It’s Controversial to Celebrate Life
Nearly every news outlet and blog has a post or story about the pro-life Tim Tebow commercial to be aired during the Superbowl on CBS.
I fail to see why this is a big deal.
The Tebows, a strong Christian family with misguided football loyalties, made a commercial with Focus on the Family about their choices. Focus then came up with the cash to buy the spot from CBS. Why then does this create controversy? Free speech works both ways.
If this ad was purchased by NARAL or EMILY’S List about how Tebow supported his girlfriend in her choice to abort due to an unplanned pregnancy, wouldn’t these groups applaud?
When did our society arrive at a place that “celebrating life,” as Focus on the Family puts it, is controversial? This ad highlights one woman’s choice. She chose not to abort and look what happened. (Who knows what might have happened if all the aborted people were allowed to live?) Women need to know that choosing life is just as valid a decision. That option is rarely given any attention. Just look at all the anger aimed at Palin for knowingly giving birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome.*
Educating women about all of their choices should be a priority of the women’s movement. However, this is only one more example of how the anti-life crowd only educates women on pre-approved “choices.” Women deserve to know all of their options. How often do they get those at an abortion clinic or Planned Parenthood facility? Lila Rose has exposed how often women hear about adoption or life at those facilities.
Anti-life forces are in an uproar, but they can only speculate about what’s in the ad. All Focus on the Family has said is:
The 30-second spot from the international family-help organization will feature college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. They will share a personal story centered on the theme of “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.”
Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, said the chance to partner with the Tebows and lift up a meaningful message about family and life comes at the right moment in the culture, because “families need to be inspired.”
“Tim and Pam share our respect for life and our passion for helping families thrive,” Daly said. “They live what we see every day – that the desire for family closeness is written on the hearts of every generation. Focus on the Family is about nurturing that desire and strengthening families by empowering them with the tools they need to live lives rooted in morals and values.”
Broadsheet admits that no one knows what is in the ad, but since the Women’s Media Center has launched a petition, it must be alarming. Oh my gosh! A petition! Tracy Clark-Flory writes:
A Focus on the Family spokesperson told the Washington Post that the ad isn’t overtly political, but a petition by the Women’s Media Center argues otherwise: “By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers.” There is no denying the organization’s founder, James Dobson, is about as polarizing a political figure as they come.
The problem isn’t that CBS sold the spot to Focus on the Family. The problem is that the anti-life crowd is losing the messaging war. It’s possible to talk about celebrating life without politicizing it. It’s easy to sell pictures of happy families and babies. How many mothers have ever publicly said they regret choosing life? Compare that to the numbers of women who regret having an abortion. Life is the positive. Abortion is the negative.
How do you sell abortion? It’s almost impossible to talk about abortion or “choice” without involving polarizing politics. The images are always of angry women protesting and holding signs. What’s their alternative? Pictures of aborted babies that highlight the truth of abortion? The anti-lifers are losing this issue. Poll numbers prove it. It explains why anti-life feminists lose it when Focus on the Family celebrates life with Tim Tebow and his family, or Sarah and Bristol Palin are on the cover of a tabloid.
Abortion is still legal in this country. Even though Roe vs. Wade is a horrible judicial decision (an opinion asserted by all sides) it’s unlikely to be overturned any time in the near future. However, every positive pro-life message, every Bristol Palin magazine cover, every photo of amazing neo-natal surgeries, ultrasounds or medical advances put another nail in the coffin of abortion’s public image.
“Choice” is abstract. “Life” is concrete and visual. Every time that you show that a fetus is viable and valued, from medicine science news to Lacey Peterson laws, it hurts the public perception of abortion. These images don’t affect laws or legal precedents, but they expose the fraud that the “choice” crowd continues to disseminate. That’s why they focus on “choice.” As soon as you focus on a baby, you lose the debate.
As the “choice” debate unravels, it shows that the only difference between a premature baby getting the best neo-natal care and an aborted fetus is desire. If the “planned” or “wanted” pregnancies are the best justifications for abortion, these groups are in trouble. That’s a flimsy excuse for murder, and an extremely brutal murder at that. If abortion was re-created outside of the womb to kill a person, it could only be described as gruesome and barbaric. Why do we continue to do this to the most helpless members of our society? Since it’s hidden and only happens on the inside of women’s bodies, not many people understand how brutal the abortion medical procedure truly is.
Medical science is on the side of life. Rather than spending millions to defend abortion, why don’t these groups work on educating impoverished women on birth control or help them earn an education? (I wish more pro-life groups did the same.) All sides should make abortion the absolute worst-case option. There’s enough money and nonprofit infrastructure to make abortion unnecessary in our society. The problem is that feminists need it to survive.
The simple matter is that abortion and all “attacks” on it are cash cows for groups like NOW, EMILY’S List, Feminist Majority and NARAL. Without us pesky pro-lifers, the money stream from supporters would dry up. These groups need to manufacture crises in order to survive since public opinion and the progress of science is against them.
The pro-life side will always have supporters due to our religious faith and the issues of euthanasia, stem cell research and cloning. Our side is evolving. The abortion side is dying. The writing is on the wall for abortion supporters, and that is why their reactions get more hysterical and ridiculous. They ought to be thankful to Focus on the Family for giving them a something to protest since “women’s issues” have become little more than arguments over botox taxes, middle-age columnists regretting not getting married and having babies and debates if Lady Gaga represents feminist ideals.
*Why is the special needs community not more outraged at abortion? Only 10% of special needs children are born, which reeks of eugenics and is a borderline holocaust for this community. What does our society reflect when we only allow the desirable and perfect to be born?
Tags: Abortion, EMILY'S List, feminism, Focus on the Family, Lady Gaga, life, NARAL, NOW, Sarah Palin, Superbowl, Tim Tebow
January 27th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I’m curious how you can assert medical science is on your side — in what way? In preventing pregnancy before it occurs with contraceptives?
January 27th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Both. Contraception is getting better and cheaper. I have no problems with access to contraceptives, and I believe that pro-life groups need to become better advocates of birth control.
Also neo-natal medicine is dramatically improving. The earlier that a premature infant survives outside of the womb, the harder it is to justify aborting a baby as a non-viable life. It forces pro-abortion groups to admit that abortion is callously murdering infants because they are simply inconvenient. That puts abortion in a much different playing field.
January 30th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
The problem here is not freedom of speech, the problem is that CBS has a strict policy of anti-advocacy ads during the SuperBowl, which they have repeatedly enforced when it has come to ads regarding liberal points of view. Suddenly their own policy doesn’t apply. It’s CBS’s hypocrisy that is the issue for most of the complaining groups. If they air this ad, they need to allow pro-choice, or animal rights, or GLBT marriage rights ads to be aired… they have consistently denied these ads in the past.
January 30th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Mike, previously CBS turned down right-of-center and religious groups as well as liberal. CBS is owned by Viacom, and it is highly unlikely that a major corporation is giving preferential treatment to a conservative Christian organization. I agree that it looks unfair. However, if CBS honestly changed their policy recently, why slam Focus on the Family? Any other group that can raise the money has the ability to work with CBS to place advocacy ad.
I don’t think it’s hypocritical. It’s a policy change. I wouldn’t like it if EMILY’S List was sponsoring an ad during the Superbowl, but it’s the organization’s right to do so if they please. Pony up the cash and call CBS. They want to make money. They don’t care who buys the advertising.
Have liberal groups realized how much more attention the Superbowl and Focus on the Family are getting now? Y’all look like the bad guys here. If someone wants to buy and ad, buy one also. Don’t whine about it. The PR on this situation makes the anti-lifers look bad and Focus look good. Had the anti-lifers not reacted so strongly, would anyone outside of Focus on the Family members even know this is going on?