Em & Lo's RSS Feed Em & Lo's Daily Email Feed Be Our Facebook Friend! Follow Us on Twitter!

LEVI's on Amazon

Good Vibes Cupcake

Buy on Amazon Kindle!

Sandals on Amazon


Pro-Choice Responses to the Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad

Fri, Feb 5, 2010

Advertising, Pop Culture, TV, Vids

To kick off your Superbowl weekend, check out these 3 bits that you won’t (but should!) see during the game this Sunday — all are in response to the anti-choice, anti-equality, anti-gay Christian group Focus on the Family’s 2.5-million-dollar spot (that we mentioned the other day) featuring football star Tim Tebow and his mom talking about how she refused to have an abortion after doctors advised her to. Hey, good for Mrs. Tebow, who had the right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health! Guess we can now hold our breath until CBS runs an equally “appropriate” ad about preserving that right to choose:

Watch the other 2 videos on SUNfiltered

, , , , ,

 

5 Responses to “Pro-Choice Responses to the Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad”

  1. Madamoiselle L Says:

    FUNNY! And he made some good points. Not the least of which, Mrs. Tebow LIED, as you cannot obtain abortions in the Philippines, even if you do “have an illness.” So, no doctor would have advised her to do so and break the law and risk HIS medical license.

    But, the guy made some good points about Free Speech, let ‘em run the ad, but let other “controversial” ads run as well. OR run NONE of the ads. Not just pick and choose according to the Status Quo at CBS.

    CBS is practicing censorship by ONLY showing one side of a many sided issue. And……if Tebow, or any one of the rest of us, had never been born, would the world actually be that different, or worse of a place?

    I don’t actually state my personal opinion about abortion often, I don’t see it as worth the argument, either way. But, the “what if YOUR MOM had aborted YOU?” argumental tactic doesn’t do it for me. I’m no more important than any other person who was born or wasn’t born. I don’t consider myself exceptional or indispensable, so if “my mom” hadn’t given birth to ME, I wouldn’t have known, and it wouldn’t have made a difference to the world in a small or a large way.

    I guess people who THINK that kind of argument works on others, think themselves to be either personally exceptional, indispensable or think their presence on the planet to be a benefit to all. I think that sort of thinking is a bit more than egotistical. And adds nothing to the discussion but yelling “Your MOM!” at a nemesis.

  2. Slartibartfast Says:

    Mademoiselle L, as usual I love your comment and I find the Tebow ad pretty repugnant. However, in the interests of fairness and accuracy, what CBS is doing, while loathsome, can’t legitimately be seen as a free speech/censorship issue. As a private entity, they have some say over what they air. Of course, I have some say over what I view. Looks like it’s time to double up the Planned Parenthood contribution.

  3. Madamoiselle L Says:

    Yeah, Slart, CBS unfairness is NOT unConstitutional, (being a privately owned company and not part of the government) it’s simply unfair.

    I don’t boycott things anymore (with the exception of Nestle, simply because I’ve been doing it since I was a kid, and it’s habit, as well as the fact that I HATE the company and the way they approach infant feeding) so, I’ll most likely be in an out of the room while The Man and his buddy are watching the game……..or maybe I’ll go shopping. The last time I went shopping during the Superbowl, the stores were empty and it was great!

    My youngest one will be upstairs watching “Puppybowl” on Animal Planet. As she has since she was a toddler. Same thing for hours, puppies playing and peeing in a large enclosure which looks like a football field. IMO, a great alternative for those who like puppies more than football. :)

  4. smh Says:

    Yes she had a choice because she had access to medical care prenatal, post natal and neo natal care. Until everyone has access to the same level and quality of medical care and insurance to provide same the focus on family is hideously skewed and a joke. The focus on families needs to be so that all families especially those with two parents working but have no insurance or limited insurance – their choices are made often by default.

  5. Madamoiselle L Says:

    smh you are SO right. If one has access to health care, there are rare situations which would make an abortion a “medical necessity.” There are a few, but not many anymore.

    Without access, though, many women have to either suffer high risk pregnancies, which CAN be deadly without healthcare, alone, or choose to end the pregnancy. There are women without choices, and I don’t think Focus On the Family (a group which says they are “pro-family” but which endorses HITTING children) understands that not everyone is a rich, white Republican with GOOD health care opportunities.


Leave a Reply