Life · Politics

A pro-choice woman defends a pro-life ad

More on the superbowl ad featuring the Tebow family over here at the WPost, written by pro-abortion-rights writer Sally Jenkins. She’s on fire this morning! I’ve got too much classwork to comment on this all, but wanted to bring it to readers’ attention. Have a great Thursday!

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “A pro-choice woman defends a pro-life ad

  1. Yes, it’s an interesting and thought-provoking piece about a very divisive subject.  Thanks for posting the link, Renee.

  2. Tip:
    Are you saying that the UCC has tried to run ads and been denied? Knowing media as I do, I can tell you it is all about the money. If the UCC could pay for an ad and as long as it didn’t show a woman’s breast or sacrifice of animals or involve hate speech, CBS would run it. I think you should be careful of throwing out terms such as “redneck” in identifying the audience for football games. In using the terms you illustrate your ignorance of those who follow football (I don’t, btw) and highlight your intolerance of people who disagree with you.
     

  3. CBS owns its broadcast and can run whatever advertising it wants, and Tebow has a right to express his beliefs publicly.

    This is certainly true.  I would hope (although this may be a bridge too far) that at least some people will come out of this minor brouhaha realizing that TV is an economic enterprise and not a free speech venue.  The upshot of this is that it is not there to challenge the norms, but to reinforce them.  Remember, “even a dead fish can swim downstream”.  If you don’t want to receive relentless propaganda in your home, don’t turn on the TV.  I would also hope that at least some people will also realize that being talented when it comes to throwing a football around does not give you any special insight into life or wisdom.  Why should you care what Tebow thinks about anything more than what anyone else thinks about anything?

  4. I would hope (although this may be a bridge too far) that at least some people will come out of this minor brouhaha realizing that TV is an economic enterprise and not a free speech venue.
    Since Reagan. In the far distant past the airwaves were public property which the government licensed private corporations to use temporarily – now, of course, they may as well own them.
    Rev. J. Bennett Guess, the UCC’s director of communication:
    “Because of its own economic circumstances, CBS is affording time to one religious organization while having suppressed another. This sounds as if the broadcasters think they own the airwaves when, in theory at least, they do not.”
    ….

    “The issue for all of us should be why one religious viewpoint is continually accommodated by the TV networks when there is a common misunderstanding in this country that all religious people hold a monolithic view on certain issues, such as reproductive choice, such as homosexuality, and this is not the case.”

    1. This is also certainly true, Tip.  The gap between the real and the ideal; between the illusion and reality, is great in America.  The airwaves are ostensibly ours; leased out by our representatives; there to serve our benefit.  And on the first Tuesday of many Novembers, we gather to cast our votes so that our elected government will serve the peoples of this country and represent our interests, holding our trust in them as a sacred duty.

      1. P.S. – We can all be grateful that we live in a democracy where we are as free to express our opinions as our good friends at Exxon Mobil.

  5. I think she is defending free speech, not a pro-life add.
    That’s what she would hope that you would think, while she defends Dr. Dobson. That way you don’t have to wonder why pro-life ads deserve “free speech” and pro-gay ads don’t.

  6. Tip: Thanks so much for the link to the UCC site – I had no idea this had happened, and it isn’t because I’m deliberately ignorant – I just don’t read every single denomination’s news site daily and I had not heard about that. It is really wrong, IMHO, that they would allow one ad and not the other. I’m not sure that NOW is questioning/protesting not running the UCC ad, though, it sounds like they just don’t want the FF one. Since you appear to have more time to read about all this than I do, do you know if NOW and other pro-abortion-rights groups have come out in support of the UCC ad?

Comments are closed.