Suck It Superbowl
As many of you already know, a very special commercial will be airing during the Super Bowl this year which features Pam Tebow, mother to Heisman-winning football player Tim Tebow, taking about her decision to not have an abortion during her complicated pregnancy. And yay! Everything worked out for her and now she’s got this super famous and rich son! Woo-hoo!
The debate over this commercial should have nothing to do with beliefs. If you are pro-life, great. If you are pro-choice, super. The problem with this commercial is two-fold: 1) It insinuates that the opposite of Pam Tebow’s belief is pro-abortion. NOBODY is ever PRO abortion and it’s unfair to even hint at that; 2) Both sides are not presented in this argument. And despite what anyone says about the decision to air this commercial, it IS an argument with two opposing sides. Such a delicate and critical debate requires opportunities for both sides to be heard in the media, not just one.
Fortunately, the Internet has come to save the day once again in the form of this video response sponsored by Planned Parenthood and featuring football player Sean James and gold medalist Al Joyner.
This should have been the other commercial aired during the Superbowl in addition to the Tebow one—to show that if such a serious topic is going to be discussed during a time usually reserved for beer commercials and half-naked girls, then at least we’ll showcase both sides of it in an effort to promote healthy discussion on the matter. Personally, we think CBS should have had the foresight to go after an opposing side commercial after OK’ing the Tebow ad.
But ultimately, it’s the type of argument that’s being presented by the pro-life side in the Tebow commercial that bothers us the most. It’s messages like this that harbor the resentment held by both sides against one another. By presenting these individual stories, like Pam’s, it makes anyone who rails against them look like a person who suggests that these women SHOULD have had an abortion (that damn pro-abortion crap again). It’s such an unfair and unbalanced portrayal of the pro-choice argument, when all that we are asking for is the same courtesy granted to women like Pam Tebow—choice. We want all women to have the opportunity to choose for themselves what they do with their bodies and lives, no matter what the outcome.
As though we needed another reason to skip out on watching the Super Bowl…




Good points. It seems if Pro-Choice people are called Pro-Abortion then Pro-Life people should really be called Anti-Choice. So are the same people who believe in less government really advocating that woman should not have a choice?
The hypocrisy of these people have NO limits, my friend.
You are so correct.
While I agree that both sides should be heard, I don’t think it’s the network’s job to seek out specific advertisers. They provide the opportunity for airtime, just because one side takes advantage of it doesn’t mean they have to go look for the opposing side (presumably at reduced rates, because the only thing that I can think of that would stop someone from advertising during Super Bowl is the cost) and it’s not the network’s place to do so.
Oh Bella-
I guess you must have missed the networks refusing ads by Mancrunch.com as well as many others. The network does have the power to determine what is aired and what isn’t.