Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Sunday, February 07, 2010
The following is Carolyn McCulley's post from her blog Radical Womanhood:
Often when there is a great deal of media coverage on a specific topic, I don't add my two cents on this blog. Especially in cases like the Haiti earthquake where I have no personal connections and my words are best spent in prayer.
But I'm going to jump in on the Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad controversy. I'm calling this ad campaign a success before it airs--or before most anyone has seen it. The reason is that the hysterical reaction from pro-abortion groups to a purportedly non-provocative ad has revealed the degree to which there is no "choice" in "pro-choice." (To whit: the jaw-dropping "logic" of Erin Matson, the National Organization for Women's new vice president, calling the Tebow spot "hate masquerading as love." What part of a mother's sacrifice and risk exactly is hate?!) That has led people who would normally support abortion rights to express dismay at the reaction to this pro-family ad, as it has been described. CBS may well have changed their position on what they consider an advocacy ad, but they have the right to do so. It's their policy. They can change it. In fact, I believe that due to this public discussion, the ad would be a success if even CBS bowed to the pro-abortion groups' pressure and pulled it before anyone could see it.
Why do I believe this? Because the stridency of the pro-abortion groups is backfiring on the general public. Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins really nailed what's wrong with the critical reaction to this ad in a piece titled, "Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are." While saying she is a pro-choice feminist, Jenkins acknowledges that "Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time." Here are some of her common-sense observations:
I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.
Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.
Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn't be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn't. . . .
Here's what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.
You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren't embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too -- and they should step up to that.
Finally, after acknowledging that abortion affects the potential lives of future artists, doctors, scientists, inventors and even Heisman Trophy winners, Jenkins concludes with this sane observation:
Tebow's ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it's apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." This is what NOW has labeled "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning." But if there is any demeaning here, it's coming from NOW, via the suggestion that these aren't real questions, and that we as a Super Bowl audience are too stupid or too disinterested to handle them on game day.
Big ups to CBS for their commitment to this ad. They are smart enough to figure out how to capitalize from all of this media firestorm, of course. But I applaud their stance to support free speech, especially in matters of life and death.