Sunday, February 07, 2010

My Last Tim Tebow Post... Really

Ok, today's the big day. Who cares how the Super Bowl turns out, most of us can't wait to see the ads (a poll in USA Today showed a 52/48 split between who is more interested in the commercials or the game respectively). The highest ratings might be in the first quarter when Focus on the Family's pro-life ad staring Tim Tebow airs.

I don't have much more to add to this other than to offer a little perspective. Teresa Heinz Kerry was blasted during the 2004 Presidential campaign for being "personally pro-life but politically pro-choice". Her "personal" reason was her faith, which was demonstrated when she had a miscarriage after a doctor recommended having an abortion, much like the case of Tim Tebow's mother. But her "pro-choice" argument goes that she was given a choice that wasn't limited by the government. I've heard the same argument against the Tebow example, his mother was allowed a choice. Fair enough, but what about the choice of the yet to be born child? They are defenseless, so much so that reckless behavior by an expecting mother can be prosecuted and that crimes against a pregnant woman that results in the death of the fetus can be tried as Second Degree murder. Yes, both Heinz-Kerry and Tebow had a choice, and both chose to have their child. And most importantly, and less debated, is that they both trusted in God to work things out. And he did. Note where the trust is placed- in God, not the government.

Another argument against the Tebow spin on abortion is what if Tim had grown up to be a serial killer instead of a Heisman winner? (This was one comment in USA Today's letters to the editor on the subject) So it's ok to abort a could-be Charles Manson or Adolf Hitler? This is a common philosophical/theological debate- would it be moral to go back in time and kill a future killer? See the ending of The Butterfly Effect for a stomach-turning answer to that one. But given free-will, there's no predestined fate for one child or another to grow up and be "evil". Yes circumstances come into play (what if Adolf lived in the United States instead of war-torn Germany?) but at least the person has the choice in their life. They are free to grow up and make decisions as they see fit. See the movie Gattaca for this take on the argument.

My take? I was adopted at two weeks old. My birth-parents were a teenage girl and a recently graduated teenage boy. Legally, they had every right to see to it that my life never came to being. I'm grateful for their "choice". But I'm more grateful that I was given the opportunity to make my own choices. Maybe someday I will be a serial killer. And I'll never win the Heisman. But at least I'm alive.

***Update***
So the Super Bowl ended dramatically and now it's time for the postgame evaluation: which ads were the best. The infamous Focus on the Family Tim Tebow ad aired and didn't amount to the hype surrounding it. The world did not end with, the ads went on. The argument that this ad encroached on a tradition of neutrality, family, and escapism was contradicted by the Green Police ad by Audi, the suggested mastubatory Megan Fox Motorola ad, and the stereotype of the single black mom hooking up with a playa while feeding her kid junk food. Neutral and family-friendly indeed. Anyway, a better take can be found over at Get Religion.

3 comments:

s said...

The issue about the Superbowl ad has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. It has to do with the refusal to run controversial ads for decades, like the UCC church that welcomed gays. It's a Superbowl policy, it's supposed to be a noncontroversial family event.

And by the way, many women with placental abstruction who "choose life", actually die, and the fetus too. It isn't a question of whether they get a football star or serial killer, it's a question of whether the woman gets to live or die. Women have the right to make their own health decisions. It's That Simple. http://www.slate.com//id/2243218

Anonymous said...

The whole argument pro-choicers throw out about right of woman to live or die is pure red herring. Most pro-lifers affirm the exception for cases of women whose life is in danger. Problem is that pro-abortionists don't want any restriction on abortions whatsoever, even on issue of abortion practiced purely for birth control or for convenience (hence those like Whoopi Goldberg and Anne Archer can have repeat ones, with remarks like "telling a woman not to have sex is like telling breasts not to grow").

And abortion is not women making health decisions only for themselves. They are making the decision for their babies whether they live or die. It's that simple.

Fatha Frank said...

Thank you both for the relatively civil debate. I agree that the Tebow case probably shouldn't be the literal poster-child against abortion given the dire health circumstances yet I also agree that that argument is somewhat a red-herring. I don't have recent numbers but at one time abortions where the life (not necessarily health) of the mother was at risk amounted to less than a percent of all abortions. Abortion should not be an alternative to birth control.

All that said, I'm not militantly opposed to abortion politically. The important lesson from Heinz-Kerry and Tebow is not whether they 'chose' life or not, but that they trusted God with their decision.