An advocacy ad stirs a national debate

For 43 years, Super Bowl viewers have watched all kinds of commercials from companies that are famous (Coca-Cola) or otherwise (Cash4Gold.com), peddling everything from automobiles to Xerox copiers. But never has there been a Super Bowl spot that took sides on a contentious social issue — until now.

CBS, which will broadcast Super Bowl XLIV on Sunday, has sold 30 seconds of commercial time in the game to Focus on the Family, an evangelical organization known for conservative views on subjects like abortion and gay marriage. The commercial is to feature Tim Tebow, the college football star, and his mother, Pam, discussing their anti-abortion positions.

A news release distributed by Focus on the Family last month said the spot would feature the Tebows sharing a personal story centered on “Celebrate family, celebrate life.” In the past, Mrs. Tebow has spoken of a decision she made to give birth to Tim rather than have an abortion.

But whether she recounts that story — and how much the commercial deals with the arguments between supporters of abortion rights and anti-abortion advocates — are not known at this time. Focus on the Family has not provided further information about the spot and CBS has declined to discuss it because the network’s policy is to let an advertiser decide whether to reveal the contents of a commercial before broadcast.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Religion News & Commentary, Evangelicals, Life Ethics, Media, Other Churches, Religion & Culture, Sports

17 comments on “An advocacy ad stirs a national debate

  1. Ralph says:

    “They want to be entertained; they want to see funny ads,” Mr. Belch said. “Now, does this become a forum where we start to debate controversial issues?”

    I expect that the Tebow ad will be hugely entertaining, and it’s clear that it will attract viewers who might not other watch. I suspect it will go “viral” on YouTube. The thought that Tim Tebow might have been flushed down a toilet is a powerful message, albeit one that is not funny.

  2. New Reformation Advocate says:

    Yes, Ralph. I expect it will be a powerful witness, and a most welcome one. This is, among other things, a freedom of speech issue, so it’s really hard for the liberals to come up with a convincing reason why the ad shouldn’t run.

    Thankfully, CBS is more open to the idea of a pro-life ad than NBC was last year, when they refused to air the marvelous 30-second ad produced by CatholicVote.com. Good for CBS.

    And Bravo to Focus on the Family!

    David Handy+

  3. Paula Loughlin says:

    The debate over this ad, and the foaming at the mouth response by N.O.W and their ilk show how the term pro-choice is a lie. For there to be a choice one must have more than one option. Yet when one person explains that their choice was not abortion they are attacked at the most personal of levels. No the only choice allowed by this garbage scow of a philosophy is the killing of a pre born baby. They can see no other choice. For in their eyes having a womb and the ability to bear children is a sign of slavery. And they will make war upon it. They eat, drink, breath and live rage.

    And should your beliefs uphold that men and women are different they shall lower their lances towards you as well. Why do you think they hate orthodox Christianity with such passion? Like all evil doers the truth burns them to the marrow.

    Make no mistake they are not Pro Choice, they are Pro Death.

  4. Helen says:

    Dear Paula (#3): incredibly powerful prose. Hope you are writing somewhere that you can have an influence.

  5. Br. Michael says:

    Well said.

  6. David Keller says:

    Think of all the degrading, suggestive, semi-vulgar ads over the years they haven’t protested. That will help give you a clearer picture of who they are and what they represent.

  7. Lee Parker says:

    I think folks on this blog know how I feel about life. In fact I attended a great function where Mrs. Tebow spoke this year. The question I have is if Tim gets his time this year, just how bad will the commercial for Planned Parenthood be next year?

  8. Chris says:

    Lee, if Planned Parenthood gets on we should criticize their message, not rail at CBS for airing it. The feminists realize they have a losing issue on their hands, so they’re resorting to an attempt to censor the message. and that is just a wrongheaded attack on freedom of speech.

  9. Lee Parker says:

    Absolutely Chris and what I pray for is the potential PP message will speak for itself and we can commend CBS for its overall freedom of speech platform.

  10. Brian from T19 says:

    #2 & #8

    This is not a freedom of speech issue.

  11. Dan Crawford says:

    #10 BS. If it’s not a freedom of speech issue – what is it?

  12. episcoanglican says:

    #8 – Ever seen “Cider House Rules”? The “choice” people have been presenting their view in multiple media for some time.

  13. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) says:

    [i]For in their eyes having a womb and the ability to bear children is a sign of slavery.[/i] — True enough, yet they have decided [i]not[/i] to see the genuine slavery in their conceptual framework that considers the growing child to be the PROPERTY of the mother.

    It is unmistakably human (as any genetic evaluation will demonstrate immediately), and it is unmistakably a different organism than the mother, instead of a piece of her flesh. What differentiates placental mammals from the marsupials is that the growing young are able to over-ride the mother’s immune system response against foreign protein, and can thus remain in the uterus.

    In marsupials, the young must leave the womb at a very primitive stage of development, lest the mother’s immune system digest them as an invader.

    [i]…the term pro-choice is a lie. For there to be a choice one must have more than one option.[/i] The real problem is they are so utterly self-referential they demand a choice without consequences.

    I can [i]choose[/i] to swing a baseball bat or to hurl a brick. Or choose not to do. If I swing that bat or hurl that brick in a manner that damages another’s person or property … there are consequences. [b]The existence of consequences does not remove choice.[/b]

    Even if women were jailed five years for aborting a child, it would nevertheless remain their choice to abort or not. At various times in our history both women and black people have been denied the legal status of “person.”

    How curious that so many of the same people who would extend personhood to chimps and other apes … wish fervently to deny that status to unborn humans.

  14. Branford says:

    #11, Dan Crawford, my understanding is that freedom of speech primarily relates to freedom from government interference in speech, especially political speech. CBS did not have to accept this ad – they are a private company and can accept or reject ads for whatever reason they want. No one is denying Focus on the Family or the Tebows the right to say whatever they want, but no one is obligated to give them a platform. So this is not a true freedom of speech issue. That said, I’m glad CBS accepted the ad.

  15. Crabby in MD says:

    Have a friend on facebook, who is a classmate of mine in highschool. She is all over getting people to call CBS to not air this ad. The number is 1-800-460-4939. I figure we can call and encourage CBS!

  16. billqs says:

    Well, I’m sure CBS fully understands that the largest demographic for the Superbowl are militant feminists 🙂

  17. phil swain says:

    I think the airing of the Tebow piece could be a breakthrough for the pro-life movement if it means that networks will allow commercial time for pro-life ads. Let PP air their commercials stating why it’s okay to kill your unborn baby. The pro-death side only wins if the issue is repressed. The more the facts of abortion are raised in the public’s consciousness, the more the public becomes pro-life.