An extended commentary on the Tim Tebow commercial

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Sir Elliot, Feb 2, 2010.

  1. Blades,

    This is the best commentary I've read thusfar on the Tim Tebow commercial controversy.

    Since the previous thread has turned into a full out abortion debate, I was hoping this thread could refocus on the issue of the commercial itself. This article is from Erick Erickson at RedState:

    This Sunday the nation will be treated to a very controversial thirty second advertisement during the Super Bowl. It will be about a mother whose doctor told her she had to have an abortion because she was ill and her son would either die or be severely handicapped. She chose life instead and her son, Tim Tebow, grew up to quarterback for Florida.

    There will also be a series of ads with scantily clad women and misogynistic men engaged in onscreen sexual perversion and debauchery akin to dogs in heat. NOW and Planned Parenthood have no problem with those commercials this year. Pam Tebow is enemy number one.

    The wrath of the pro-choice organizations and feminists betray the lie that is pro-choice. Pam Tebow wants us to know about her choice, but these groups want to stop her. Had she instead filmed a commercial in which she praised her doctor's advice and had an abortion, these groups would be fine. Subtract away the nonsense of the non sequitur and we're left with an inescapable conclusion: pro-choice groups view only one choice as meritorious.

    No one could be surprised if a pro-life group were upset by an advertisement in defense of abortion. Pro-life groups believe there is only one right choice - life. But it is a bit dumbfounding, assuming we accept pro-choice groups at their word, that a group whose existence revolves around the right of women to make a choice about their bodies would be enraged and threatening boycotts because one woman did make a choice about her body and her baby.

    It becomes less dumbfounding if we stop taking pro-choice groups at their poll tested word and admit that pro-choice groups are pro-abortion groups. They do not want you to know that choosing life when your doctor tells you to choose death is legitimate.
    NOW and Planned Parenthood could have taken out their own ad. They could have shown a woman praising her doctor for telling her to choose death and, but for taking her doctor's advice, she might have died. “Might” is why the ad would fail and “I had an abortion, you should too” would probably persuade a lot of people … persuade them to choose life. Mrs. Tebow's doctor told her Tim “might” die or be severely handicapped if she chose life. She did anyway and the results speak for themselves. The hypothetical never wins against reality.

    As Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins pointed out today, one might think feminist groups would hold Tim Tebow up as the standard bearer for how men should behave. He spends his summers on mission trips, delivering medical supplies to impoverished countries. He does not hop into bed with every cheerleader - in fact, he has been upfront about his virginity, making a famously bawdy sports press embarrassed when Tebow mocked them for asking the question.
    But Tebow is the enemy. There are a number of reasons to hate Tim Tebow. More precisely, there are seven reasons: F, L, O, R, I, D and A. This commercial and Tebow's scripture painted face are not in the list of reasons.

    The beauty of Pam Tebow's commercial extends beyond the message of her commercial. The commercial takes a position held by a majority of Americans and blows away the smoke and mirrors put up over a number of years by abortion advocates and feminists. The groups that run full page ads of women with duct tape on their mouths every time a Republican President nominates a judge want to put duct tape on Pam Tebow's mouth. The groups that praise the poll tested phraseology of “pro-chioce” really do not want anyone to hear about the choice they deem illegitimate. God bless the Tebow family for taking the slings and arrows so the rest
  2. All the things this guy decries the pro-choice groups of being, and the things he suggests for them to do instead of boycotting or whatever, can be said to be completely true on the other side of the fence.

    This article is just a cleverly disguised way of either bashing pro-choice or promoting pro-life.

Share This Page