16 comments for “A woman’s right to choose

  1. Kat
    February 8, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    awesome :)

  2. February 8, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Yes, and I support her right to choose, I mean be tackled!

  3. human
    February 8, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    I love it.

  4. February 8, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    so, i’m still trying to figure out what exactly was so offensive about the tebow ad. help me out here. absolutely nothing was said about abortion, the fact that she was advised to have an abortion or the fact that she chose not to have an abortion. she simply makes reference to the fact that she “almost lost him” as a baby because of health issues and she still worries about his health today. i never knew the story about her choosing not to have an abortion until all the blogs and articles came out raging against this ad and i think a lot of other people never would have known that that’s what the ad’s purpose was supposed to be. the text on screen at the end of the commercial simply says “celebrate life,” which could be interpreted a lot of different ways. granted, there was a link to the focus on the family website, but how many people are actually going to go to the site? also, i hate to burst everybody’s angry little bubbles, but abortion is a very emotional issue that people make decisions about based on deeply personal beliefs and feelings. a 30 second spot is NOT going to change many (if ANY) people’s minds one way or another… especially when the ad is as vague as this one was. i’m sorry that someone said something on TV that you didn’t like… but the fact is… that’s going to happen every day in this country because we have the right to free speech. that also gives you the right to criticize this ad, but i really feel time, energy and words are much better spent elsewhere. though it was produced by an organization that seeks to make abortion illegal, in comparison to other issues at large (even concerning abortion in particular) this vague little ad is kind of trivial. can we come off it already?

  5. Andrea
    February 8, 2010 at 11:58 pm

    Does anyone else see the irony of someone called ‘silencewillnotprotectyou’ telling everyone to be quiet?

  6. William
    February 9, 2010 at 12:37 am

    Silence: I can’t speak for anyone else here, but the reason I won’t come off it is because any communication by an organization built around restricting human liberty is suspect. Thats doubly true when the restriction is based upon the interpretation a bunch of old white guys have about a book a different bunch of old men in a similar position of social power and privilege wrote 1500 years ago in order to espouse the glory of their plagiarized deity.

    FOTF seeks to make abortion illegal. They seek to abridge a constitutional right. The fact that a company like CBS would take their money is offensive to me.

    I also find it pretty suspect that the only time we see you evangelicals around is when you pop up to drop a wall of fingerwagging text and then go back to whatever echo chamber you spend the rest of your time in.

  7. February 9, 2010 at 2:00 am

    Much of the problem has nothing to do with the content of the commercial itself. The thing that concerned me about the ad was that there has been a precedent of ads being rejected from the Super Bowl on the basis of politically controversial stances. The fact that this particular commercial promotes a website comprised of nothing but right-wing, fundamentalist political stances is clearly a break from the way Super Bowl ads have been treated in the past.

    In reference to what Silence said, I’d like to ask anyone who shares Silence’s opinion to ask themselves a simple question: What was the purpose of this ad? Sure, it didn’t directly address abortion on TV, but it was designed to encourage viewers to go to FoF’s website and watch a video of Tebow’s parents discussing the issue in some detail. Admittedly, the things said on TV by Tim Tebow’s mother were not controversial at all – essentially she said that she’s happy that her son is healthy, something that nobody could possibly disagree with – but the commercial was clearly promoting something that does not meet the standards of previous Super Bowls.

  8. February 9, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Another issue is that we are supposed to have “free speech,” it’s true, but the network chose to accept TWO ads by Focus on the Family and they have a history of turning away ads by progressive organizations supporting marriage equality, reproductive rights, etc. Which means that, essentially, network television is deciding WHO gets to have free speech on its airwaves and who does not.

  9. Wednesday
    February 9, 2010 at 8:35 am

    I found the ad offensive because of what goes unspoken – Pam Tebrow’s clear privilege and luck. Privilege, because she insists she could have chosen to abort while in a country that bans abortion in all circumstances. That ban has a death toll of over a thousand woman a year, IIRC, so that she actually had a choice is an _amazing_ demonstration of privilege. Luck, because she (and her then-fetal Manly Tackling Offspring) could easily have died from the complications she was facing at the time.

    Not everyone gets a miracle. It’s just that we don’t get to hear from them because they’re dead.

  10. Sheelzebub
    February 9, 2010 at 9:08 am

    in comparison to other issues at large (even concerning abortion in particular) this vague little ad is kind of trivial. can we come off it already?

    If this is so trivial to you, why did you take the time to post a long screed in response to a snarky ee card about it? You are welcome to turn your attention to the important stuff–don’t let us stop you.

    Sheesh. Irony. It’s what’s for breakfast.

  11. William
    February 9, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Sheesh. Irony. It’s what’s for breakfast.

    Irony would imply that it isn’t bullshit you’re smelling.

  12. Dawn.
    February 9, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Haha! Love that card.

    And in response to silencewillnotprotectyou: Come on now. Focus on the Family?? Just spend a few minutes researching their organization and you’ll see why everyone won’t “come off it.” Thanks for trying out a classic silencing tactic.

  13. PrettyAmiable
    February 9, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    This one’s my favorite because it gets used all the time by trolls on this site: “that also gives you the right to criticize this ad, but i really feel time, energy and words are much better spent elsewhere.”

    Right! Like actively seeking out a website that you know will disagree with you on a given topic, note that they have the right to disagree, but say, hey, you should shut up anyway because my way of thinking is better! Time management skillz win!

  14. February 9, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Silencewillnotprotectyou- Mrs. Tebow’s choice means absolutely nothing if you look at the fact that the organization (Focus on the Family) that ran this ad featuring her story wishes to make it illegal for women everywhere to make any choice other than the one she made. If it weren’t for abortion being legal, she would have never been given that option. If you think every woman is as lucky as she is, while in a country where abortion is illegal under all circumstances, think again. THAT’S why feminists are angry about it.

    Also, appropriating the term “choice” from pro-choice people is blatantly deceptive.

  15. Loretta
    February 9, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    Search for the original ad that was rejected. The original ad had her stating things such as she was couseled to abort the fetus…

    Good article here:

  16. Rosa
    February 10, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    I love this parody of Tim Tebow. I’ve always thought pro-life people should switch their focus to male masturbators.


Comments are closed.