I watched this O’Reilly segment tonight with interest. Tim Tebow is apparently going to be featured in an ad, during the superbowl, which is going to tell the story of how his mom got sick while pregnant with him, and was told by specialists that she ought to have an abortion, and she obviously chose to NOT have one, and as a result Tim Tebow got to be born and be an awesome quarterback (albeit for a school that Mr. Mock loathes with the fury of a million suns). Anyway, no one has previewed the ad, but CBS approved the script, and it sounds like just a really good uplifting story about a woman who chose life for her unborn child, and there was a big fat happy ending as a result.
I don’t know about you all, but I just don’t think the woman who O’Reilly interviews really makes a good argument for CBS not to run the ad. She’s all, “This ad is offensive because it clearly is trying to undermine women’s right to choose” which is utter nonsense. It sounds as though the ad simply shows how awesome of an outcome the Tebow family had. I love how O’Reilly was like, “Wait. Are you actually offended that Tim Tebow is alive?” And then she said something about how she was offended that CBS was running an “advocacy ad” which goes against their own policy.
I guess we won’t really know one way or another until the ad runs, but I’m with Bill on this – showing a positive story with a good outcome does not UNDERMINE a woman’s right to choose. Women currently have the right to choose. That’s the law. I don’t really see how airing a feel-good story about Tim Tebow changes that.
Thoughts?
I think it’s awesome that he is standing up. Besides it Not a reproductive right, it’s reproductive responsibility.
So…we shouldn’t run ads supporting the pro-life movement and possibly save a baby’s life, but it’s okay to run ads supporting binge drinking (which is a huge factor in alcohol poisoning and drunk driving deaths).
I’m 100% pro-choice and last time I checked, the option not to abort was in itself a choice. Honestly, I don’t know why anyone would feel threatened by this ad. As long as the commercial doesn’t show the graphic aborton pics that pro-lifers love to use what is the issue? I’m a L&D nurse so I’m well aware of the consequences, both physical and emotional, of abortion. However, a woman determined to abort a child will find a way and there is no reason for her not to have a safe option available in my opinion. As long as the ad is in compliance with FCC regulations, freedom of speech should reign.
Of all Tim Tebow’s accomplishments this will be his greatest. A life is a life no matter how small.
As a Bulldog (two degrees), I’ve tried for years to develop a hatred for Tim Tebow. I just can’t do it. He’s such a great kid.
And to Ms. Greene I say, “Raise some frigging money and make your own ad!”
Hilarious. I don’t like what you have to say, so I’m going to get someone to stop you from saying it. Yeah, that’s freedom.
So, her argument is literally (and when I say “literally,” I am one of those who does not mean “figuratively”) that it is offensive that this article will be aired because it somewhat favors a political stance with which she disagrees. If CBS’s policy says what she says it says, there may be at least something to her argument (about the ad running, not about abortion itself). By criticizing an ad for encouraging women to voluntarily give birth, she isn’t doing her own side much of a favor. She is criticizing the use of persuasion to promote the only just, humane way to exercise the birth/abortion option, worried that encouraging people to do the right thing could eventually result in a law requiring it. This provides the evidence she probably would prefer not to have that the term “pro-abortion” is an accurate label to attach to at least some of the advocates of legal abortion.
Also, she indicates that the great thing about Tebow’s story is that his mother could have had an abortion if she had wanted to, not that Tebow was ever born. That really isn’t the right lesson to take away from this. Then, she declines to agree that the fact that Tebow was ever born should be celebrated, responding (when asked about that) that the celebration should be about the fact that his mother could have had him killed, if she had wished to do so. Like a lot of people, having chosen a “side” in a dispute, she is turning away from reason just to avoid giving the other “side” an inch, even if that inch is simply agreeing that it is nice that a particular, identified person was not aborted.
O’Reilly is a little off the mark himself, here. He seems to be confused about what the right to freedom (in the speech context) means. She is trying to silence people who disagree with her, but not in a coercive way. She is criticizing CBS for putting that ad on the air instead of some other content, which CBS may justly do and she may justly criticize. Also, I don’t see where she is claiming that the commercial itself takes away the “right” to abortions. She just says that the commercial undermines that “right,” and I think that is best interpreted as “tending to advance the elimination of” that pretense of a right. I hope that’s true, though it obviously is not the ad’s sole purpose.
She does not really want the open discussion of the issue that she claims to support (apparently afraid of even the sterile word of “abortion,” using euphemisms to avoid it in all but two cases), but that is a different issue. She does not seem to have any intention of doing anything that would violate anyone’s rights (other than by having and/or enabling abortions, of course).
The large majority of abortions are preformed on black people. I just don’t get this defending of this practice that is largely segmented.
Totally agree with majordawg on this one – except for the Bulldog thing. I’d like to replace that part with (first degree) Volunteer (who wears REAL orange).
Buy your own ad, crazy-paranoid-I-want-to-ban-speech-that-I-don’t-agree-with lady. The Tebows are obviously not trying to change legislation here. They’re just trying to give an alternate view of an issue. I think it’s kind of awesome, not to mention a beautiful exercise in freedom of speech (and I’m the pro-choice one of the two of us here at COTR). Hopefully, there will be some confused girl out there, watching the ad on Super Bowl Sunday, who is contemplating having an abortion – and she’ll choose to have her baby instead.
How on God’s green earth is that a BAD thing?
From Jehmu Greene’s ” Women of the Media” website: “The WMC is conducting an ongoing effort to push for more diverse, inclusive moderation and format in the next electoral cycle, so that we can all enjoy a real exchange of ideas from journalists who should represent us all.”
Apparently,their advocacy of the above statement, does not spill over to CBS’s having the right to run ads of “diverse” format.
I love how the term “pro-choice” only refers to abortion. Why is life or the CHOICE to give birth not protected by Pro-Choice? This makes no sense.
I heard a Planned Parenthood rep refer to the Pro-Life people as “Anti-Choice”-Does that mean that they are “Anti-Life”? Personally, I think that women’s groups (like NOW) do not want any alternative presented. I don’t really understand why. Are they benefiting somehow by the number of abortions?
Kelly, in this case, “diverse” means, “I’ll listen to every opinion as long as it matches my own.”
The only thing this ad is undermining is Jehmue’s politics. Rapidly the word ‘choice’ is becoming no choice.
This ad sounds like an abortion. I am assuming the ad will go something like this: “Don’t have an abortion, and your child can grow up to be a self righteous d-bag like me.” Sounds compelling. People need to spend more time focusing on the family in their living rooms and less time worrying about the individual choices people make. By the way, Tim Tebow is generally disliked by college football fans outside the SEC. I look forward to his failure in the NFL and subsequent run for Congress in Florida.
Aaaand following in the footsteps of Jehbu Greene, and also completely incapable of making a good case for why the ad shouldn’t run, I present you “Some Perspective.”
Wow. Bitter much?
Personally, I think O’Reilly could have handled the interview a bit better, but whatever; I’m glad he took a stand, even if I think he could have taken a better approach.
Anyhow, this woman’s main issue seems to be with the fact that CBS has a policy about running ads which are controversial, and the Tim Tebow ad is supposedly controversial. She says that abortion is one of the most controversial issues out there. I agree. So is religion…and yet networks have run ads for the Latter-Day Saints and the Scientologists. I mean, if her big issue is really with the controversial nature of this ad, then she should be protesting the religion ads, too. She claims that the Tebow ad undermines a woman’s right to choose, but she never says that the religion ads undermine people’s right to freedom of religion.
And I just love how she refused to answer O’Reilly when he asked if she was mad that Tim Tebow was alive.
Katiel, O’Reilly doesn’t do interviews. He sits there and overtalks anyone and everyone at the table…same as Chris McTinglylegs. The credit here goes to Bill’s producer for getting Greene’s hypocrisy on the air.
Right to the top on these comments – Amy has it down pat! A full dissertation on the “responsibility” aspect of all this would require more volumes than Brittanica can get on a shelf.
“As a Bulldog (two degrees), I’ve tried for years to develop a hatred for Tim Tebow. I just can’t do it. He’s such a great kid.”
You and Mark Richt, Dawg. I expect Mark and Tim will bury the hatchet this Spring as they both go afield on missionary work.
As a Miami grad, I am neutral on SEC football, but we Canes are proud that Richt is one of our alums. And, we Atlantic Coasters would just as soon the Yellow Jackets went back to the SEC.
As a pro-choice American, and I can’t understand Ms. Greene’s reaction to this ad. Choice includes choosing to have a child. It has nothing to do with only choosing to abort.
The right to choose resulted from a long hard battle for a woman’s freedom to decide about her own body unfettered by others’ personal beliefs or religious dogma. How is that different from one’s freedom of speech? Ms. Tebow has the right to say whatever she pleases, regardless of Ms. Greene’s personal beliefs or social leanings.
Wake up Ms. Greene. What do you have to be afraid of? This is America where we all enjoy the liberty to speak our minds, not just you.
Well said, lowilli!!!
I think the lady in the interview wanted to talk about CBS’ non-advocacy policy, which I think she has a legitimate beef with. But these types of interviews allow O’Reilly the opportunity to lead her away from her point. She brought up the policy twice, but was quickly interrupted as he changed the focus.
Remember this awesome ad that was denied for last year’s Super Bowl??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c
I guess too many heads would have exploded.
Papa,
You work it out and the SEC will happily take Tech back. It’d clear up our Out of Conference schedule nicely! We could play three or four patsies a year like the Gators do. (Charleston Southern, Troy, and Florida International)
In the meantime, Joy Behar speculated that Tim Tebow might have grown up to be a pedophile rapist – therefore it would have been better to abort him. This woman is a disgraceful appendage to human race.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_uf/2010/01/joy-behar-on-tebow-he-just-as-easily-could-have-been-a-rapist-pedophile.html
Sooo the Women’s Media Center is against Focus on the Familiy CHOOSING to buy an ad, aginst CBS CHOOSING to air the ad, Tebow CHOOSING to discuss the details surrounding his birth, his mother CHOOSING to have him and anyone who CHOOSES not to abort their child as a result of seeing this ad. Yeah, real open minded.
Mr. Tebow is rather self-righteous to think that any educated person would care what he thinks. He’s nothing more than a college football player whose opinion is no more valued than any other person who has a voting right. Frankly, I’m tired of watching those who think they owe it to others to share their holier than thou beliefs on national TV. Consequently, this Christain, NFL fan of many decades has decided to go skiing instead of watching the game. It would have been fun to see the Saints win their first Super Bowl, but I’m not going to sit there, waiting to shut off the TV when he appears. Will CBS give equal time to some distraught mother who for example conversely raised a mass murderer saying she wishes her child was never born? The whole matter reeks of bad judgement on the part of CBS executives, but then many of their shows belong in the trash can, along with this commercial by a group that fosters intolerance and hate.
JRS proves the point about bitter. What is so holier than thou to say “I’m glad to be alive!”?
Let’s just face it, those threatened and screaming about Tebow are fearful of his religion and how it shines a light on their own short comings.
The idiots like Joy Behar advocate death because of the negativity in the possibility of what a life may bring, yet go on to idolize and make celebrities out of heinous killers on death row. I have as yet to have an answer as to what crime a baby has committed.
I’m at a loss on how to respond to JRS, but I do wonder how this individual internalizes anger and hatred. On the other hand I marvel at the humanity employed by That Girl through her YouTube reference. I don’t often equate my politics with President Obama, but that video is an awesome expression of what it is to be us. Beethoven is also an example of individuality overcoming adversity so deep as to daunt most folks. Who knew? Certainly not his mother, who could just as easily been confronted with the question “are you growing a mass murderer in there?”
Mr. JRS is rather self-righteous to think that any educated person would care whether or not he watches the Colts kick the Saints’ ass on Sunday.
The example JRS gave about a mother raising a mass murderer is ABSURD. There are over a million abortions performed per year, and somehow THAT’s your angle, JRS? It’s ok IN CASE one of them is a mass murderer? Wow.
You might not agree with the position of the group behind this ad, but the fact of the matter is, the ad itself apparently is going to be a positive, uplifting story about the choice Mrs. Tebow made to have her son. And this OFFENDS you? So much that you, a self-proclaimed NFL fan, won’t watch the entire superbowl?
That is just plain ridiculous. What are you so afraid of? That you’ll agree that Mrs. Tebow made the right call? HORRORS.
It is not that I am an absolutist – sometimes there are NO good choices, and having an abortion may be the least evil of them.
But, here’s a quandary: there’s a recent tragic story from Indianapolis about a pregnant bank teller shot in her stomach during a robbery. The woman, thankfully, survived, but violent assault resulted in the death of her unborn twin children. The robber is now being tried for double murder-feticide and attempted murder. So, the unborn are or are NOT people? Why is it acceptable to abort but not to shoot? The facile response that in the former case it is the woman’s choice and in the latter it is an “imposition” is philosophically untenable unless one accepts murder as a matter of convenience and circumstance. At the very least, situations like these should give the proponents of abortion a pause – there’s little that is morally uplifting about their “choice.”
Uh oh, easily offended people! Lookee here: http://www.lifenews.com/nat5969.html