Defending Tebow’s Super Bowl ad

Defending Tebow’s Super Bowl ad February 3, 2010

Sally Jenkins in the Washington Post just tears apart the critics of the pro-life ad featuring Tim Tebow that will run during the Super Bowl. From her column Tebow’s Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are:

As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow's pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We're always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.

I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

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.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. . . .

Here’s what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.

You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren’t embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too — and they should step up to that. . . .

Obviously Tebow can make people uncomfortable, whether it’s for advertising his chastity, or for wearing his faith on his face via biblical citations painted in his eye-black. Hebrews 12:12, his cheekbones read during the Florida State game: “Therefore strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees.” His critics find this intrusive, and say the Super Bowl is no place for an argument of this nature. “Pull the ad,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “Let’s focus on the game.”

Trouble is, you can’t focus on the game without focusing on the individuals who play it — and that is the genius of Tebow’s ad. The Super Bowl is not some reality-free escape zone. 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.

You know, this author may believe in legalized abortion, but her fury at the feminists and her sense that something is very, very wrong when people oppose Tim Tebow and what he stands for is something to build on. I suspect lots of Americans agree with what she says. Maybe a backlash is in the making.

"100,000s to a million plus unnecessary American deaths IS NOT PETTY !!The pandemic preparations made ..."

Get Ready for a “Hell of ..."
"Perhaps, you will recall the concert at Milwaukee County Stadium on July 21, 1974 which ..."

Our Inability to Sit in a ..."
"Again this obsession with make it Donald Trump's fault is just going into petty levels."

Get Ready for a “Hell of ..."
"I read about that too, and you are right. In the name of enterring WWI, ..."

Get Ready for a “Hell of ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Manxman

    Jenkins is right to be angry at the feminists who oppose the Tebow ad, but the real issue is Tebow’s mother and how feminism has deluded American women to the point that women like Tebow’s mother who value Biblical marriage and sexual restraint are a rarity today.

    And, the problem isn’t sexual restraint with MEN. It is todays “empowered” woman who ultimately determines whether the sex act occurs or not, and it is not rape that is filling America’s abortuaries with customers – it is the lack of female sexual purity when the “choice” is made to have sex.

  • Manxman

    Jenkins is right to be angry at the feminists who oppose the Tebow ad, but the real issue is Tebow’s mother and how feminism has deluded American women to the point that women like Tebow’s mother who value Biblical marriage and sexual restraint are a rarity today.

    And, the problem isn’t sexual restraint with MEN. It is todays “empowered” woman who ultimately determines whether the sex act occurs or not, and it is not rape that is filling America’s abortuaries with customers – it is the lack of female sexual purity when the “choice” is made to have sex.

  • I think it is great to see a positive role model in the world of sports. I am tired of the spoiled brats who have the world handed to them just because they can play ball acting like a bunch of overpaid thugs. I am happy to see a man who plays with such terrific intensity on the field taking that same attitude in trying to live a right life. I can’t wait to see the ad. And I shall laugh, every time I hear a National Organization for Women who think like us member grumble about a women who made the choice to take care of the life God gave to her care.

  • I think it is great to see a positive role model in the world of sports. I am tired of the spoiled brats who have the world handed to them just because they can play ball acting like a bunch of overpaid thugs. I am happy to see a man who plays with such terrific intensity on the field taking that same attitude in trying to live a right life. I can’t wait to see the ad. And I shall laugh, every time I hear a National Organization for Women who think like us member grumble about a women who made the choice to take care of the life God gave to her care.

  • Dan Kempin

    Wow. What a great, thoughtful, and intellectually honest take.

  • Dan Kempin

    Wow. What a great, thoughtful, and intellectually honest take.

  • DonS

    I was pleasantly surprised to read that column yesterday. If there is something positive that has come out of this whole surprising dust-up over a 30 second ad which simply asks folks to consider what they are doing before they kill a baby, it is the completing discrediting of whatever shred of reputation NOW and its ilk had remaining.

  • DonS

    I was pleasantly surprised to read that column yesterday. If there is something positive that has come out of this whole surprising dust-up over a 30 second ad which simply asks folks to consider what they are doing before they kill a baby, it is the completing discrediting of whatever shred of reputation NOW and its ilk had remaining.

  • I’m with Dan (@3) here. Good column. (Should I say something about the liberal media here? This is such an MSM column, isn’t it? 😉 )

    That said, Manxman (@1), “the problem isn’t sexual restraint with MEN”?! Did you miss that day in health class?

  • I’m with Dan (@3) here. Good column. (Should I say something about the liberal media here? This is such an MSM column, isn’t it? 😉 )

    That said, Manxman (@1), “the problem isn’t sexual restraint with MEN”?! Did you miss that day in health class?

  • Joe

    “And, the problem isn’t sexual restraint with MEN. It is todays “empowered” woman who ultimately determines whether the sex act occurs or not …”

    Men should be expected to say no too. I agree with the point that the currently prevailing form of feminism has made it more acceptable for a women to say yes to sex. But how do men a pass on this? Are you abolving men becuase they have always been whores ? That is pretty weak reasoning.

  • Joe

    “And, the problem isn’t sexual restraint with MEN. It is todays “empowered” woman who ultimately determines whether the sex act occurs or not …”

    Men should be expected to say no too. I agree with the point that the currently prevailing form of feminism has made it more acceptable for a women to say yes to sex. But how do men a pass on this? Are you abolving men becuase they have always been whores ? That is pretty weak reasoning.

  • Ben

    MediaCurves.com just conducted a study with 602 viewers of a news clip regarding the Focus on the Family organizations’ Super Bowl ad. Results found that while the majority of viewers (62%) reported that the ad should not be pulled, pro-choice viewers were split on whether it should be aired. The majority of pro-life viewers (75%) indicated that the Super Bowl was an appropriate platform for controversial ads regarding social issues, while the majority of pro-choice viewers (66%) reported that the Super Bowl was not an appropriate platform.
    More in-depth results can be seen at:
    http://www.mediacurves.com/Advertising/J7730-FocusonFamilySuperbowlAd/Index.cfm
    Thanks,
    Ben

  • Ben

    MediaCurves.com just conducted a study with 602 viewers of a news clip regarding the Focus on the Family organizations’ Super Bowl ad. Results found that while the majority of viewers (62%) reported that the ad should not be pulled, pro-choice viewers were split on whether it should be aired. The majority of pro-life viewers (75%) indicated that the Super Bowl was an appropriate platform for controversial ads regarding social issues, while the majority of pro-choice viewers (66%) reported that the Super Bowl was not an appropriate platform.
    More in-depth results can be seen at:
    http://www.mediacurves.com/Advertising/J7730-FocusonFamilySuperbowlAd/Index.cfm
    Thanks,
    Ben

  • Stephanie

    So… the only time men are responsible for the sex act is whan it is rape? All the other times it is the woman’s doing? That is a pretty messed up viewpoint.

    Is it true that women say “no” more often? Probably. But that does not mean it is the woman’s sole responsibility to say no.

  • Stephanie

    So… the only time men are responsible for the sex act is whan it is rape? All the other times it is the woman’s doing? That is a pretty messed up viewpoint.

    Is it true that women say “no” more often? Probably. But that does not mean it is the woman’s sole responsibility to say no.

  • Susan

    Loved the column but I do so wish folks would think about what the ‘pro-choice’ label really means. Since when is ‘choice’ the opposite of life? It is ironic I think that one who writes such an eloquent column as this does not see the contradiction in the term , since she apparently understands that Tim Tebow has been Tim Tebow since sperm met ovum; that the zygote then is the young man now.

    Congratulations to Tim Tebow for not buying into the libertine lifestyle. He is one man among many who understands that the sexual revolution as well as womens’ liberation has hurt rather than helped women, even as both movements have done plenty to enable irresponsible males.

  • Susan

    Loved the column but I do so wish folks would think about what the ‘pro-choice’ label really means. Since when is ‘choice’ the opposite of life? It is ironic I think that one who writes such an eloquent column as this does not see the contradiction in the term , since she apparently understands that Tim Tebow has been Tim Tebow since sperm met ovum; that the zygote then is the young man now.

    Congratulations to Tim Tebow for not buying into the libertine lifestyle. He is one man among many who understands that the sexual revolution as well as womens’ liberation has hurt rather than helped women, even as both movements have done plenty to enable irresponsible males.

  • Catherine

    It was a sad day when it was determined that you can only be pro-woman if you are pro-death. I have literally had a person state to me that they would refuse to be friends with a pro-lifer, because it’s not pro-woman. It really disgusts me that just because I happen to believe unborn children should keep the lives given to them, I would lose friendships and respect from people who claim to be liberal and open-minded.

    Furthermore, getting back to the point of sex and feminism, my brother once said something pretty profound. Feminists wanted to be treated as equal to men. So instead of women lowering themselves and becoming promiscuous, why shouldn’t we hold MEN to the higher standard of chastity? Women wanted equality, so they lowered themselves to get it in the realm of sex.

  • Catherine

    It was a sad day when it was determined that you can only be pro-woman if you are pro-death. I have literally had a person state to me that they would refuse to be friends with a pro-lifer, because it’s not pro-woman. It really disgusts me that just because I happen to believe unborn children should keep the lives given to them, I would lose friendships and respect from people who claim to be liberal and open-minded.

    Furthermore, getting back to the point of sex and feminism, my brother once said something pretty profound. Feminists wanted to be treated as equal to men. So instead of women lowering themselves and becoming promiscuous, why shouldn’t we hold MEN to the higher standard of chastity? Women wanted equality, so they lowered themselves to get it in the realm of sex.

  • ‘ditto’ #9–Catherin’s take!
    C-CS
    LA LFL

  • ‘ditto’ #9–Catherin’s take!
    C-CS
    LA LFL

  • fws

    So. There ARE rational and reasonable pro-choice men and women who can be articulate about free speech and integrity. Imagine that!

  • fws

    So. There ARE rational and reasonable pro-choice men and women who can be articulate about free speech and integrity. Imagine that!

  • Cincinnatus

    fws: Your point?

  • Cincinnatus

    fws: Your point?

  • Carl Vehse

    Okay, I’ll spit this out quick: Sally Jenkins’ column is a load of crap; but, being it was in the Washington Compost, this seems to have gone unnoticed.

    “Pro-choice” Jenkins’ is delusional in trying to elevating herself above the NOW-Nazis by distinguishing, “They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion.” To an unborn child, Jenkins’ abortion perspective is like distinguishing a Nazi who favors executing concentration camp inmates on a case-by-case basis from a Nazi who favors killing them en masse in a large gas chamber. The kid won’t be getting his complimentary Sears baby picture either way.

    Then Jenkins tries to redefine her pro-genocidal-choice position by turning Pam Tebow’s pro-life desire-hope-and-prayers during her difficult pregnancy into a “good enough” pro-choice decision, a “choice to want to tell people about it”. One might just as well say Sally Jenkins “exercised her freedom of choice” good enough to be Washington Compost columnist rather than a crack whore; others may disagree… with the analogy.

    As for “telling people about it,” maybe pro-choice women can send a birthday card – “Happy birthday to my child I made a good enough choice not to slaughter in the womb. Love, Mom.” If Sally has a child, it will no doubt bring a sentimental tear to the child’s eye.

    And how did Jenkins determine that Pam’s choice was “good enough”? The outcome of that choice is “her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical” who Jenkins seems eager to rush into the locker room to interview while he’s trying to get dressed. Of course, if Jenkins had known the “outcome” would be this baby, she would have recommended a more murderous choice to Trig Palin’s mother.

    As for Jenkins’ statement – “surely everyone in both camps, pro-choice or pro-life, wishes the ‘need’ for abortions wasn’t so great”- it is beneath contempt. In fact, forget what I said earlier – Jenkins exercised the wrong choice in becoming a columnist. More proof?!?

    How about Jenkins’ explanation of how to reduce abortions – “Famous guys who aren’t embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions.”

    Well, these (hardly reputable) famous athletes didn’t have their illegitimate kids murdered. Dittos for “famous guys” like John Edwards and Jesse Jackson. Instead, if Not-Famous guys practiced sexual restraint, there definitely would be a tremendous drop in abortions, even by female sports columnists.

  • Carl Vehse

    Okay, I’ll spit this out quick: Sally Jenkins’ column is a load of crap; but, being it was in the Washington Compost, this seems to have gone unnoticed.

    “Pro-choice” Jenkins’ is delusional in trying to elevating herself above the NOW-Nazis by distinguishing, “They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion.” To an unborn child, Jenkins’ abortion perspective is like distinguishing a Nazi who favors executing concentration camp inmates on a case-by-case basis from a Nazi who favors killing them en masse in a large gas chamber. The kid won’t be getting his complimentary Sears baby picture either way.

    Then Jenkins tries to redefine her pro-genocidal-choice position by turning Pam Tebow’s pro-life desire-hope-and-prayers during her difficult pregnancy into a “good enough” pro-choice decision, a “choice to want to tell people about it”. One might just as well say Sally Jenkins “exercised her freedom of choice” good enough to be Washington Compost columnist rather than a crack whore; others may disagree… with the analogy.

    As for “telling people about it,” maybe pro-choice women can send a birthday card – “Happy birthday to my child I made a good enough choice not to slaughter in the womb. Love, Mom.” If Sally has a child, it will no doubt bring a sentimental tear to the child’s eye.

    And how did Jenkins determine that Pam’s choice was “good enough”? The outcome of that choice is “her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical” who Jenkins seems eager to rush into the locker room to interview while he’s trying to get dressed. Of course, if Jenkins had known the “outcome” would be this baby, she would have recommended a more murderous choice to Trig Palin’s mother.

    As for Jenkins’ statement – “surely everyone in both camps, pro-choice or pro-life, wishes the ‘need’ for abortions wasn’t so great”- it is beneath contempt. In fact, forget what I said earlier – Jenkins exercised the wrong choice in becoming a columnist. More proof?!?

    How about Jenkins’ explanation of how to reduce abortions – “Famous guys who aren’t embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions.”

    Well, these (hardly reputable) famous athletes didn’t have their illegitimate kids murdered. Dittos for “famous guys” like John Edwards and Jesse Jackson. Instead, if Not-Famous guys practiced sexual restraint, there definitely would be a tremendous drop in abortions, even by female sports columnists.

  • Bruce Gee

    Maybe toned down a little, but I’m pretty much with Carl on this one. And heck, if Carl didn’t cross a line or two, it wouldn’t be Carl, would it?

  • Bruce Gee

    Maybe toned down a little, but I’m pretty much with Carl on this one. And heck, if Carl didn’t cross a line or two, it wouldn’t be Carl, would it?

  • Deardoff

    I like a point Carl touched on. It seems that Sally only approves of the Tebow non-abortion because someone useful came out of it. What about someone who could end up as a terrorist? Should those lives have been aborted? I am thankful that God is a God who died for everyone, and not everyone who who becomes popular or extraordinarily gifted. Christ died for all, and he knit them together to begin with.

    For the earlier comments, it takes two to tango. I have had a girlfriend who very much wanted to have sex and the result could have been pregnancy. I didn’t jump in bed just because I was given permission. My wife thanks me for that.

  • Deardoff

    I like a point Carl touched on. It seems that Sally only approves of the Tebow non-abortion because someone useful came out of it. What about someone who could end up as a terrorist? Should those lives have been aborted? I am thankful that God is a God who died for everyone, and not everyone who who becomes popular or extraordinarily gifted. Christ died for all, and he knit them together to begin with.

    For the earlier comments, it takes two to tango. I have had a girlfriend who very much wanted to have sex and the result could have been pregnancy. I didn’t jump in bed just because I was given permission. My wife thanks me for that.