"This child's future is a broken home. He will be abandoned by his father. His single mother will struggle to raise him. Despite the hardships he will endure...this child...will become...the 1st African-American President." – Transcript from ad rejected by NBC for the 2009 SuperBowl
By now we all know about the surprisingly controversial ad by Focus on the Family that ran during the SuperBowl last weekend. The ad featured Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. His mother described a difficult pregnancy and was then – brace yourself – tackled by her son who, it turns out, was born. The mother jokingly asks Tim why he did that and he laughs and says, "Sorry mom."
Various leaders of the National Organization of Wenches (NOW) expressed outrage at the Tebow tackle, claiming that in some bizarre, pink-stained world, this glorifies violence against women - a position that ironically trivializes real violence against women. If we're going to get stupid about this stuff then we could carry it further and point out that blurring the lines between a fake, comedic assault and the real kinds of violence that real people deal with does nothing to serve the cause against that violence. Not mentioned is that Pam Tebow than mocked her football-playing son as being "not as tough" as she is.
NOW President Terry O'Neill railed against the ad, adding, "I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming."
Now let's apply that perspective to abortion. I myself am a survivor of "choice" and I don't find the movement that glorifies abortion to be very charming. O'Neill may be too old to legally be a survivor of "choice" but she could acknowledge that Tim Tebow is certainly a survivor of "choice".
When it comes to outrage…to each their own. Ballew had it right.
Panned Parenthood, the Microsoft of the abortion industry, produced a pathetic response in an ad that they wouldn't pony up the money for to air during the Big Game. With football players speaking in gentle tones about their daughters someday exercising their precious rights to kill their babies it brought me back to candidate Obama's twisted statement about abortion rights, pointing out that if one of his daughters did an oops!, he wouldn't "want them punished with a baby."
What's great about the Tebow ad is that it did what I think was the intention all along – it forced pro-choice activists to play their hand and expose themselves for what they are – promoters and supporters of abortion. Here's how:
- Even a touching, completely non-political message is scorned. This is interesting because most vocal pro-choice advocates claim to be pro-life themselves or at least personally oppose abortion on some level, yet they can't stomach a harmless message about life
- The line between pro-choice and pro-abortion gets blurred. I've pointed out in the past that there are two kinds of arguments to make on behalf of abortion – the legal argument that defines it as a right and the argument for the act itself. The first is the only legitimate (albeit flawed) pro-choice argument one can make; the second is clearly pro-abortion. Most advocates spend their energy arguing on behalf of the latter.
- The very concept of "choice" is a political term that is used in direct connection to the choice to abort while the choice to give birth is not only disconnected from the concept, it is banished to the basement and treated as a threat to "choice" whenever it rears its ugly head. The Pam Tebow's of the world are seen as public enemy #1.
- The obligatory argument following some broad defense of abortion is to create the illusion that most, if not all abortions are due to rape, incest, health and saving the life of the mother. The truth doesn't matter. That truth is that the vast majority of abortions are optional and selective and selfish. Couple that with the obvious – all supposedly pro-choice activists rage against any and every attempt to reduce the free-wheeling spirit of abortion.
Attempts to restrict late-term abortions, have mandatory 24 hour waiting periods before an abortion, mandatory ultrasounds, efforts to promote the "choice" of life and adoption, parental notification laws for teenagers seeking abortions, allowing for conscience clauses for medical workers, having legal protection for babies who survive abortion attempts, producing non-threatening television ads…any public reference or legislation that doesn't whole-heartedly embrace, endorse or expand abortion (not choice) is met with hostility and fear.
Note that in the reference above, Obama didn't say that if his daughters' health or life was threatened he wanted them protected by a right to abortion. His actual words were, "if they make a mistake".
Fitting, I suppose. The quote at the start of this article obviously describes Barack Obama and his mother. But it also describes how Obama himself defied the pro-abortion mantra that declares that abortion is necessary because there is no hope for children who are born to single mothers or under less than ideal circumstances.
I've always found the elitism amazing, the elitism that allows the living to try and craft a world that discourages or prevents others from living. This goes as far back as eugenics theories, to pro-abortion causes and even into the global-population hysterics. All of these people support or have supported agendas that fortunately can't touch themselves while allowing them to determine the fates of those yet to be born.
Put all of this together and it makes one core point obvious: even the idea of a "right to choose" is a lie and nothing but political-speak designed to soften the disgusting nature of abortion. Let's call it what it is – it's a right to abortion.
Pregnancy is a biological function. Giving birth is not a "choice" that on its face demands sympathy and acceptance. Preventing that birth is the only angle that requires choice and understanding. We don't describe Lawrence v. Texas as the ruling that gave us the right to choose to sodomize each other – it gave us the right to sodomize each other. We don't view the First Amendment as the right to choose to have free speech; it's the right to free speech!
Yeah, Pam Tebow is probably pretty tough. And those who are quick to point out how tough it can be to exercise the "right to choose" could maybe also acknowledge how tough it can be to give birth in the face of all-odds. Maybe some of the gals at NOW and Panned Parenthood could take a lesson or two from mother Tebow.
- Signed, A Choice Survivor