What Tim Tebow Won't Say

Over at the National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru is defending anti-choice folks against criticism for highlighting Tim Tebow's mom's choice not to have an abortion while pushing to take that choice away from her. I'll grant that it's not contradictory for someone to both want abortion to be made illegal and to like it when women who legally could have abortion choose not to. But it's intentionally misleading for a movement seeking a ban on abortion to appeal to the electorate's good feelings about choice by invoking individuals' choices as an argument for prohibition. It's especially cynical given that it's the pro-choice movement that stands up for women threatened coercive abortion or sterilization by the government or their employer. I wrote more about this here and here.

As for Tim and Pam Tebow, apparently they share Focus on the Family's belief that it should be illegal for women like Pam whose doctors advise them to terminate their pregnancy to choose to follow their doctors' advice. So why won't their ad say that? Why not say: "I'm Tim Tebow, football great. I've been blessed with so much in life. I know my life itself is a blessing. Doctors in the Phillipines recommended my Mom abort me because of serious complications in pregnancy. Good thing abortion was illegal in the Phillipines. It should be illegal here in America too." I think Focus on the Family isn't running an ad like that because they know the median American has discomfort about abortion but doesn't want to see it banned. But what does Ramesh Ponnuru think is the explanation?

Tags: abortion, choice, law, National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru, Tim Tebow, Media (all tags)

Comments

4 Comments

I really think this ad will backfire

Most people who are anti-choice are actually in favor of it for people who <i> really </i> need it (ie themselves). They just don't want those sluts getting away with something. But putting this scenario in people's minds might scare them. If pro-choice groups were smart (lol) they would highlight it as you put it.

"Pam made the choice right for her, shouldn't everyone else get that right as well?"

by bay of arizona 2010-02-01 05:24PM | 0 recs
The irony

is that it appears abortion was banned in Manila in 1987, which is where and when Tebow was born.  So his mother did not in fact have that choice.

I think this ad will backfire because people don't want politics, especially abortion politics, with their football.

by JJE 2010-02-01 09:33PM | 0 recs
RE: The irony

The larger irony is banning abortions turns abortion from a non-issue (today) to a total issue (like in the philipiness, which has hundreds of thousands illegal abortions a year and tens of thousands of hospitalizations becasue of such abortions). It essentially creates a health crises where none existed before.

by vecky 2010-02-02 04:24AM | 0 recs
RE: The irony

Calling abortion a non-issue today reveals your complete lack of understanding of American politics.

While the GOP-Tea Party movement is galvanized by fiscal policy, the central tenant of the GOP base is to protect life.

From the flip side of your argument, from the pro-life pov, there is a crisis now as the government allows 1-1.5 million abortions to occur each year.

by indyprogressive 2010-02-05 10:34AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads