Choosing Tebow
Feb 6, 2010
Meghan Duke
Tim Tebow, the year’s best college football player, is starring in a mildly pro-life advertisement—“Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life,” it concludes—scheduled to air during the Super Bowl this Sunday. And the ruckus over that fact has been one of the strangest things to watch in years.
Even the New York Times has agreed—in an unsigned editorial no less—that the objections to the ad are unwarranted:
The would-be censors are on the wrong track. Instead of trying to silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about: protecting the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices.
Curiously, perhaps the most thoughtful treatment of the topic appeared in the sports pages of the Washington Post, where sports columnist Sally Jenkins takes a baseball bat and whacks around the old-line feminist organizations who’ve attacked the ad. Jenkins herself, she says, is no supporter of the pro-life cause, but she’s irritated that the ostensible defenders of choice are determined to tell her what to think:
Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.
NOW and NARAL purportedly protect women from those who would tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies—and all along, these organizations tell those women what thoughts they can and cannot consider. Talk about invasive. No wonder Jenkins balks:
Tebow himself is an inescapable fact: Abortion doesn’t just involve serious issues of life, but of potential lives, Heisman trophy winners, scientists, doctors, artists, inventors, Little Leaguers—who would never come to be if their birth mothers had not wrestled with the stakes and chosen to carry those lives to term. And their stories are every bit as real and valid as the stories preferred by NOW. . . . If the pro-choice stance is so precarious that a story about someone who chose to carry a risky pregnancy to term undermines it, then CBS is not the problem.
Meghan Duke is a junior fellow at First Things.
Comments:
2.5.2010 | 7:16am
Peter Boston says:
When are we going to start calling Pro Choice by the name that most applies - Pro Kill?
2.5.2010 | 9:12am
Richard says:
On the abortion issue I am firmly in the camp of the pro-life folks. However I strongly object to the moral certainty of which the entire movement is possessed. This subject is extraordinarily complicated and must be judged, if judgment has to be passed, on a case by case basis. The Tebow birth, in its own way, is an illustration of this point. While it might have been noble on its face for Tebow's mother to carry this star QB to term, it must be noted that the place she lived in at the time, the Philippines, made abortion a serious crime punishable by years in prison. So her decision could have been motivated more by a simple need to obey the law rather than some heroic moral behavior. And getting the abortion in the back alley would have been pretty risky to her health. Who will ever know? Maybe she will try to defend her purity, but the facts suggest some gray area here at the very least.
2.5.2010 | 9:14am
Glenn says:
Seems that the organization NOW should call itself pro-abortion rather than
pro-choice. On the one hand, NOW is utterly silent about the forced abortions
taking place in such countries as China, on the other they oppose someone
testifying to the choice she made to keep her baby instead of the advice to
abort given by her doctor. Choosing for the life of a baby is apparently not
a choice we should be commending. People have a choice as to whether or
not they want to smoke. But let's not encourage them to stop smoking, even
if it has all kinds of bad effects. Choice, choice choice. All that matters is the power
to choose. That one choice might be better than another?? Never!!!!! Or maybe
NOW really does believe that abortion is the better choice? As for freedom of
speech? Pro-lifers seem more than willing to engage in public debate. But NOW,
like the proponents of the slave-trade, must suppress any public airing of
just what abortion is. God forbid that as with slavery, we should ever come to
change our minds about abortion and look back with shame on what we not
merely allowed, but justified. There are all kinds of choices that we do not
encourage or even tolerate as a society. And for some, like smoking, we encourage
one choice over another. So, my pro-choice friends, are you really pro-choice or
really pro-abortion? Which choice do you encourage and why? I'm not against
making choices. I'm just for recognizing that some choices can be shown to be
better than others and that some choices, such as enslaving another human
being, can come to be seen as unthinkable for a society that wishes to think of
itself as noble as well as free.
Glenn
pro-choice. On the one hand, NOW is utterly silent about the forced abortions
taking place in such countries as China, on the other they oppose someone
testifying to the choice she made to keep her baby instead of the advice to
abort given by her doctor. Choosing for the life of a baby is apparently not
a choice we should be commending. People have a choice as to whether or
not they want to smoke. But let's not encourage them to stop smoking, even
if it has all kinds of bad effects. Choice, choice choice. All that matters is the power
to choose. That one choice might be better than another?? Never!!!!! Or maybe
NOW really does believe that abortion is the better choice? As for freedom of
speech? Pro-lifers seem more than willing to engage in public debate. But NOW,
like the proponents of the slave-trade, must suppress any public airing of
just what abortion is. God forbid that as with slavery, we should ever come to
change our minds about abortion and look back with shame on what we not
merely allowed, but justified. There are all kinds of choices that we do not
encourage or even tolerate as a society. And for some, like smoking, we encourage
one choice over another. So, my pro-choice friends, are you really pro-choice or
really pro-abortion? Which choice do you encourage and why? I'm not against
making choices. I'm just for recognizing that some choices can be shown to be
better than others and that some choices, such as enslaving another human
being, can come to be seen as unthinkable for a society that wishes to think of
itself as noble as well as free.
Glenn
2.5.2010 | 9:18am
Fred says:
As little a fan of Rush Limbaugh as I am (actually, I find him funny, but not a terribly good thinker), I can see where he came up with the term "feminazi."
2.5.2010 | 12:00pm
T.J. Sheridan says:
Censorship, thought control, being anti-choice (when choosing goes against their preference, abortion), these are all in a day's work for NOW and NARAL. Human agency is divinely rewarded in choosing for new human life.
2.5.2010 | 1:49pm
Paul Krisak says:
Right on, Meghan! Jenkins quote says it all, "They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion." Pam Tebow's story shows that anti-lifers don't want choice unless a woman chooses what they want her to choose. Didn't she have a right to choose what she wanted to do with her body? So, it's really not about choice but the agenda.
2.5.2010 | 1:55pm
Rosemary Lloyd says:
Tim Tebow isn't the issue here - it's the fact that his mother chose to keep him rather than have an abortion. This is what's getting the FemiNazis so hot and bothered. NOW and NARAL think it's their business to tell women what to do. And if those women decide to choose life instead of murder, it makes NARAL/NOW crazy. These groups get angry because such ads are forcing them to face the truth. What truth? Simply that, if allowed to go to term, this so-called "blob of cells" becomes a baby, a living, breathing, unique human being.
Recently, a woman gave birth to her 19th child 3+ months early. Little Josie Duggar iweighed in at 1 lb. 6 oz. and her head is the size of a cue ball. Yet she's alive, she's breathing, and when she was taken out of her mother's body via C-section, she was kicking and moving her arms and fingers and legs. A few years ago, such a "micro preemie" would have died. Today, Josie, despite having major troubles, is 2 lbs. 4 oz. and has passed he 6-week mark. Stories like Tim Tebow and Josie Duggar infuriate the FemiNazi, NARAL/NOW crowd because they show clearly that a developing fetus is a human being, not just a blob of cells. And maybe more women will realize that and will decide against infanticide.
Recently, a woman gave birth to her 19th child 3+ months early. Little Josie Duggar iweighed in at 1 lb. 6 oz. and her head is the size of a cue ball. Yet she's alive, she's breathing, and when she was taken out of her mother's body via C-section, she was kicking and moving her arms and fingers and legs. A few years ago, such a "micro preemie" would have died. Today, Josie, despite having major troubles, is 2 lbs. 4 oz. and has passed he 6-week mark. Stories like Tim Tebow and Josie Duggar infuriate the FemiNazi, NARAL/NOW crowd because they show clearly that a developing fetus is a human being, not just a blob of cells. And maybe more women will realize that and will decide against infanticide.
2.5.2010 | 2:03pm
Richard says:
There are many pro-life folks out here that just disagree with the uncompromising, and disingenuous nature of the "movement." I have always thought abortion was far more morally nuanced than portrayed by the movement. One needs to consider each situation to come to some reasonable conclusion of morality or no.
Similarly, the Tebow situation is not a good example of pure and uncomplicated moral purity. When Tebow's mother decided to have the baby that would later become a college superstar, she lived in the Philippines. At the time the decision to end the pregnancy, no matter the complications, would probably have earned her many years in prison as it was a serious crime. Probably the mother would say that didn't influence her decision. Possibly. But one has to think it was a reason that influenced her decision, which adds a gray area to an otherwise noble decision. But those in the "movement" mostly look for those blacks and whites, ignoring the gray. Pity.
Similarly, the Tebow situation is not a good example of pure and uncomplicated moral purity. When Tebow's mother decided to have the baby that would later become a college superstar, she lived in the Philippines. At the time the decision to end the pregnancy, no matter the complications, would probably have earned her many years in prison as it was a serious crime. Probably the mother would say that didn't influence her decision. Possibly. But one has to think it was a reason that influenced her decision, which adds a gray area to an otherwise noble decision. But those in the "movement" mostly look for those blacks and whites, ignoring the gray. Pity.
2.5.2010 | 8:07pm
cr says:
Ms. Duke,
Tebow's mother was basically forced to carry her pregnancy to term - Abortion was ILLEGAL at the time and in the place she gave birth (the Philippines).
Please check your FACTS -- Can you said false advertising???
Secondly, a person can also give birth to the likes of Hitler, Stalin, abusive parents, pedophiles in high places, and serial killers, etc..... Sorry, but those are the FACTS of freedom and real choice. Sometimes it leads to positive outcomes and sometimes it doesn't, but either way, you sorely miss the fundamental point and purpose of our concern, as pro-choice advocates.
We all have the right to defend ourselves, in our infinitely unique circumstances, and we have the basic right to preserve our physical autonomy - our privacy, health, lives and dignity - AS CITIZENS, whether male or female.
Such articles distort words and pollute clear reasoning...They also don't say much for the "intelligent and just creator".
Tebow's mother was basically forced to carry her pregnancy to term - Abortion was ILLEGAL at the time and in the place she gave birth (the Philippines).
Please check your FACTS -- Can you said false advertising???
Secondly, a person can also give birth to the likes of Hitler, Stalin, abusive parents, pedophiles in high places, and serial killers, etc..... Sorry, but those are the FACTS of freedom and real choice. Sometimes it leads to positive outcomes and sometimes it doesn't, but either way, you sorely miss the fundamental point and purpose of our concern, as pro-choice advocates.
We all have the right to defend ourselves, in our infinitely unique circumstances, and we have the basic right to preserve our physical autonomy - our privacy, health, lives and dignity - AS CITIZENS, whether male or female.
Such articles distort words and pollute clear reasoning...They also don't say much for the "intelligent and just creator".
2.6.2010 | 8:30am
Jerry Crimmins says:
Nice job, Meghan, and I also salute sports columnist Sally Jenkins for clear thinking and courage to oppose the left wing thought police.
2.6.2010 | 2:08pm
Robert Speirs says:
Abortion may have been illegal in the Philippines, but I'm sure NOW and NARAL would have been glad to fly Pam Tebow to the USA or Europe to terminate her football star son's chance at life. She could no doubt have flown herself. What a weak argument! She chose not to kill the fetus inside her. And the Philippine doctors apparently as much as told her it would be better if she had an abortion. Why would they do that if it was so illegal? If "well, of course she chose that way because it was illegal in the Philippines" is the new talking point circulated by the liberal death machine to their paid blog commenters, they have certainly slipped badly.
2.7.2010 | 7:25am
Kim Sankman says:
Dear cr: while I agree with you that the argument that "abortion may kill a Hiesman trophy winner" is weak, because as you point out, it may also kill a serial killer, etc. (and therefore, this argument is ultimately instrumentalist--the value of a life is not to be measured by the accomplishments it leads to, but fundamentally because God saw the value of this person, regardless of whether they have Down's syndrome or are Albert Einstein), at the same time the fact that abortion was illegal in the Philippines is not that strong either. Jet planes existed in 1987. Mrs. Tebow could have gotten on one and come to the U.S. for an abortion if she had wanted to. She did choose life.
2.7.2010 | 2:09pm
Northern Observer says:
The trouble with the add is not the fact that is was made in first place or the fact that it is running in the Super bowl. I do not agree with silence on these matters. The trouble with the add is that it is 1/2 the story and thus 1/2 the truth. It is deceptive in its moral clarity.
William Saletan at Slate magazine explores the story here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2243218/
Key gaff:
Pam's story certainly is moving. But as a guide to making abortion decisions, it's misleading. Doctors are right to worry about continuing pregnancies like hers. Placental abruption has killed thousands of women and fetuses. No doubt some of these women trusted in God and said no to abortion, as she did. But they didn't end up with Heisman-winning sons. They ended up dead.
Being dead is just the first problem with dying in pregnancy. Another problem is that the fetus you were trying to save dies with you. A third problem is that your existing kids lose their mother. A fourth problem is that if you had aborted the pregnancy, you might have gotten pregnant again and brought a new baby into the world, but now you can't. And now the Tebows have exposed a fifth problem: You can't make a TV ad.
William Saletan at Slate magazine explores the story here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2243218/
Key gaff:
Pam's story certainly is moving. But as a guide to making abortion decisions, it's misleading. Doctors are right to worry about continuing pregnancies like hers. Placental abruption has killed thousands of women and fetuses. No doubt some of these women trusted in God and said no to abortion, as she did. But they didn't end up with Heisman-winning sons. They ended up dead.
Being dead is just the first problem with dying in pregnancy. Another problem is that the fetus you were trying to save dies with you. A third problem is that your existing kids lose their mother. A fourth problem is that if you had aborted the pregnancy, you might have gotten pregnant again and brought a new baby into the world, but now you can't. And now the Tebows have exposed a fifth problem: You can't make a TV ad.
2.7.2010 | 2:52pm
Michael D Giles says:
I note that Richard and cr above make the point that abortion was illegal in the Philippines were Tim Tebow was born. Was there no airline service to and from the country in the 80's? Would they not have allowed her back in the country had Pam Tebow left to have an abortion? Unless they're claiming that Mrs Tebow was being held prisoner in that country, there point means nothing.
2.13.2010 | 7:30pm
Punisher says:
Michael,
Nesides the claim that abortion is illegal in all circumstances is bogus. It is indeed allowed in the Philippines in the case of the mother's life in danger:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/philippines.doc
Besides their argumentation shows how hypocritical the whole pro-abortionist side is. We hear from them many times making abortion won't stop it and those who want it will do it no matter what. Yet in the case of the Philippines they bait and switch and say that if it is illegal, it cannot possibly occur. So disingenuous.
Nesides the claim that abortion is illegal in all circumstances is bogus. It is indeed allowed in the Philippines in the case of the mother's life in danger:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/philippines.doc
Besides their argumentation shows how hypocritical the whole pro-abortionist side is. We hear from them many times making abortion won't stop it and those who want it will do it no matter what. Yet in the case of the Philippines they bait and switch and say that if it is illegal, it cannot possibly occur. So disingenuous.
