Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad: Glad He Wasn't Aborted?

Formaldehyde

Both Fair And Balanced
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
33,999
Location
USA #1
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9667638

Spoiler :
Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad: Anti-Abortion Commercial to Air
CBS to Run Controversial Ad Promoting Family Values During the Game

By BRINDA ADHIKARI
Jan. 26, 2010—

He was the first sophomore in history to win a Heisman trophy. He was the first college football player both to rush and pass for 20 touchdowns in a season. Last year, he led his college team, the Florida Gators, to their second national championship in three years. At 6 feet 3 inches and 245 pounds, Tim Tebow may go down in history as the greatest college football player who ever lived.

And to think none of that would have happened if not for a decision his mother made nearly 23 years ago.

That is the message of a controversial new ad starring Tebow and his mother, Pam. Paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, the ad tells the story of Bob and Pam Tebow, who was pregnant with their fifth child when the couple travelled to the Philippines on a missionary trip.

While there, Pam contracted amoebic dysentery and the medicines used for her recovery threatened her unborn fetus. Doctors advised her to abort the fetus. Pam ignored their advice and gave birth on Aug. 14, 1987, to a baby boy. That boy was Tim Tebow.

Now arguably the highest profile player in college football for the past several years, Tebow cites his mother's decision as a key reason he chose to participate in the Focus on the Family ad, which created a mild uproar after CBS agreed to air it on Super Bowl Sunday.

"I know some people won't agree with it," said Tebow of the 30-second ad at a press conference in Mobile, Ala., on Sunday, in preparation for next weekend's Senior Bowl. "But I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe. I've always been very convicted of [his views on abortion] because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman."

Tebow has long been open about his strong Christian beliefs and family values. Focus on the Family says the ad will highlight the theme "Celebrate family, celebrate life."

The spot will mark a departure for the Super Bowl, which draws the largest TV audience every year and usually has commercials featuring dancing lizards or fortune-telling snow globes.

The major television networks have previously declined to air polarizing advocacy ads. In 2004, CBS and its competitors rejected an ad by the United Church of Christ, welcoming gays and others who may have felt felt snubbed by more conservative churches. At the time, CBS was heavily criticized. It says that in recent months, it has run more issue-oriented advertising, such as ones for health care.

Firestorm or Tempest in a Teapot?

Gary Schneeberger, a spokesperson from Focus on the Family told ABC News he was puzzled over the controversy surrounding the ad.

"There is nothing political or controversial about the spot. It's a personal story about the love between a mother and son," he said.

But a national coalition of women's groups is calling on CBS not to air the ad.

"This campaign is about holding CBS and the NFL and the other Super Bowl advertisers accountable," said Jehmu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center, "for inserting an exceedingly controversial issue into a place where we all hope Americans will be united, not divided, in terms of watching America's most-watched sporting event."

A spokesperson for CBS told the Associated Press that the network had approved the script for the ad and that it would ensure that any issue-oriented ad was "appropriate for air."

In a statement this afternoon the network said: "At CBS, our standards and practices process continues to adhere to a process that ensures all ads -- on all sides of an issue -- are appropriate for air. We will continue to consider responsibly produced ads from all groups for the few remaining spots in Super Bowl XLIV."

The ad has not been released publicly, but a source at CBS tells ABC News that the the words "abortion" and "pro-life" do not appear anywhere in the ad.

A 30-second ad during the Super Bowl is a highly-coveted advertising spot, with CBS selling its spots in this year's Super Bowl for $2.5 to $2.8 million. Despite an ailing economy, CBS is close to selling out its 62 ad spots for the broadcast, according to a USA Today report earlier this month.

However, CBS will not be counting on its usually reliable sponsors, with big companies such as General Motors, Pepsico and Fedex staying away from the Super Bowl, according to a study by ad researcher TNS Media Intelligence.

"CBS is doing this for the money," said Alex Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein School of Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. "It will indicate that a policy has changed. The networks have traditionally not put these kinds of ads on during the Super Bowl. This has been an area that has been kept relatively squeaky-clean of highly-polarizing politics. There is no way to be putting in an anti-abortion ad without prompting the pro-abortion side of the debate to get their message across. This may be a new profit center."

A Highly Coveted Spot

The ad would not be the first spot purchased by Focus on the Family. In 2005, the group purchased an ad spot during the show "Supernanny."

At the time, the group said that the show was all about Focus on the Family principles. "It was boundaries and using the time-out chair, respect for authority and good parenting skills," said Jim Daly, the group's president and CEO.

"This ad is frankly offensive, " said Erin Matson, the Action Vice President of the National Organization for Women, speaking of the Tebow commercial. "It is hate masquerading as love. It sends a message that abortion is always a mistake."

And then there's the matter of the ad airing on Super Bowl Sunday.

"If you're a sports fan, and I am, that's the holiest day of the year," wrote Gregg Doyel of CBSsports.com. "It's not a day to discuss abortion. For it, or against it, I don't care what you are. On Super Bowl Sunday, I don't care what I am. Feb. 7 is simply not the day to have that discussion."

A shining example of First Amendment rights? Using the wrong forum to make a political statement? Both? Neither?

I think it is an absurd red herring, since being such a staunch fundamentlist his mother obviously didn't even consider having an abortion to be a viable option. But he does have the right to make a fool of himself on national TV and quite possibly damage his pro career, just as it is the right of all the womens' groups to protest his action.
 
Those damn baby killing doctors!

Or maybe there is more to the story than just "Doctors advised her to abort the fetus".......
 
I see no problem with it. What most people forget about the pro-life/pro-choice argument is that the pro-choice stance is not pro-abortion. If the pro-choice groups were smart they’d find a way to spin this to highlight that in this case, not having an abortion was the right choice.

Of course this has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Tim’s mother survived the ordeal and he apparently had no adverse effects from his mother’s sickness or medicine. If either of the other things had happened the world would never have known about Tim Tebow. I am also willing to bet there are plenty of other stories out there that would show the benefit of the other decision, but those don’t have the “made for TV” quality about them.
 
This could hurt Tim Tebow's politically draft position.

I approve, but only if we can have the "aren't we glad Charles Manson wasn't aborted" ad as well.

Or maybe we can have John Edwards channel a woman who died during childbirth and get her take on it?
 
I think it is an absurd red herring

Its not a red herring as it doesnt divert attention away from the abortion argument, it actually focuses on it. If its anything, its a form of appeal to authority....ie. I wasnt aborted so you shouldnt be either...etc. etc.

I really wish to God you would learn to at least accurately use the terms you bandy about so without hardly a thought.

since being such a staunch fundamentlist his mother obviously didn't even consider having an abortion to be a viable option.

Actually, thats not true in all cases. At all.

But he does have the right to make a fool of himself on national TV and quite possibly damage his pro career, just as it is the right of all the womens' groups to protest his action.

Damage his pro career? Are you serious? The guy is entitiled to an opinion, especially if he feels that strongly about it. If anything the NFL NEEDS guys seen to have some decent moral fiber as opposed to the felons/dog killers/druggies/etc. its been plagued with over the years.
 
I see no problem with it. What most people forget about the pro-life/pro-choice argument is that the pro-choice stance is not pro-abortion. If the pro-choice groups were smart they’d find a way to spin this to highlight that in this case, not having an abortion was the right choice.

Exactly. Pro-choice people think that Mrs. Tebow ought to have the choice to do what she did. Mrs. Tebow thinks other women shouldn't have the choice to choose anything else. (Evidently,

Cleo
 
I really wish to God you would learn to at least accurately use the terms you bandy about so without hardly a thought.
I really wish to God you would learn to at least accurately whine without a thought about terms you apparently don't know what they mean. :lol:
 
Essentially, its a fallacious argument, as my comment about Manson alludes to.

I agree, I was just saying that as logical fallacys go...its more of an appeal to authority than a red herring. Dont you agree?

Point being, a lot of commercials in general are also logical fallacys in that they are appeals to authority. "5 out of 6 dentists like this so you will too!" Kind of things.

In this particular case its 'these babies were glad they werent aborted! Your baby will be glad to!"...hehe.

Dont get me wrong. I admire the guy for sticking up for what he believes in, but I question how effective such commercials actually are.
 
its more of an appeal to authority than a red herring..
Ah, now it's more of an appeal to authority. :lol:

But I'm glad to see you are studying up on logical fallacies. Perhaps you won't make so many in the future. :lol:
 
I agree, I was just saying that as logical fallacys go...its more of an appeal to authority than a red herring. Dont you agree?

Point being, a lot of commercials are also logical fallacys in that they are appeals to authority. "5 out of 6 dentists like this so you will too!" Kind of things.
Except that a dentist is an expert in things related to teeth and, you, know, things dental.

Is Tebow an expert in prenatal care? Abortion procedures?

I'd just say its a fallacy, and leave it at that. As you know I'm not that generally interested in diversionary semantics.
 
Ah, now it's more of an appeal to authority. :lol:

But I'm glad to see you are studying up on logical fallacies. Perhaps you won't make so many in the future. :lol:

Someones scrambling. And it doesnt really take studying up to recognize that not everything is a red herring or an irony.

Except that a dentist is an expert in things related to teeth and, you, know, things dental.

Is Tebow an expert in prenatal care? Abortion procedures?

I'd just say its a fallacy, and leave it at that. As you know I'm not that generally interested in diversionary semantics.

He is not speaking as an expert in prenatal care or procedure. He is speaking as someone who was not aborted. Its not like he has to be an expert. A housewife hawking floor wax in a commercial isnt the expert chemist who developed the floor wax is she?

And I dont think its necessarily semantics to use correct labels in describing fallacy. But I do understand your reluctance to get involved. If one is going to wrestle with pigs, getting dirty is guranteed. ;)
 
And it doesnt really take studying up to recognize that not everything is a red herring or an irony.
So this means we are going to continue to see logical fallacies in the future?

If one is going to wrestle with pigs, getting dirty is guranteed. ;)
Oh, sweet irony!:lol:
 
You used "wrong" wrong ... again. :lol:
 
So this means we are going to see even more logical fallacies in the future? Oh well...

Oh, sweet irony!:lol:

Since I didnt equate myself with the one wrestling with pigs in that comment (that was for Shane), why O why do you think it ironic?

By all means explain it to us. Are you saying its ironic that I was saying it for Shanes benefit? Or...?
 
I'll let Shane do that for me:

As you know I'm not that generally interested in diversionary semantics.
:lol:

Is it really so difficult to address the issues instead of just about everything else? :lol:
 
I remember a HS history teacher who looked kinda strange and seemed a bit off, and he said he was glad that he was put up for adoption instead of aborted. He was a really good teacher.
 
Back
Top Bottom