damnum absque injuria

January 31, 2010

On the Tebow Ad

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 8:03 pm

I’m not sure why this (h/t: Sister Toldjah) is even controversial. By all accounts, the ad is not going to argue that women have no right to abort; it will merely urge them to choose not to. Which, one might think, would be A-O-K by all those self-described “pro-choicers” who steadfastly deny being pro-abortion. Well, if pregnant women are really such helpless, delicate flowers that one single, solitary ad urging them to choose Option A over Option B will compromise their ability to choose on their own, the obvious remedy would be for the pro-choicers to cough up a few mill of their own and run a competing ad urging women to abort. With the “choose life” ad focusingon one Heisman winner who clearly should not have been aborted (though this fact was anything but clear to doctors at the time), perhaps the “choose death” ad could focus on a somewhat less worthy Heisman winner, O.J. Simpson, or perhaps a more recent Heisman wannabe like Michael Vick.

6 Responses to “On the Tebow Ad”

  1. Molly Says:

    LOL, sweet, Jeff.

    Think about it – NARAL runs an ad with Michael Vick and then you get PETA and the SPCA running ads against NARAL. Who wins? Our flailing media industry. Wins all around if you ask me.

  2. Xrlq Says:

    Lost me there. If NARAL ran a pro-abortion ad decrying the fact that Michael Vick wasn’t aborted, wouldn’t that put NARAL, PETA and the SPCA on the same page? Maybe Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson would cry racism, though.

  3. Molly Says:

    Wow, you can throw Rainbow Push in there too. I totally forgot that angle. Good point.

  4. tgirsch Says:

    I dunno. Personally, I think anybody willing to put up the $2 million plus should be able to say whatever the hell they want, as long as they don’t run afoul of FCC rules. But when they accept an anti-abortion ad, but refuse a pro-homosexuality ad, in the same year, that’s pretty arbitrary, and I can see why non-conservatives would be upset about that.

  5. Xrlq Says:

    So can I, if that were NARAL’s objection. It wasn’t, though, nor could it have been since they raised their stink before a decision had been made on the gay ad, one way or the other.

  6. Julie Says:

    I believe CBS also didn’t approve an ad by Go Daddy that was deemed offensive to homosexuals. So it really isn’t an “they ran a pro-life and refused a pro-gay ad” argument.
    .-= Julie´s last blog ..Colorful Horse =-.

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv badge

Subscribe without commenting

 

Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.