly water.

Tennman on February 2, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Packer,,,, CRR6 used that inane joke yesterday on another abortion thread. I asked her if she believed in post-birth abortion whereas to give the mother more options and she never denied in wanting that to be made legal. If pro-abortion folks believe that they want abortion to be made legal for environmental reasons are probably pro amnesty for illegal immigrants filling the nation beyond capacity. I am not sure in CRR6′s case but I imagine she is pro-amnesty as well.

garydt on February 2, 2010 at 12:29 PM

His critics find this intrusive, and say the Super Bowl is no place for an argument of this nature. “Pull the ad,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “Let’s focus on the game.”

Translated: I don’t have a compelling, rational argument so I’ll use this instead.

BacaDog on February 2, 2010 at 12:30 PM

to continue on kingsjester’s post: how exactly do DEAD fetuses develop? Everything is animate or inanimate. Live or dead & last I checked dead things don’t grow. Can’t be both. One can go from living to dead, but cannot go from dead to living.

Ris4victory on February 2, 2010 at 12:31 PM

What was so hypocritical about NOW and the other womens’ groups in that Clinton debacle was that they had no problem with him engaging in a sexual relationship in the workplace, with a workplace subordinate.

And they also totally ignored that several years earlier, Bill had his Justice Dept. successfully prosecute a female Federal employee for lying under oath about sex. She broke the law, but then they said he was above it.

Del Dolemonte on February 2, 2010 at 11:39 AM

NOW shows time and time again that they are not in support of all women’s rights….only women who agree with them politically.

Watching the misogynistic and hateful rhetoric directed at Palin,Conid Rice,Mrs. Bush I and II, the Bush’s daughters,and many other women who don’t agree with them politically while NOW stands in support of the Bill Clinton’s and John Edward’s (maybe a few condemnations but nothing beyond that) only exposes their hypocrisy further.

NOW has no credibility beyond being a liberal activists group.

Tammy Bruce does the best job exposing the corruption and hypocrisy of NOW,especially since she was a leader there at one time.

NOW is nothing more than code pink or answer with different talking points.

Baxter Greene on February 2, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Just think it’s a great personal triumph for his mom whichever side of the abortion issue one comes down on. Kudos to both mom and son.

jeanie on February 2, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7