The ad will focus on the choice that Tebow's mother made to give birth to him after some doctors suggested that an abortion would be advisable after she contracted a serious illness. As you know, Mrs. Tebow went ahead with the pregnancy and Tim turned out fine.
As I've heard numerous opinions on this issue, I've seen three different perspectives:
1. Tebow should have a right to say what he wants in whatever forum he wants.What I've found most interesting about this whole debate is that many individuals that consider themselves "pro-choice" seem to get really upset any time someone advocates that women keep their baby. It doesn't sound that many of them are truly pro-choice. It feels like they are almost angry that Tebow's mom chose to have him and she wants others to consider the same choice. Many of the same people, who are the most staunch proponents of non-censorship, want to censor those that they disagree with.
2. Tebow has a right to say what he wants but not during something like the Super Bowl.
3. Tebow is a narrow-minded, religious nut for even suggesting that it might be a good thing for women to consider that abortion might not be the best option.
The reason why I am pro-life is that I believe that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being. And I am not in a small minority. In fact, Americans are nearly evenly split on this issue. As I've said before, I believe that abortion is my generation's slavery. It is a terrible evil that is allowed by our government. Just as many in the South argued that the Civil War was really about states' rights, many pro-choice advocates claim that the abortion debate revolves around the civil rights of women.
The primary "right" that the South was fighting for in the Civil War was the "right" to own human beings and treat them as chattel." The reproductive "rights" that are involved in the abortion debate is the "right" to kill an innocent child within it's mother's womb. You may disagree with my perspective, but I believe that scientific evidence backs up my belief that abortion is murder. Children are the most vulnerable members of our society and to not speak up for them when they can't defend themselves is wrong in and of itself.
But what if children that were about to be aborted could defend themselves. Would that change things? Look at what Stephen Schwartz has to say:
"Suppose, in the encounter between doctor and child [in an abortion], the child won half of the time, and killed the doctor in self-defense—something he would have every right to do. Very few doctors would perform abortions. They perform them now only because of their absolute power over a small, fragile, helpless victim."So for something that I feel is the greatest evil of my generation, I believe it is totally appropriate for a well-known figure to speak on behalf of children that can't speak for themselves. Over 200,000 people died in Haiti recently and we applauded each star that spoke out on their behalf. Close to 50 MILLION children have been killed in their mother's womb since 1973 in the United States alone! Isn't it fitting, then, that in the midst of one of the most-watched viewing event in American television challenges people to consider this all-important issue?
I appreciate what Scott Maxwell of The Orlando Sentinel said about this as he compares pro-life advocates to civil rights activists:
"I strongly disagree with my friend and colleague, George Diaz, who argued today that the Super Bowl is the wrong time for anyone to press political or social issues. Would one argue that if, 55 years ago, Rosa Parks had wanted to air a PSA for civil rights, that she find some other, “more appropriate” time to do so? (Excuse me, Mrs. Parks, but if you wouldn’t mind just keeping your seat in the back of the bus until we can see if the Giants pull this victory out, that’d be swell. Besides, there’s a really funny commercial involving monkeys and soda coming up.)"I realize that there are people that will be reading this post that are just as passionate about this issue as myself but on the other end of the spectrum. That's okay. I still consider you a friend. But it doesn't mean that I agree with you. This issue is too important for me to say "to each his own." It is not like the choice between Coke or Pepsi, Nike or Adidas. It involves human life and for that, I will always choose life.