The Tebow Ad: Creating Murderers?
By FITSNews || So the Super Bowl has come and gone, and with it the controversial (errr, “nontroversial”) Focus on the Family ad featuring former Florida Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam.
You’ll recall this was the ad that was supposed to turn ordinary pro-lifers into stark raving murderers, at least according to the “fringe element” of the pro-choice movement.
First, here’s the clip:
Yeah … real controversial there.
In fact, the only think that ad made us want to “kill” was some milk and cookies … right before Pam Tebow read us a bedtime story.
And yes, we’re going to have to insist that she read us How Do Dinosaurs Say Goodnight … again.
Comments
By myles keogh on February 9th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Great ad with great message. Tebow and his mom are a class act!
By Tom Stickler on February 9th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
So Timmy is glad his Mama did not abort him. Is he happy his Daddy got wood at just the right time?
By sid on February 9th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
I can see why FITS likes the ad. It clearly promotes domestic violence.
By Katherine Jenerette on February 10th, 2010 at 5:21 am
When is the right time to talk about the very personnel side of the abortion issue? And what is the proper forum? I’m not sure.
Abortion is a very personal thing – for two very real human beings; a mother and her child.
To me, the Focus on the Family ad featuring former Florida Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother is more than just an ad – it gives a voice to the other side of the abortion issue that is usually silent.
My story.
We have always called my daughter Benjamin, who was just named the Sun News ‘Toast of the Coast – Runner of the Year’ for High School Girls Cross Country our miracle baby.
Anyway, when I was well into my pregnancy with Benji – I was told us that there were serious development problems and that if I tried to carry the baby to term it could endanger my life.
I was a student at Coastal Carolina University-USC and had already been named to the NCAA Track & Field Big South Conference in 1994 and had stopped my training for the Boston Marathon right after I found out I was pregnant.
Any woman who heard what the doctor told me knows how those words cut right to the bottom of everything. You never forget that day. At the time I had a two year old son, Christian.
I’m not saying I was brave or even principled or even smart; I just know that I couldn’t go ahead with what the doctor strongly recommended. I was a mom – and my baby was my baby.
Week-by-week then day-by-day until the morning Benjamin was born I prayed and I promised things and I was very scared. It wasn’t the last time – I now have four children.
But, after all of these years I know that I would have to do it that same way all over again – and it wouldn’t matter if Benjamin was Runner of the Year or just a teenage girl doing math homework in after school detention – she was and always will be my baby. And that’s how I saw her from the moment she was alive inside of me.
Like I said, I’m not sure when and where the right time to talk about abortion is.
Here is what I do know; all four of my children are miracle babies.
Every baby is a miracle baby.
By birth control on February 10th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Is this the ad that Focus on the Family spent $4 million on? Wow. Just think what that money could have done to feed hungry people and even babies who were already born. Or, if Dobson didn’t want to give a handout to the living, that money could have been used to help sustain the hundreds of staff he has laid off because too many unemployed people are unable to send him any money. Abortions are not a pleasant topic, but even less pleasant is the 1.3 million per year that were reportedly performed prior to Roe v Wade in 1973. The reported number went up to 1.6 million per year after Roe v Wade. At least with a legal abortion those who are born already probably will be safe during the procedure. Reversing abortion rights would be like outlawing marijuana or alcohol. Wedge issues to gain the loony vote. I’m grateful for every miracle baby out there. Too bad that in the name of making the king happy other miracle babies will kill foreign babies with much enthusiasm and vigor.
By Crooner on February 10th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Choice is a beautiful thing.
By Mike at the beach on February 10th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Hey Birth Control,
I respect your opinion, but your post demonstrates (as it wandered through several other issues) the core of the issue upon which the two sides disagree. Proponents of that ad and its message would say that they ARE helping babies, who are every bit as valuable as the “born” babies the money could have helped as well.
By Catherine on February 10th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Katherine,
You are right. All babies are miracle babies. Even the crack addicted babies born to gutter trash street whores. But nobody remembers that when Tim Tebow is on the television. There are too many unwanted babies born every day. And all you’ve done is contribute to the problem by having all those kids. You could have adopted an abandoned crack baby from SC DSS instead of selfishly risking your health (you had others at home depending on you, after all) to propagate your own genetic line. But you didn’t. So don’t go shouting pro life from the rooftops when you have done nothing, and you could have, to assuage the epidemic. The truth is not every baby needs to be born. Why don’t you try looking in the faces of 13 kids born to an impoverished retarded woman at the TPR hearing before you tout your pro life propaganda. Those children NEVER had a shot in this world. They will NEVER be adopted and the system will inevitably fail them. Yes, they should have been aborted. And you know it.
By Steve on February 10th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Catherine, I would just like to add that the child that Katherine so unselfishly gave birth to, may become the scientist that cures cancer or some other problem the world faces. If someone would have aborted you, think how many people in your life now would have been affected by never having known you.
By show me state on February 10th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Proponents of the ad probably aren’t facing real problems like unemployment, hunger or getting put out on the street because they can’t pay the rent or mortgage. This is a parlor issue for people who have nothing better to do than to cry crocodile tears over the unborn. The living don’t seem to get emotional or upset when one of the flying drone machines targets and kills a bunch of civilians in Afghanistan. Where were these pro-life people during the campaign in Fallujah? Which is worse: aborting a fetus that hasn’t a chance to have a decent life or letting it be born to likely grow up neglected and damaged goods? What if Charlie Manson or UBL had been in the ad? There is a thing called triage. It seems a little more important to help those people on the ground who are already living and unemployed, hungry or put out of work because of shutdowns and downsizing. After the baby is born, so many of these pro-lifers don’t care what happens to it. In the womb, it’s sacred and afterwards, they will kick it to the curb. There are real people suffering now. Tebow is an exception. Who knows how many women considered pregnancy termination? That’s their business, not anyone else’s.
By Benjamin Jenerette on February 10th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
To: Catherine
I don’t know what to really say to you. I’m here, typing this right now, and so are you. I think the fact that both of us are here today commenting on this answers the question of whether babies should be born or aborted. We have voices while aborted babies don’t.
I really don’t believe in abortion for 2 reasons: One- I’m here today, and I was given a chance at life some never got and so are you and everyone you know. And Two- It’s taking the life of one special child who is special, no matter the case. Whether it’s a crack baby born on the streets, or whether their one of the lucky ones like you or me.
At least with life, there is hope.
I would never have responded but when you said I should’ve been one of those unfortunate babies who didn’t get a choice, couldn’t be heard, and would have been aborted, I intend to have my voice heard.
No baby should ever be aborted, no matter what. Now that is what I believe in and intend live by for the rest of my life.
Benjamin
By tomorrow never knows on February 10th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Yes, the baby that was born today may be the person who cures cancer or solves one of the world’s major problems. And I may be the next Michael Jordan. I may be the next Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart who writes songs exceeding even his best compositions. I may be the first astronaut to go to Mars and make contact with extraterrestrials passing by on their way to another galaxy. I may become the president of a bank find a cure for AIDS. I may find a way to control the weather and make every day the first day of spring. Not bloody likely, but who knows? Puh-leeze
By Aquinas on February 10th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Catherine and show me state: you two are focusing on the wrong issue entirely. Stop measuring the value of a life from such a utilitarian angle. The minute we attempt to classify when life is useful (too many kids, impovershed surroundings, etc.) is the minute we head down the slippery slope of eugenics. Stop valuing a life based on what it can or can’t do, or how much space it takes up, or how many resources it might consume. Life, in and of itself, is precious. We can build the most impressive skyscraper, win the next Oscar, or invent the next Mac, but all of those things will eventually go away. A person is forever; the creation of one more soul changes the universe – forever – whether we can see it through our blindness or not.
By show me state on February 11th, 2010 at 7:43 am
I’m glad that all of you were born and that you are able to read on a computer. I’m also glad you have or had parents who made sure you are or were well taken care of. Too bad everyone born on this planet doesn’t receive that kind of treatment. How many of you pro-lifers who think that every sperm is sacred supported or support the war in Iraq? You did realize that when the war started that people would die, even babies? Even worse, at some point a pregnant woman with a living, viable fetus inside her womb must have been killed by the coalition forces through random shooting or collateral damage. Does that bother any of you? There was a boy named Ali Abbas who lost his arms and legs while his family he was sleeping with in their own home perished due to the shock and awe in the opening days of the 2003 Iraq war. He was left to die by the pro-life Americans, but someone (the British, maybe) took the boy and the boy suffered through the burns and rehabilitation and has to live with prosthetic limbs. Some life. I would love to know what young Ali has to say to those who are responsible for his ruined body. Do you people even know why you claim to be pro-life? Could it be because you are taught in church something that isn’t even supported in the Bible? Exodus 22 doesn’t seem to support fetus exaltation. If you run for public office in the United States, you pretty well have to have some religious affiliation and non-Judeo-Christians need not apply. If you are pro-military and pro-life, you’re hilarious and certifiable. How long would a military chaplain last if he taught such heresies as ‘love your enemies’ and ‘turn the other cheek’? He would be denounced as a traitor and for giving aid and comfort to the enemy for that kind of talk. Repeating the counsel of John who told the Roman centurions to be satisfied with their pay and to harm no man would also be in a lot of trouble if it was repeated to military personnel. You can be a staunch military supporter or you can be a Christian and follow what the Bible says. You cannot be both pro-war and pro-life.
By Aquinas on February 12th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Show me state: Instead of trying to force an argument by setting up a false dichotomy between abortion and war just to prove your so-called hypocrisy within the pro-life movement, why don’t you take some time to learn the basic principles behind moral choices? Let’s start with this one: All human acts must be freely and deliberately chosen, and the morality of what is chosen depends on their object (what), their intention (why), and their circumstances (how/when/where). For example, the fact that a man walks down the street, catches a bus, goes into an office and makes some phone calls is morally neutral until we know the object (what he is going to work for), intention (why he’s doing it), and circumstances (how/when/where he gets it done) of that activity. If that man happens to be a hit-man for the mafia, and he is making calls to line up another hit, then all those acts take on an entirely different moral meaning. We make ourselves the kinds of persons who we are in and through the actions we freely choose to do. Now let’s apply that to abortion and war.
Abortion is an intrinsic evil; by its very nature it is wrong. There are no intentions or circumstances that justify the deliberate taking of an innocent life (the object). If the death of a child is caused by removing the mother’s fallopian tube or cancerous uterus, that is not considered an abortion. Indirect abortion is not direct abortion. The object (removing a diseased fallopian tube) does not have the intent to deliberately cause death to the child. The purpose of procuring an abortion is ALWAYS to stop another life that is growing inside.
Now compare this with war. What were the object, intention, and circumstances behind the coalition forces going into Iraq? As with all moral acts, the use of force to obtain justice must comply with three conditions to be morally good. First, the act must be good in itself. The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself. Second, it must be done with a good intention, which must be to correct vice, to restore justice or to restrain evil, and not to inflict evil for its own sake. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances.
The purpose for the coalition forces in Iraq was never to deliberately cause physical harm to a boy named Ali Abbas, or intentionally kill “pregnant [women] with a living, viable fetus inside [their] womb[s]” as you put it. This is not an either-or situation (i.e., either you’re pro-life or pro-military). Sometimes war is necessary. But I say that also knowing that an act which may otherwise be good and well motivated can also be wrong by reason of imprudent judgment and execution. Was the Iraq war a just war? That is beyond my ability to answer here, but my point is, the notion of war cannot be seen as an intrinsic evil the way abortion can, because legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good. And sometimes war is a legitimate defense. Abortion is never legitimate. Does it bother me and other pro-lifers when life is lost in war, especially innocent life? Of course it does. I pray daily for peace: peace in the world, and peace in the womb.
As Mother Teresa put it so succinctly, “If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? …Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion”
By show me state on February 12th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Saint Thomas Aquinas, why do you waste space with your obsolete religious rhetoric?
Who are you to make such “absolute” judgments about abortion? Who told you what is evil? You are basing your ideas on what you were taught by the priest. Nobody likes abortion. Nobody likes any of it and it’s not for someone like you to tell people how to manage their own body.
If you don’t like abortion, that’s great. Bless you and just be sure not to have one.
The real reason there is a prohibition against abortion within some churches and the Roman one specifically is because believers in that madness are required to indoctrinate their children into the cult. This makes more money. Terminating a pregnancy will result in future lost funds for the church. It’s like a real pyramid scheme down the line as the next generation produces more and more babies or future church payers.
If we’re going to go out on a limb and speculate about what is evil, it’s the priests that keep shagging the boys. These church managers are preaching fire and damnation to homosexuals and they’re doing worse by using their position to take advantage of young kids in their congregation. A lot of money is being paid out as compensation to victims of these priests who tell people what to think and how to conduct their lives. Thankfully, people are waking up to how bad it is when church leaders do these things and cover them up. Cardinal Law is one example.
These people committed the worst crime imaginable. A survivor of rape/molestation is going to have to live with that for the rest of his or her life. Crying over zygotes while those who are conscious face this trauma.
The purpose of the coalition of the bribed to go into Iraq and do their dirt was because they wanted to be able to control the oil supply and by doing so control oil prices. Saddam’s fatal move was when he planned to start using the Euro rather than the US Dollar. Such a fuss is being made about Venezuela and less about North Korea. North Korea has no oil. You seem well able to answer about unproven religious dogma but can’t come to any conclusion about what is really happening in reality.
Who cares what Mother Teresa says about anything? She is not the shining example that she was made out to be. There is plenty of exposure about her scam. Lots of money was sent her way and what happened to it? If anybody reads this or cares, they can look into it if they like. Penn and Teller had a good primer about Mother Teresa.
Kindly don’t ever accuse me of advocating ‘eugenics’. That was something that Hitler supported. I have nothing to do with him. He was raised a Catholic and his attitude toward the Jews was consistent with how they were treated historically during the Spanish Inquisition.
Say what you like about those who value freedom of choice. It’s the theo-lunatics who are committing the crimes like that pro-life jerk who killed that doctor in the midwest.
The sooner we outgrow these anti-science, control mad and money hungry tools of church hierarchies of all stripes, the sooner we can all reach for the stars. Religion has been used to control people and it’s time to break out of the imaginary cages they’ve imposed that so many of us so dutifully confine ourselves in.
By Aquinas on February 12th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Wow, show me, I don’t even know where to begin. It’s hard to address platitudes and cliched arguments that have no basis in fact, so I’ll just hit on a few.
First of all, I’m not quite sure why you come out swinging against a so-called “religious rhetoric.” Please show me where I even mentioned a specific “Catholic” teaching. I’m pretty sure I used reason and natural law to make my case. The Catholic Church opposes abortion because it is intrinsicly evil, not because it happens to be a Catholic belief. In fact, if I hadn’t quoted Mother Teresa (or used the Aquinas handle) there was nothing overtly “religious” about my argument. So please put aside your prejudices against religion in general – and Catholicism in particular – and specifically point out the weaknesses in my argument. It makes for a more lively discussion when we get down to brass tacks instead of creating straw men to set up and knock down.
You said, “Nobody likes any of it and it’s not for someone like you to tell people how to manage their own body.” Guess what? I agree with you. The right to control one’s own destiny and both physical and emotional well-being is absolutely paramount. But when you say that it’s only up to the woman, you’re forgetting someone. There’s one other BODY also present in this argument, one who has inalienable rights as well, and for the moment they don’t have a say in the matter. And simply put, that ain’t right. So I’m speaking out for them, kinda like other folks did 300 years ago when it came to speaking out against the slave trade.
Keeping that in mind, let’s take your line here and change a word or two to show where your argument rings hollow. Your original line stated, “If you don’t like abortion, that’s great. Bless you and just be sure not to have one.” Using that logic, how does this sound: “If you don’t like slavery, that’s great. Bless you and just be sure not to have a slave.” The same principles are at work, whether a person is a slave or a fetus.
I could go through the rest of your argument, but I didn’t want to get too bogged down in refuting so many falacies and make this post too long, so I’ll leave it here. Thanks for hearing me out…
By show me state on February 13th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
I guess Saint Thomas Aquinas who uses all these religious talking points and not Fox talking points told me.
He refrained from pointing out all these fal(l)acies I mentioned and hollow arguments because there aren’t any but it’s a lot easier to discredit the message because he doesn’t want to get bogged down in trying to discredit valid points. Some rube reading this will be impressed if Saint Thomas gets his wish. And, no, he DOES believe in a woman’s right to choose except when he doesn’t, which is anytime it has to do with a pregnancy. I’m not sure whether he believes that outlawing abortion will stop it, but it will not stop it. It will result in a lot of people dying from botched substandard operations. If men got pregnant, abortion would have always been legal. It would be a lot easier to get an abortion even in a third world village. With all the problems in the world and some people are obsessed with zygotes. Do these pro-lifers get upset when the dog-catcher puts down dogs or pregnant cats? Denial of religious motivation is laughable based on the language used in defending it. The only reason most people are against abortion is because they were taught it in church. I oppose the treatment animals receive in factory farms as well as violence against any creature, including homo sapiens. But, just try telling people to refrain from eating meat killed in a slaughterhouse rather than not eating meat or not eating it from factory farms or what they catch or hunt themselves and that would be a lot more dangerous to the control freak.
Speaking of which, Dobson and his Focus on the Family which spent millions on the Superbowl ad has spoken out against gambling which is illegal in most states. He opposes it. Most people oppose it because you don’t win gambling. The odds are against you. So, if you play the lottery or lose money that way, it makes you stupid and your already born kids may be HUNGRY. I’ve never heard Dobson speak out against tobacco or alcohol. That’s a far worse problem for many people. That causes much worse problems for the people who are already born when they’re beaten, hungry or neglected due to the use of these products. But, that’s okay because it brings in a lot of money in taxes. These people are begging for your money and get on a platform about some wedge issue that doesn’t apply to most people, like homosexuality or people who get abortions.
Quote Saint Aquinas’ non-religious post: ‘I pray daily for peace: peace in the world, and peace in the womb’ (end quote).
A lot of people have been praying for peace since 2001 and still to this day. How’s that prayer working for you? A vocally christian leader sent the nation into 2 wars of choice and his successor has escalated the killing. That prayer thing is questionable, like you pro-lifers’ stance on controlling women’s bodies.
For all the church people who like to cry over the unborn, here’s a quote from Ecclesiastes 4: 1 – 3:
1 Again I observed all the oppression that takes place in our world. I saw the tears of the oppressed, with no one to comfort them. The oppressors have great power, and the victims are helpless.
2 So I concluded that the dead are better off than the living.
3 And most fortunate of all are those who were never born. For they have never seen all the evil that is done in our world.
Maybe it’s time for the Americans to end their love affair with war, the fetus and the slaughterhouses.