“Pro-Choice” groups want to limit yours

The upcoming Super Bowl XLIV — pitting the New Orleans Saints and the Indianapolis Colts, is creating an uproar in circles that often are not focused on football. The element of the upcoming Super Sunday that is drawing a significant amount of attention is, of all things, the commercials. Actually the focus is on a specific commercial.

The ad that has caught the attention of the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority Foundation and the Women’s Media Center and has feminist groups in a tizzy, features the true story of a mother choosing to continue her pregnancy despite a doctor’s advice that she abort her unborn child.

The mother featured in the commercial is Pam Tebow. And the child she carried to term is her son, college football star Tim Tebow.

Bob and Pam Tebow traveled to the Philippines in 1987 as church missionaries. Pam was pregnant with the couple’s fifth child. During the trip, Pam contracted amoebic dysentery, a life-threatening condition. Doctors recommended an abortion. Pam rejected the advice and gave birth to Tim on Aug. 14, 1987.

Focus on the Family, a pro-family organization, is paying for the compelling Tebow story, as related by Pam, during a commercial break.

Last year an estimated 148 million people tuned in to watch the Super Bowl. The rare opportunity to get the pro-life message out to millions of viewers, and make them think about the blessing that is life, catches like a bone in the throat of the so-called “pro-choice” crowd.

The truth is, the only choice they want people to have is the one they offer.

10 Responses to “Pro-Choice” groups want to limit yours

  1. kate says:

    Choice. Privacy. Great words encompassing so much and used in such a terrible lie. I’ve been told the light of truth finds its way through all the darkness. This is one of those bright moments. God Bless the Tebows, Dr.Dobson and his team.

  2. kathy says:

    Pro-choice is PC lingo for Pro-Abortion.Period.


    I understand that in our development as a society we’ve not yet moved to a place of having regard for all of life. To that extent we still have women choosing abortion as contraception instead of development of personal responsibility.

    HOWEVER, if a private group wants to spend money through a private business to show an ad, it’s nobody’s business.

    If the team who hired him has no issue with him speaking out for/against causes that he chooses, then why would I care.

    I would not limit the free speech of anyone, lest we make a target for our own backs for the time will come when others will seek to silence our speech.

    Say it out loud; speak up; speak out; reveal who you are in life and others will be informed by which to make decisions.

    I, personally, think it’s great that he’s telling his story. Certainly it’s not everyone’s story, but if it raises consciousness without government interference, how cool is that!

  4. Stanford says:

    I always get a puzzled look when I ask those “pro-choice” advocates what the choice actually is. Try it. You’ll notice they never say the word “abortion.”

  5. x4mr says:

    No doubt you are equally outraged over the CBS refusal to run an ad by a gay dating service. Oh, wait, the only speech that should be free is your own.

    • Doc says:

      x4mr-Free speech referrs to standing on a soap box in public, or saying what you like on a media outlet…provided that outlet, which is usually PRIVATELY OWNED, AS CBS IS, allows you too. My house is privately owned. If 2 guys show up & start makin’ out, they’re gonna’ get thrown out. CBS is a PRIVATELY OWNED MEDIA OUTLET! I don’t agree with much of what they publicize. BUT, they have every right under the 1st Ammendment to NOT publish, as well as TO PUBLISH, whatever they choose! So take your socialist typings to N. Korea, RICHARD!

  6. Elizabeth says:

    God bless the Tebow’s and Focus on the Family. Those leftist women’s groups do not represent me. I think the title here says it all. The concept of “choice” only carries weight when the choice is abortion.


    No speech ought be silenced. In doing such you make a a target for your own back.

    Society does not exist for any one individual.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom of speech which you may not agree with or have distaste, just as the speech you do agree with.

    If you are a person who wants to silence another’s speech, irrespective of what it is, Americans ought to question your issues of control.

    Liberals are anything but liberal – they continually want to control what others say, do, read, et.al., it seems that we’d like to move away from that as much as possible and more toward freedom.

    If you have control issues, perhaps you could get those met in your own household. Society doesn’t exist for you. Laws and our Constitution doesn’t exist for your comfort.


    BTW – you do yourself no good by not realizing the world in which we currently live.

    Yes, we’d like to reduce and eliminate abortion as an option.

    Make ALL information and ALL options open to women. Support the development of personal responsibility so women keep moving toward a position where abortion just isn’t an option – which isn’t too far away in the future when you consider this issue.

    Gov’t involved won’t solve this. If you uphold limited gov’t then that has to include getting gov’t out of this and so many other issues so free market solutions can be created to educate, educate, educate.

    Do you think if someone is raped or through force of incest should have to carry that child?

    If you say, “no”, then you are placing selective value on the situation by which to rationalize & justify such decision.

    If you say “yes”, by what inherent right do you attempt to control another human being?

    When people say the fetus has a right to live, well how about the fetus having the right to not even be conceived?

    These are arguments that solve nothing but go down a road of self-righteousness and there’s no reason when we can solve this with gov’t out of it.

    If your motivation is rape or incest to excuse, how is your motivation any less in value than another’s motivation?

    As a society, especially as a party, we need to find ways to discuss this toward solutions not your personal emotional rhetoric – we get enough of that through liberals!

    ALL life is equal – we take life every day, in every form, for comfort, safety, sustenance, defense – let’s not get sanctimonious about one life over another. You can easily observe how liberals use “social justice” for such arguments.

    If we want to move society toward greater levels of freedom we need to find ways to pull the rug from underneath their rhetoric and we can start by being sober to the reality of society in which we currently live and where we’d like to go in our future.

    Having regard for ALL of life can move us to a place where we develop greater levels of personal responsibility when it comes to taking life for whatever reason.

    I can easily see in a near future that we look back on abortion and roe v. wade and say, “strange, we never think of that option anymore.”

  9. Calypso says:

    The N.O.W. gals and their pals carry the only message they want heard: their message is death to the innocent preborn.

%d bloggers like this: