Comments on: A woman’s right to choose

By: Rosa

Rosa — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:39:23 +0000

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

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/05a75a5837/every-sperm-could-be-tim-tebow

By: Loretta

Loretta — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:05:11 +0000

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:
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/35088506/ns/sports-super_bowl_xliv/

By: cacophonies

cacophonies — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:02:12 +0000

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.

By: PrettyAmiable

PrettyAmiable — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:43:13 +0000

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!

By: Dawn.

Dawn. — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:20:07 +0000

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.

By: William

William — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:45:58 +0000

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

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

By: Sheelzebub

Sheelzebub — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:08:29 +0000

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.

By: Wednesday

Wednesday — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:35:49 +0000

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.

By: Eugenia

Eugenia — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:17:03 +0000

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.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:00:25 +0000

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.