Pro-Aborts Try To Sack Tebow

I wouldn’t normally think to use a football metaphor to represent the abortion battle. However, the recent flap over a pro-life Super Bowl ad featuring Florida quarterback and Heisman trophy winner, Tim Tebow, begs its use.

The frantic efforts by pro-abortion groups to get CBS to reject the ad are a clear indication that they are on defense. News reports indicate that these groups are blitzing in hopes of sacking Tim Tebow and his life-affirming message.

According to Focus on the Family, which produced the ad, it will convey the story about Tebow’s mother Pam who rejected advice to abort Tim. Mrs. Tebow and her husband were serving as Christian missionaries when she conceived Tim.

After contracting and being treated for an intestinal infection, Mrs. Tebow was told that the medications caused irreversible damage to Tim and recommended that she have an abortion. She refused the abortion citing her Christian faith as the source of her hope that Tim would be okay. Tim was born healthy and has obviously done quite well since.

This is the life affirming story that pro-abortion fanatics are worried about and trying to squelch. Jehmu Greene, president of the Women’s Media Center said the ad will use “one story to subtly dictate morality to the American public” and “encourages women to disregard medical advice, potentially putting their lives at risk.”

“An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite,” she said, “has no place in the biggest national sports event.”

This response is pathetic—morally and intellectually impoverished. No advertisement is capable of dictating morality, subtly or otherwise. The ad will merely present a story about a woman who chose to give life to her unborn child even though the child may have been born with disabilities.

If the ad changes minds and hearts against abortion, it will do so by the compelling and inspiring nature of the story. The ad will not—and cannot—dictate morality as if it were capable of producing some kind of hypnotic, mind-changing trance.

The notion that the ad might encourage women to ignore medical advice that could put their lives at risk is equally ridiculous. Even if Tim did have disabilities as the doctors wrongly predicted, it is extremely unlikely that continuing the pregnancy would have endangered Mrs. Tebow’s life.

Furthermore, had the pregnancy truly endangered Mrs. Tebow’s life, abortion advocates are saying that a mother risking her life for her child is irresponsible and dangerous. Really? I thought that risking one’s life for another, especially one’s own child, was the ultimate expression of love. In fact, if parents didn’t risk their lives to save the life of their born child, most in our society would deem them to be irresponsible—at the very least.

Even the pro-abortion editorial board of the New York Times called the protest of this ad by abortion advocates “puzzling and dismaying.” In an official editorial titled “Super Bowl Censorship” the Times said abortion advocates are making “a lame attempt to portray the ad as life-threatening.” Those “would-be sensors” who “argue that even a mild discussion of such a divisive issue has no place in the marketing extravaganza known as the Super Bowl… are on the wrong track,” the editorial says.

Pro-lifers should be encouraged by these frantic efforts of abortion activists to censor a life-affirming message. It is another strong indication that they are on defense and worried about public opinion moving against abortion. And when abortion activists can’t even celebrate a mother who made a life-affirming choice, it’s proof positive that they are “pro-abortion” not “pro-choice.”

Post A Question

All Questions are answered by a priest of the Diocese of Lincoln and published on the Southern Nebraska Register.