Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Is NOW So Afraid of a Pro-Life, Pro-Family Ad?
FOXNews.com ^ | 2/1/10 | Marjorie Dannenfelser

Posted on 02/01/2010 4:41:53 PM PST by rhema

What is the National Organization for Women afraid of? Apparently a touching story about a courageous woman who chooses life in the face of adversity is just too much to take. And when her football star son decides to share that story on Super Bowl Sunday, well, that goes too far. It’s “divisive.”

NOW and its affiliate organizations the Feminist Majority and Women’s Media Center are condemning the Super Bowl advertisement featuring Tim Tebow and his mother Pam, calling it an offensive “anti-choice” ad.

Could you imagine anything more ironic? The organization that purports to embrace women and “choice” is desperately clamoring to shut down the most loving choice of all: the choice for life. Yet the women of NOW can’t abide 30 seconds of a heart-warming story. What would producers at Lifetime Television say?

Let’s be real. What’s the worst case scenario here? That if Americans hear this message they will choose to make sacrifices in order to have a child and bring a wonderful life in to the world? That’s hardly an abhorrent message.

These groups are not “for” women and they don’t want them to have a “choice.” They only want women to “choose” the path of abortion. Never mind that abortion has been shown over and over to be destructive in numerous ways, both physically and psychologically. But, *please* don’t tell people that there are alternatives.

In their efforts to cling to the old feminist mantra that we somehow “need” abortion, NOW sells American women short. They assume that women are so weak-brained and easily manipulated that they must be protected from a life-affirming message.

This fracas over the Super Bowl illustrates perfectly how NOW & Co. are losing their grip as their pro-abortion position sinks in public opinion. For the first time in decades,

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: fearfuldems; now; proaborts; prolife; prolifeads; superbowl; superbowlads; timtebow

1 posted on 02/01/2010 4:41:53 PM PST by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411; cpforlife.org; Salvation; MHGinTN; wagglebee
As a mother of five, I can only say I’d much rather have my children watch the Tebow story than the hundreds of other things they might see during the Super Bowl. Somehow I think the majority of American sports fans, women and men alike, will be able to appreciate the blessings of life expressed by the Tebow family. If this beautiful story of family unity, sacrifice and triumph is too harsh on the eyes and ears for so-called women’s groups, I have two words of advice: mute button.
2 posted on 02/01/2010 4:43:37 PM PST by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Of course NOW has NEVER been “divisive”

Neither has Roe v. Wade

These people are outrageously dangerous


3 posted on 02/01/2010 4:44:25 PM PST by A_Former_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Desperately seeking relevance:

Earlier this year, NOW President Terry O'Neill, confessed to the National Journal that the organization is struggling. "It seems to me we are stalled out..."

4 posted on 02/01/2010 4:47:30 PM PST by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Their afraid they might see a drop in revenue, that's what they're afraid of.

Choice, my ass.

5 posted on 02/01/2010 4:48:03 PM PST by workerbee (Yes, I hate Obama because of his color: RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Some one said that a positive, heart warming story can only be written from one side of the abortion controversy, and it is not the pro-choice side. That's why they don't want it.
6 posted on 02/01/2010 4:52:40 PM PST by oldbrowser (The audacity of incompetence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Why is NOW so afraid of this ad? Because it reminds these angry, embittered ,dried out, post-menopausal , childless harridans that they are just that: angry, embittered, dried-out, post-menopausal, childless harridans and they can’t stand to see a woman choose to bring life into the world and be happy for it. . In the nags world, misery loves company. (and abortion).


7 posted on 02/01/2010 4:55:04 PM PST by John-Irish ("Shame of him who thinks of it''.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

When it comes to trading in death and coldblooded genocide, the abortion peddlers don’t take a backseat to any of the butchers in mankind’s history. They are pros.


8 posted on 02/01/2010 4:59:15 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Why are they afraid?

Look at Tim Tebow.

This ad might make women who have had abortions question whether it was the right 'choice'.

And it might give pause to women who are tempted to make the 'choice' in the future.

Tim Tebow puts a face to abortion.
He is no arbitrary 'product of conception'...

He is a living, breathing, good looking athlete...

..and every woman has to ask....'what if'

That's what NOW is afraid of.

9 posted on 02/01/2010 5:03:00 PM PST by Guenevere (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

It never was about “choice.” Like so many examples, the left perverts the meaning of words for its own advancement. They say “choice,” which, to most people, means an alternative, that one could opt for one way or another way, for one act or another act, etc. However, to the banshees at NOW and their leftist enablers, “choice” means nothing of the kind. No, to them, choice means only one option, one alternative, one act: abortion. To “choose” anything other than abortion is no choice at all, but some sort of fascism.


10 posted on 02/01/2010 5:18:03 PM PST by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Why? -”Believe like WE believe, or be silenced!”

-courtesy of the party of peace, love and tolerance...


11 posted on 02/01/2010 5:34:00 PM PST by J40000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John-Irish

Love it! And Gloria Allred (sp?) on Kelly’s show today opined that because abortion was illegal at the time of Tim’s birth a CBS disclaimer to that effect should be part of the ad! Never mind that health of the mother would have been a mitigating factor. Talk about a derangement syndrome.


12 posted on 02/01/2010 5:37:56 PM PST by Mach9 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pallis

***trading in death and coldblooded genocide***

Absolutely!

Keep repeating: They are not pro-choice - they are ONLY PRO-ABORTION.

Since 1973 FIFTY MILLION AMERICANS HAVE BEEN KILLED in this genocide.

Murdered by a scalpel or killed by a coat-hanger - abortion is still murder.


13 posted on 02/01/2010 5:41:21 PM PST by sodpoodle (Despair - Man's surrender. Laughter - God's redemption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rhema

“Pro Choice” is really just a euphemism for pro death.


14 posted on 02/01/2010 5:42:45 PM PST by ME-262 (We need Term Limits for the federal house and senate. We need new Bums up there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

I will not say that every member of NOW is a Marxist lesbian.

I will say that every member of NOW I have ever known was a Marxist lesbian.

But that is not conjecture, it is a statement of fact.


15 posted on 02/01/2010 5:43:48 PM PST by 240B (he is doing everything he said he would'nt and not doing what he said he would)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mach9

What? Roe v. Wade was 1973

“The law of the land” since then. Tebow is what, 23 at most?

Math major, Gloria?


16 posted on 02/01/2010 5:43:55 PM PST by A_Former_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rhema
now you know why NOW hates Sarah palin so much, she kept Trig her down syndrome baby.............i can just see the NOW hags freaking out because this will be seen by so many folks and they may even stop and think about what an abortion really is...
17 posted on 02/01/2010 5:50:57 PM PST by Beamreach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat

Sorry—I should have added “in the Philippines.” She’d checked on Philippine abortion law to come up with her argument against CBS’s decision to air. She either hadn’t discovered or refused to recognize that even Philippino law excepted health of the mother which, of course, was a factor in the ad. What didn’t come up at all was whether or not Tebows were assigned to Clark or other military base where, after 1973, abortion would have been legal (if not U. S. subsidized).


18 posted on 02/01/2010 6:05:21 PM PST by Mach9 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

Since 1973 FIFTY MILLION AMERICANS HAVE BEEN KILLED in this genocide.
************

Can you imagining travelling to a foreign planet, observing its society, and upon asking how many people lived there, you were told “250 million; it would have been 300 million except we killed 50 million while in their mother’s womb. Convenience, you know?”


19 posted on 02/01/2010 6:12:09 PM PST by Canedawg (Our government has become a travesty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat
Their "point," such as it is, is that Pam Tebow and her busband were missionaries in the Philippines at that time, and unborn children were (and, I think, are) protected by law via anti-abortion legislation.

Nevertheless, your point is correct. In the first place, if Pam Tebow had wanted to abort her baby boy, she could have come back to the USA to do it: the Philippines was just a temporary assignment for her.

In the second place, the Philippines has a "necessity defense" written explicitly into statute law: if her survival were truly at risk -- a genuine toss-up between her life and the baby's life ---this law could be invoked to legally justify a life-saving procedure. (This law was quoted by another FReeper in a previous thread.)

So NOW and Gloria Allred are simply retailing falsehoods once again. Which doesn't surprise anybody. I think even their followers have come to expect it.

20 posted on 02/01/2010 6:16:36 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child who's got his own." Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
"Since 1973 FIFTY MILLION AMERICANS HAVE BEEN KILLED in this genocide."

And in an age/era when contraceptives are virtually fool-proof except for user error, those numbers are really outrageous. Just more not having to be accountable/responsible. Why not? They can always have it 'taken care of'.

If abortion were illegal, a LOT more people would be motivated to use contraceptives correctly.

21 posted on 02/01/2010 6:20:09 PM PST by Let's Roll (Stop paying ACORN to destroy America! Cut off their government funding!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat

Yep, the day I had my now 37 year-old twins. I did what I could to counter.


22 posted on 02/01/2010 8:12:42 PM PST by bog trotter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

well said. i have always wondered why the “pro-choice” crowd has such a problem with ladies who CHOOSE to have a child rather than an abortion. to me choice is a)give birth and raise the child. b)give birth and give the child over to another family thru adoption. c)abortion- the last resort of a desperate and dangerous pregnancy.
but the so called womens rights movement sees only one choice and that is abortion. for them the right to choose means a woman murders her unborn child


23 posted on 02/01/2010 8:33:59 PM PST by madamemayhem (defeat isn't getting knocked down, it's not getting back up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere

I think it is ingenous that they are aiming this ad towards men who are the primary audience for the Superbowl. Might make a few younger ones who might be in this position one day not to press so hard to end it and think about the baby first. :)


24 posted on 02/01/2010 8:41:56 PM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Most of the leadership of NOW is stuck back in the 1970’s. Feminism has passed them by a long time ago. Abortion is a sacrament in the church of NOW. It is their way of lashing out against their archenemy, patriarchy, which begins with the chief patriarch himself, God the Father. There is nothing that offends God more than the slaughter of infants on the altars of Ashtaroth, so killing unborn children is a rebuke of God the Father. But since men wrote the Bible, that too must be rejected. The hatred toward anything that might cast doubts upon abortion is evident in their fear of Tebow’s pro-life message. Logic does not apply to the leadership of NOW. It is all based psychological needs, not logic.


25 posted on 02/01/2010 11:09:42 PM PST by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

With all Hollywood at their disposal, surely NOW could spin something up if they wanted.


26 posted on 02/02/2010 12:09:10 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex
If so, they should think, would NOW really want a "God the Mother" that behaves they way they do? That would be a celestial tyrantess.
27 posted on 02/02/2010 12:10:28 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rhema
The only "choice" NOW respects it the "choice" to murder babies. If you "choose" to keep the baby you MUST be silenced.

"Follow the money, honey"....the abortion mills provide the support to NOW.

28 posted on 02/02/2010 1:42:07 AM PST by highlander_UW (There's a storm coming - little kid at a Mexican gas station in The Terminator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Most of the NOW leadership works under the umbrella of liberation theology which includes feminist theology. They believe that the Bible and the church are agents of oppression toward women and homosexuals. Probably the vast majority of NOW’s leadership is composed of lesbians. Some feminists have advocated placing a warning sign on the cover of Bibles warning women that this book is detrimental to your health. Feminists see traditional or biblical Christianity as the problem. The few feminists in NOW, if they do use the bible, use a hermeneutical principle that disgards the intentions of original authors or audiences’ for an interpretation that meets their immediate needs. In other words, you are free to interpret the bible anyway that you want as long as it conforms to felt needs.
Many of the feminists theologians that I have met, such as Sallie McFague, have moved on to panentheism or pantheism, which for them is a form of nature worship, as in Mother Nature. They worship the divinity within themselves.
29 posted on 02/02/2010 7:19:40 AM PST by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rhema; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; Arthur Wildfire! March; NFHale; ...

This ad may get people thinking.


30 posted on 02/03/2010 12:53:16 PM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN | NO "INDIVIDUAL MANDATE"!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Impy; metmom; wagglebee; cpforlife.org; narses; Marie2

Thank you Impy.


31 posted on 02/03/2010 5:18:39 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (2010 HOUSE RACES! Help everyone get the goods on their House Rats. See my profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson