News article: Tim Tebow's Pro-Life Ad
The Tebow family
Tebow to appear in Super Bowl ad with Christian message
posted by jeremy fowler on January, 16 2010 10:25 AM
Even on the biggest national stages, Tim Tebow seems to attract the spotlight.
Tebow will appear in a 30-second Super Bowl ad on Feb. 7 on behalf of the Christian group Focus on the Family, the organization announced on its Web site. His mother, Pam, also will appear in the ad.
Focus on the Family, a non-profit Christian organization, is not elaborating on the commercial’s message, but the story is expected to detail the Tebows’ pro-life message in line with Christian faith.
Pam Tebow contracted amoebic dysentery while on a Philippines mission, and the bacterial infection sent her into a coma. Upon recovery, doctors urged Pam to have an abortion because of the damage to her body. Tebow was born healthy on Aug. 14, 1987.
Tebow has been outspoken about his faith and inscribed Bible verses on his eye black on game days.
Jim Daly, Focus on the Family president and chief executive officer, said in a statement that the Tebows’ message about family comes at the right moment in the culture because “families need to be inspired.”
The commercial was shot in Orlando.
“Tim and Pam share our respect for life and our passion for helping families thrive,” Daly said. “Focus on the Family is about … strengthening families by empowering them with the tools they need to live lives rooted in morals and values.”
Super Bowl ads are expected to run around $2.8 million dollars for the 100 million viewers. But the Tebows produce financial draw.
“Every cent for this ad was paid for by generous donors who specifically gave for this project because they are excited about this opportunity for Focus to show who we are and what we do,” spokesman Gary Schneeberger told the Denver Post.
Focus on the Family’s message is to “strengthen, defend and celebrate the institution of the traditional family and to highlight the unique and irreplaceable role that it plays in God’s larger story of redemption,” according to its web site.
--- end ---
CBS urged to scrap Tebow ad
Found the following excellent comment on a forum message board here:
The key issue in determining the morality of abortion is whether or not the unborn child is a person. The self proclaimed pro-choice crowd will never call the unborn child a person, child, baby, or anything else that gives the designation of personhood. Thus, they use the term fetus, zygot, etc. After all, if the unborn "fetus" is a person then said person, according to our constitution, has certain inalienable rights. Those rights are, of course, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, determine personhood and end the debate.
There are only 4 differences between a born child and an unborn child. Intellectual honesty demands consistency with your answers. The acrostic SLED will help you remember these four differences. At conception the unborn child becomes a person because everything he needs to live is created the moment the sperm and the egg collide and attach to the uterus. DNA provides the roadmap for this new life. From one cell comes every other cell. The DNA remains exactly the same. Therefore, to kill the cell is to kill the person. Here are the 4 differences between a born person and an unborn person.
S- Size. The unborn child is much smaller than a newborn. But, the newborn child is much smaller than the toddler. The toddler is much smaller than the teen. The Teen is much smaller than the twenty-something. You get the picture. To say that size determines personhood, or the value of life, logically leads to calling children lesser persons than adults. It also means that a midget is not as much of a person as a regular sized person. I don't think such talk would work in our society. Therefore, we can effectively eliminate size from the list of what determines personhood.
L- Level of development. An unborn child is less developed than a born child. But then again, so is the toddler as compared to the sr. adult. If level of development makes a person more or less of a person, then the mentally retarded are inferior to the mentally competent. The genius has more value than the mentally average. Such a thought was actually prevalent during the reign of Hitler, and during the Eugenics movement in our own country (see Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.) To determine personhood using this criteria is, obviously, full of holes, and therefore cannot be utilized.
E- Environment. The unborn baby is in the protective environment of the womb. If this determines worth and personhood, then people in Haiti must be lesser people than us because they are not in as good an environment as us. Of course, this also means that those from Century are not as valuable as those from Gulf Breeze because the environment is much different as well. Obviously, this is not much of a determining factor either.
D- Degree of Dependency. The last difference is that the unborn child is dependent upon the mother for survival. Well, millions are dependent upon glasses to see. What about dependency upon pacemakers, pain killers, prosthetics, and on and on. In fact, every human being is dependent upon something at some time. How can this be used to determine whether or not a person is a person? It can't.
Conclusion? What other difference is there between the born and the unborn? Anybody? If the answer is "no other differences" then the unborn must indeed be a person of value and worth and therefore, should not be subject to slaughter before birth. This doesn't even touch the atrocity or partial birth abortion where a mother can bring the baby to full term, deliver breech, then allow the doctor to stab the child through the back of the neck into the brain so that the baby is born dead. Can anyone can give a defense for that? Why not just spare the charade, deliver the baby live, then stab him in the brain and kill him. It is the exact same thing, but our conscience won't support that image. We can sanitize the act by saying the baby was not a person because "it" did not yet take a breath.
As a nation, we either value all life or no life. We are grossly confused when we will save a whale and murder our own children. Over 45 million children have been killed through abortion since 1973. Sure, it happened before, but when a nation determines it is morally right to kill children, that nation will ultimately die. Literally. Our birth rate alone will not sustain our own existence.
Finally, the golden nugget is always "the life of the mother." The facts are abundantly clear that far less than 1 percent of abortions are actually performed for the health of the mother. Do some credible research. Abortion is about one thing...money. Planned parenthood (the nations largest abortion provider) began as a movement to keep a pure race (get rid of those nasty, mentally inferior blacks) and to rid the country of "useless eaters." They morphed into a abortion machine to make a few people rich. But don't take my word for it, do the research.
Gotta close this book, can't wait to hear your replies. And yes, commercials do make a difference. Why else would people pay the amount of money they do to tell their message in 30 seconds? Way to go Tebow, CBS, and the forum for talking about this.
--- end ---