Tim Tebow to appear in anti-abortion Super Bowl ad

[vandy125]

Tex, not a one person in here has come even close to suggesting that women should not have the right to speak out against abortion. What has been attacked by a few of us is the method of doing so. I can only speak for myself, but my sincere guess is that Soxy would support the message Mrs. Tebow and Tim want to share if they did it in a more responsible and more respectful way than in a television commercial.

 

In fact, it could be argued that your support of communicating such a message in this manner suggests you actually have less respect for the issue than those of us arguing it has no business being aired as a Super Bowl commercial.

 

Quick question, what would you say if there was a commercial about support for Haiti? Would that be considered a waste of money considering it could have all gone straight to help those people out?

[iamshack]

Quick question, what would you say if there was a commercial about support for Haiti? Would that be considered a waste of money considering it could have all gone straight to help those people out?

I have never made the argument that the money spent on the commercial would be better served going directly to whatever the particular cause may be. I trust that there are smarter people than I crunching the numbers and predicting which method will cause the most funds to be raised.

 

 

[vandy125]

I have never made the argument that the money spent on the commercial would be better served going directly to whatever the particular cause may be. I trust that there are smarter people than I crunching the numbers and predicting which method will cause the most funds to be raised.

 

Gotcha, I was reading that argument elsewhere in this thread that it was a complete waste of money. Would you see it as inappropriate because it was a sober message in the middle of the "party time", or is that one ok because it is not a deep, personal decision? Just seeing if I can understand the delineation.

 

Personally, I think that positive messages of hope are good at any time. I think that we are focusing a lot on the decision here. But this affects more than those who are making that decision now. Maybe there is someone out there who has already made that decision that Tim's parents did and is in the midst of that pregnancy. If they are feeling beaten down a bit right now, it could be a great message to help lift them up to know that others are going through it or have gone through it. I know that has helped me in the past. Sure, you know that the superstar thing is probably not going to happen, but to see there is a good chance of things turning out alright and that you will make it through is encouraging. I'd take any platform to give that type of a message.

[iamshack]

Gotcha, I was reading that argument elsewhere in this thread that it was a complete waste of money. Would you see it as inappropriate because it was a sober message in the middle of the "party time", or is that one ok because it is not a deep, personal decision? Just seeing if I can understand the delineation.

 

Personally, I think that positive messages of hope are good at any time. I think that we are focusing a lot on the decision here. But this affects more than those who are making that decision now. Maybe there is someone out there who has already made that decision that Tim's parents did and is in the midst of that pregnancy. If they are feeling beaten down a bit right now, it could be a great message to help lift them up to know that others are going through it or have gone through it. I know that has helped me in the past. Sure, you know that the superstar thing is probably not going to happen, but to see there is a good chance of things turning out alright and that you will make it through is encouraging. I'd take any platform to give that type of a message.

 

My issue with the Tebow's message (or what we believe it to be), is that the intention (again, apparently) is to use Tim's celebrity and athletic achievements as a carrot in a very serious and personal decision. Deciding whether to bring a pregnancy to term in the midst of significant medical risk is an incredibly complex and difficult issue. It is one that is probably very individualized and specific, based on particular medical concerns, heredity, fertility considerations, just to name a few. It's something that is only considered on a case-by-case basis. In my opinion, issuing some kind of broad advice or opinions on something so incredibly personal and particular seems irresponsible by default, because it is impossible for that person to know the unique circumstances of each individual case. And yet, the Tebow's and this organization are implying that one choice is better than another, most likely in all circumstances, by showcasing Tim as the finished product of Mrs. Tebow's decision. That seems irresponsible, disrespectful, and plain insulting to all the women, couples, and families grappling with this incredibly difficult decision.

 

The Haiti situation is much different. It is not complex. It is not controversial. The appeal made in such a commercial is simply encouraging, inspiring, and in the worst case, guilting Americans to donate money to the Haitian relief fund. And while it may be a somewhat questionable tactic to purchase an ad for millions of dollars in an attempt to raise money that was just spent, the worst result of someone being influenced by the commercial would be someone donating money and having it be wasted. Again, this is a far more trivial result than someone feeling bad about their decision to end a risky pregnancy with the advice of their physician, or even worse, being unable to terminate said pregnancy due in some small part to the commercial featuring the Tebow's.

 

The distinction is not in a sober cause using the Super Bowl as a forum to achieve some sort of goal, but in the message being communicated, and the potential harm involved.

[Texsox]

My issue with the Tebow's message (or what we believe it to be), is that the intention (again, apparently) is to use Tim's celebrity and athletic achievements as a carrot in a very serious and personal decision. Deciding whether to bring a pregnancy to term in the midst of significant medical risk is an incredibly complex and difficult issue. It is one that is probably very individualized and specific, based on particular medical concerns, heredity, fertility considerations, just to name a few. It's something that is only considered on a case-by-case basis. In my opinion, issuing some kind of broad advice or opinions on something so incredibly personal and particular seems irresponsible by default, because it is impossible for that person to know the unique circumstances of each individual case. And yet, the Tebow's and this organization are implying that one choice is better than another, most likely in all circumstances, by showcasing Tim as the finished product of Mrs. Tebow's decision. That seems irresponsible, disrespectful, and plain insulting to all the women, couples, and families grappling with this incredibly difficult decision.

 

The Haiti situation is much different. It is not complex. It is not controversial. The appeal made in such a commercial is simply encouraging, inspiring, and in the worst case, guilting Americans to donate money to the Haitian relief fund. And while it may be a somewhat questionable tactic to purchase an ad for millions of dollars in an attempt to raise money that was just spent, the worst result of someone being influenced by the commercial would be someone donating money and having it be wasted. Again, this is a far more trivial result than someone feeling bad about their decision to end a risky pregnancy with the advice of their physician, or even worse, being unable to terminate said pregnancy due in some small part to the commercial featuring the Tebow's.

 

The distinction is not in a sober cause using the Super Bowl as a forum to achieve some sort of goal, but in the message being communicated, and the potential harm involved.

 

There are people, when grappling with a difficult decision, who want to know what other people have done in their place. They look for reasons to be hopeful, they look to be reassured that it can work out. No matter what decision the woman makes, I hope she can remain hopeful and positive. To only allow her to hear and see those that aborted is not the complete picture.

 

There are entire movies about people grappling with difficult, life changing, issues. From infidelity, health issues, the entire range of human events. Entire movies. Yet so many react so negatively to a :30 commercial. We should celebrate life and how this worked out.

 

There is potential harm. People decide each day to quit chemo, not take that risky operation, eat MSG, drink and smoke while pregnant, sometimes it works out, other times it does not. Why would you keep anyone from hearing when it works out? Are you afraid people are too dumb to understand the risks?

[Texsox]

Tex, not a one person in here has come even close to suggesting that women should not have the right to speak out against abortion. What has been attacked by a few of us is the method of doing so. I can only speak for myself, but my sincere guess is that Soxy would support the message Mrs. Tebow and Tim want to share if they did it in a more responsible and more respectful way than in a television commercial.

 

In fact, it could be argued that your support of communicating such a message in this manner suggests you actually have less respect for the issue than those of us arguing it has no business being aired as a Super Bowl commercial.

 

So the fact it is the Super Bowl alters how you feel? If it was aired as a 30 minute special it would be ok? What about them trying to influence people into making a harmful decision? To me it doesn't make a difference if it is being aired during Leno or the sanctity of the Super Bowl.

[iamshack]

I don't understand how to put this any other way.

 

This issue is something that SHOULD be detailed in an entire movie-length videos or in extensive literature. That is how the issue should be dealt with, not in a 30-second commercial.

 

You seem to be equating the amount of exposure with my reaction for some reason. I am arguing the exposure should be more thorough and complete, not the opposite.

[iamshack]

So the fact it is the Super Bowl alters how you feel? If it was aired as a 30 minute special it would be ok? What about them trying to influence people into making a harmful decision? To me it doesn't make a difference if it is being aired during Leno or the sanctity of the Super Bowl.

Yes, the more time spent on it, the better. More time to appreciate the complex nature of the issue. Something that cannot be accomplished in any manner in a 30-second commercial.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

My issue with the Tebow's message (or what we believe it to be), is that the intention (again, apparently) is to use Tim's celebrity and athletic achievements as a carrot in a very serious and personal decision. Deciding whether to bring a pregnancy to term in the midst of significant medical risk is an incredibly complex and difficult issue. It is one that is probably very individualized and specific, based on particular medical concerns, heredity, fertility considerations, just to name a few. It's something that is only considered on a case-by-case basis. In my opinion, issuing some kind of broad advice or opinions on something so incredibly personal and particular seems irresponsible by default, because it is impossible for that person to know the unique circumstances of each individual case. And yet, the Tebow's and this organization are implying that one choice is better than another, most likely in all circumstances, by showcasing Tim as the finished product of Mrs. Tebow's decision. That seems irresponsible, disrespectful, and plain insulting to all the women, couples, and families grappling with this incredibly difficult decision.

WOuld you have an issue with Tebow (or anyone else) using his celebrity as a carrot in a very serious decision when it comes to electing a President? Our votes are secret and personal and very serious stuff. They are individualized based on location, needs and wants. I know there are many on here who have no problem with people using their celbrity to push political choices, just wondering if that extends to this choice?

 

 

[iamshack]

WOuld you have an issue with Tebow (or anyone else) using his celebrity as a carrot in a very serious decision when it comes to electing a President? Our votes are secret and personal and very serious stuff. They are individualized based on location, needs and wants. I know there are many on here who have no problem with people using their celbrity to push political choices, just wondering if that extends to this choice?

No, I would have absolutely no problem with that.

 

The use of one's fame to further a political agenda, or to try to sell a product, or even to further most issues does not bother me in the least bit.

 

This particular use seems to leap way over the line, however.

[bmags]

WOuld you have an issue with Tebow (or anyone else) using his celebrity as a carrot in a very serious decision when it comes to electing a President? Our votes are secret and personal and very serious stuff. They are individualized based on location, needs and wants. I know there are many on here who have no problem with people using their celbrity to push political choices, just wondering if that extends to this choice?

 

funny enough iis were the case the super bowl supposedly wouldn't air it.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think it's pretty funny the view people have taken on this commercial without it ever being aired. We have no idea what the message will be, how strongly the message will be delivered, and in what fashion it's going to be delivered. It's pretty evident that people are just using their anti-pro-abortion people opinions on this.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

The commercial will probably be a lot less controversial than anyone on either side of the issue picks. However, I think some of the offense taken is legitimate. CBS and the SuperBowl has a history of rejecting advocacy group's ads - and I don't think there's any other legitimate definition of what Focus on the Family is.

[Jenksismyhero]

The commercial will probably be a lot less controversial than anyone on either side of the issue picks. However, I think some of the offense taken is legitimate. CBS and the SuperBowl has a history of rejecting advocacy group's ads - and I don't think there's any other legitimate definition of what Focus on the Family is.

 

That's a complaint I can deal with - one against CBS for changing its practices. But even then I think financially they're probably forced to, and the guy in the commercial is a popular football player who's probably going to be a recognizable figure in the NFL.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think it's pretty funny the view people have taken on this commercial without it ever being aired. We have no idea what the message will be, how strongly the message will be delivered, and in what fashion it's going to be delivered. It's pretty evident that people are just using their anti-pro-abortion people opinions on this.

 

I once had an Auntie who was very pro-anti-anti-pro-abortion. Or was it the other way around?

[Rex Kickass]

That's a complaint I can deal with - one against CBS for changing its practices. But even then I think financially they're probably forced to, and the guy in the commercial is a popular football player who's probably going to be a recognizable figure in the NFL.

 

Honestly, I think that's where most of the anger comes from on this. Over the past few years CBS and the SuperBowl have rejected ads that have covered topics like eating vegetables instead of meat, churches that allow gay people to go to them, some crazy moveon ad, etc.

 

In some cases, I'm sure there were legitimate content reasons to reject the ad - but in most, they cited "issue advocacy" as a reason to reject the ad and the money. Now, Focus on the Family, is using a sports player to broach a controversial issue in a setting that is, frankly, not an appropriate venue and also the most watched event of the year. And nobody is blinking an eye.

 

Maybe this commercial is harmless, but the speculation from reports surrounding this commercial indicates that it grapples with a difficult issue and advocates a specific position. Instead, it seems to indicate that issue advocacy is A-OK this year, as long as it represents a conservative worldview. And that is concerning.

[Jenksismyhero]

Honestly, I think that's where most of the anger comes from on this. Over the past few years CBS and the SuperBowl have rejected ads that have covered topics like eating vegetables instead of meat, churches that allow gay people to go to them, some crazy moveon ad, etc.

 

In some cases, I'm sure there were legitimate content reasons to reject the ad - but in most, they cited "issue advocacy" as a reason to reject the ad and the money. Now, Focus on the Family, is using a sports player to broach a controversial issue in a setting that is, frankly, not an appropriate venue and also the most watched event of the year. And nobody is blinking an eye.

 

Maybe this commercial is harmless, but the speculation from reports surrounding this commercial indicates that it grapples with a difficult issue and advocates a specific position. Instead, it seems to indicate that issue advocacy is A-OK this year, as long as it represents a conservative worldview. And that is concerning.

 

We'll have to see what the ad says before we can conclude that it's advocating a specific position in this debate. Clearly she's on one side, and she's advocating HER belief that the life of HER baby is important enough to risk HER own life. I don't think that means she's on the "abortion is always wrong no matter what" side. She might be, and the ad might have that message, but at this point we don't know.

 

I guess I just see a difference between making people aware that it's a serious choice with serious consequences (including possibly killing Jesus II), versus claiming that all abortion supporters are murderers.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

We'll have to see what the ad says before we can conclude that it's advocating a specific position in this debate. Clearly she's on one side, and she's advocating HER belief that the life of HER baby is important enough to risk HER own life. I don't think that means she's on the "abortion is always wrong no matter what" side. She might be, and the ad might have that message, but at this point we don't know.

 

I guess I just see a difference between making people aware that it's a serious choice with serious consequences (including possibly killing Jesus II), versus claiming that all abortion supporters are murderers.

Do you believe that a substantial amount of people believe it is not a serious choice?

[BigSqwert]

You're also ignoring the fact that the founder of this organization preaches hate with his anti-gay comments.

[FlaSoxxJim]

You're also ignoring the fact that the founder of this organization preaches hate with his anti-gay comments.

 

+1

[Soxy]

Do you believe that a substantial amount of people believe it is not a serious choice?

Ultimately that's what bothers me about this. It assumes that women make this choice so flippantly that a celebrity could change their mind. Of the women I've known to have an abortion all undertook it seriously, with great thought. This isn't something that people decide based on a commercial or celebrity. To me, it's offensive that people think most women would undergo an abortion without any serious consideration.

[Jenksismyhero]

Do you believe that a substantial amount of people believe it is not a serious choice?

 

In fact I do. I think a lot of young women think of it as a simple procedure, and only later reflect on the decision they made. Studies have shown that women who have abortions succomb to depression and anxiety after the fact, sometimes long after the fact. Adding yet another reminder that it's a serious choice isn't a horrible thing IMO.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

In fact I do. I think a lot of young women think of it as a simple procedure, and only later reflect on the decision they made. Studies have shown that women who have abortions succomb to depression and anxiety after the fact, sometimes long after the fact. Adding yet another reminder that it's a serious choice isn't a horrible thing IMO.

Well luckily all of these women now have Tim Tebow to look up to. I'm sure any woman who's been advised that the baby in their womb is at great risk of defect or possibly even death will ignore their doctor and listen to a football player.

[Jenksismyhero]

Ultimately that's what bothers me about this. It assumes that women make this choice so flippantly that a celebrity could change their mind. Of the women I've known to have an abortion all undertook it seriously, with great thought. This isn't something that people decide based on a commercial or celebrity. To me, it's offensive that people think most women would undergo an abortion without any serious consideration.

 

You say this like having celebrity endorsements means nothing. Clearly it does or companies wouldn't spend billions on having people endorse their products. Consumers use celebrities all the time when it comes to issues that are more serious than which soft drink to purchase.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Well luckily all of these women now have Tim Tebow to look up to. I'm sure any woman who's been advised that the baby in their womb is at great risk of defect or possibly even death will ignore their doctor and listen to a football player.

 

Yep, there's the "stop preaching to me!" perspective.