If "Pro-Choice" is "Pro Choice," Why the Controversy over Tim Tebow Ad?
There is no doubt Tim Tembow’s Super Bowl spot for Focus on the Family has stirred up quite the controversy. The National Organization for Women (NOW) has become a standard bearer in attempts to persuade CBS not to air the ad. NOW claims to support “reproductive rights,” and a mother’s “right to choose.” If the feminist group is really about choice, then I don’t understand why they are so opposed to Tebow’s message. I haven’t seen the ad, but from what I have read this is the basic gist: Tebow’s mother had complications during her pregnancy, and was advised to abort Tim. Mrs. Tebow chose to carry the child to term. Mrs. Tebow was blessed with the joys of choosing life, and her son, Tim, went on to become an excellent athlete. Fade to black. If NOW is dedicated to promoting a woman’s “right to choose,” then why can’t the group respect Mrs. Tebow’s “right to choose” life?
Of course, if “pro-choice” is actually interpreted by NOW as “pro-abort,” then the group’s reaction to the ad makes perfect sense. NOW is accusing Focus on the Family of attempting to dis-empower women, and create a climate in which Roe v Wade can be overturned. The feminist group insists sharing the story of a woman who chose life represents an attempt to make abortion illegal in the United States. While this reaction affirms the hypothesis that “pro-choice” isn’t really about choice–unless choosing to abort–it also reveals NOW’s complete lack of understanding of United States “abortion law.”
For the sake of argument, let’s assume for a minute the main focus of the Tebow ad is to overturn Roe v Wade, and the campaign is successful. Let us assume the Supreme Court of the United States were to meet the day after the Super Bowl, and the justices having seen the ad immediately and unanimously overturned the decision. Far from banning abortion, this decision would simply return sovereignty to the individual states to regulate the medical practice of abortion as they saw fit. While I have no doubt some states would choose to ban abortion, they would be in the minority. States choosing to allow unregulated “abortion-on-demand” as currently mandated by the Roe v Wade decision would also be in the minority. Most states would probably fall in the middle and in line with the consensus of American citizens: abortions should be legal but regulated to the “hard cases” and not treated as birth control. Furthermore, late term abortions should be heavily restricted with exceptions in cases where there is an immediate, demonstrable, and potentially fatal risk for the mother.
While the consensus position certainly represents a restriction of “abortion rights,” it does not match the apocalyptic scenarios projected by NOW. In fact, even with these restrictions in place, most states would allow all of the abortion scenarios that pro-choice advocates frequently reference. If pro-choice actually stood for pro-choice, the abortion debate would be severely muted. The problem is: groups like NOW are completely unwilling to support any sort of compromise, and actively promote abortion. Just because abortion is legal doesn’t mean women should be pressured to make that choice. Why not encourage women to “give life a chance?” It would certainly lend credibility to the pro-choice movement. Defending “abortion rights” and promoting life do not have to be mutually exclusive positions. NOW has simply chosen to make them so.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
The fact is " pro life " isn't pro life. The so called pro lifers don't care in the least if an invading parasite ends a woman 's life. The mother doesn't have a "right to life", only the parasite's life is of concern to them.
It isn't hard to understand why an organization defending women 's rights would oppose fascists who view women as little more than breeding stock, to be raped and bred at will, and against their will. Interestingly, the vast majority of the so called "pro lifers" are men. What kind of men are they? I think it goes without saying that these men are generally rapists and substantially inferior examples of the human gene pool. They know full well that any woman in her right mind who found herself impregnated by one of them, by accident or force, would choose to exorcise these culls from the gene pool at inception, rather than preserve the traits of genetic misfits for the next generation to deal with. It's also worth noting the demographic for a Super Bowl ad would target a disporportionately larger male audience. That alone strikes me as offensive. Aren't they really insinuating that all men are fellow rapists or genetic misfits, and might join their cause because of a kindred spirit?
That aside, you really have to wonder about the intelligence of someone supporting an ad they admit to not having seen, in opposition to those who have seen it and found it offensive. Of course, intelligence doesn't enter the picture when it comes to rape advocates.
"That aside, you really have to wonder about the intelligence of someone supporting an ad they admit to not having seen, in opposition to those who have seen it and found it offensive."
NOW, the organization leading the charge to take down the ad, has not seen it. I'm not even sure CBS has seen it. The only information they have released is a statement saying they approved the ad. CBS and Focus on the Family are the only two parties who definitively know the ads content. The article is based on the consensus speculation, and the same level of information available to NOW.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. NOW is opposing an ad they have not seen. I questioned the motive for their opposition.
I checked NOW's site prior to posting the comment you're responding to. Information on their site indicates they HAVE seen the ad , with specific references to specific content.
So, as you say, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.". With a whole world of information only a mouse click away, checking facts before expressing opinions is an extraordinally simple task. You should try it.
I have been to NOW's site as well. I have been able to find only two post on their website about the ad . On is on the blog. It's available at http://bit.ly/9cVDxv . The other is on the "Media hall of shame" and available at http://bit.ly/aVqlp3 .
The only mention of "specific content" is that the ad features the Tebows. That information was made publicly available in Focus on the Family's press release about the ad. Neither posting says or implies the group has seen the ad, and if news organizations can't get a copy for analysis, I doubt Foucus would send one to NOW.
If NOW has seen the ad, how about providing a link to such a statement.
The CBS statement is that they have approved the script for the ad . Hence the question as to whether or not they have actually seen the full video production.
"Right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
No brainer, right? It shocks and saddens me deeply that we are even having this discussion. But what is the most shocking thing of all is that abortion ever became a reality in this nation. Shame on us.
It is a medical fact that an abortion stops a beating heart.
Not equine, bovine, or swine....a human heart. A human being.
Only the most moronic engage in discussions of "Well, we don't really know when life STARTS" or worse...."No one knows when a SOUL enters a human". SO WHAT?!?
Life STARTS when a sperm and egg unite....in fact, something awesome begins that a nano-second before had no hope of going anywhere..... but leave it ALONE and it will soon, in 9 short months, have a face, a name, an address. "I know the plans I have for you. Good plans,hope and a future"....Jeremiah 29:11
Leave it alone. Let him or her LIVE!
Let's overturn Roe v Wade as soon as possible, America. (Or we must stop mentioning Hitler ever again. He's a choir boy by comparison. (We've slaughtered upwards of 60 MILLION.)
Anti-choice masquerading as Pro-choice to set up an environment to take away choice... for some at least. Some is too many.
It's all in the framing. Keeping abortion legal in all 50 states is the whole point. States have millions of women that Roe protects, not a single state should be lost. Ever. Pro-choice advocates are absolute about that because it is viewed as a violation of human rights to ban abortion in it's entirety.
It's clever though, trying to muddy the waters to get independent libertarian and inattentive liberals that don't understand why Roe is so important to start thinking like we're all just meeting in the middle and then sneak in statements like "While I have no doubt some states would choose to ban abortion, they would be in the minority." as if it's all good.
Eh can't save em all, right? Wrong! It is anathema to the pro-choice message to let a single state ban abortion entirely.
That is exactly why NOW is trying to get the ad pulled. It is designed to muddy the waters to prepare for the overturning of Roe. It's disingenuous for the anti-choice side to pretend to be pro-choice with a pro-life message.
Furthermore, it's probably false that Tebow's mother ever had a "choice" in the first place considering abortion has come with 6 years jail time in the Philippines since 1930. For everyone involved. The story would be true only in a country that allowed abortion, like the US... with Roe in full force.
I don't think "disingenuous" means what you think it means... at least if you use it above as you have.
You have not addressed any of the points raised by the article but, instead, have built your own emperor's new clothes as an explanation.