"That's it???"

[bluerose]

That pretty much sums up our family’s reaction to the Tim Tebow/Focus on the Family pro-life ad broadcast during the Super Bowl.



Truly, due to the hype about pro-choice groups objecting to the ad, I expected something more… I don’t know. More.

Anyone else?

 

[whatevergirl]

*I agree. I found the message to be a candy coated way of getting the point across, guess it’s a start for mainstream tv to broadcast a prolife advertisement. I just think we are too soft with our message, and the pro ‘‘choice’’ message is typically loud and proud. I dunno, that was my take. I didn’t see anything wrong with the advertisement, but it seemed too light to me, if I didn’t know about all the fuss, I might not think it was a prolife ad at all. Why do we as prolifers, have to tread so lightly? *

 

[lizaanne]

I was totally disappointed. If someone had no idea of what that ad was really about (and I’m sure most people didn’t have a clue of the “controversy”) they would have no idea what the purpose/message of the ad was.

And why did they make his mom’s face the first thing you see and not the instantly recognizable face of Tim himself?

Hey - don’t get… See More me wrong - I’m glad they ran the ad and I can’t see what the big deal was by PP (aside from the fact that it happened at all), I just think they could have been a bit more open about what the ad was trying to say.

But, in the end, all the free advertising for Focus on the Family was pretty awesome.

~Liza

 

[whatevergirl]

*I agree…and his tackling his mom, and then hugging her …I dunno…I thought that came across weird…like are you 8 yrs old or a grown man, Tim? I dunno…too slapstick for me…and the message was watered down in it all…

I would rather see a big hulabaloo this morning about it in the news by the ‘‘other’’ side, because that would that the message did its job. By it being so watered down and silly, I don’t think it did its job…oh well.

I am a fan of Focus on the Family though… *

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

I didn’t see it but I understand that your reaction was the norm for pro-lifers. But don’t you
think that some who might have heard all the ruckus about it are now thinking that NOW
and PP are nuts for objecting to it?
I also think that if it had been any stronger, the network would not have accepted it.
Remember the one that Real Catholic TV tried to run on Obama? Mentioning the facts
(that leds many to choose an abortion) and then bringing up that those were Obama’s
mother circumstance and yet that baby is now our President? The only place it showed
was on Youtube. The network nixed it.

 

[bluerose]

You’ve got a point, Tex, but I was surprised that, with all the noise PP and NOW was making about it, it didn’t even mention the word “abortion” (at least, I don’t think it did.)

And we almost missed it, too. It was right after a funny ad and we were still laughing when my husband said, “Hey, quiet! I think this is the Tim Tebow ad!” There were nine of us, five were teenagers, and we all went, “Huh? That’s it?” I mean, it was cute, but very weak.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I missed it…does someone have a link to it?

 

[lizaanne]

I didn’t see it but I understand that your reaction was the norm for pro-lifers. But don’t you
think that some who might have heard all the ruckus about it are now thinking that NOW
and PP are nuts for objecting to it?
I also think that if it had been any stronger, the network would not have accepted it.
Remember the one that Real Catholic TV tried to run on Obama? Mentioning the facts
(that leds many to choose an abortion) and then bringing up that those were Obama’s
mother circumstance and yet that baby is now our President? The only place it showed
was on Youtube. The network nixed it.

Hey TexCath - just to correct a small detail - RealCatholicTV did not try to run the ad, but we did report on the story in either the Catholic News Round Up or the Vortex. I can’t recall who it was that tried to run that ad but it was not us.

Glad to know you are watching!!! www.realcatholictv.com

~Liza

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Hey TexCath - just to correct a small detail - RealCatholicTV did not try to run the ad, but we did report on the story in either the Catholic News Round Up or the Vortex. I can’t recall who it was that tried to run that ad but it was not us.

Glad to know you are watching!!! www.realcatholictv.com

~Liza

Thanks for the correction. And, yep, I’m watching and donating when I can. Keep up
the good work.

 

[Lurgid]

Hey TexCath - just to correct a small detail - RealCatholicTV did not try to run the ad, but we did report on the story in either the Catholic News Round Up or the Vortex. I can’t recall who it was that tried to run that ad but it was not us.

Glad to know you are watching!!! www.realcatholictv.com

~Liza

That was Catholic Vote’s ad.

 

[Cat]

I think the ad was brilliant.

First of all, it totally defused the ridiculous argument that pro-lifers are all fanatical nutcases who want to murder abortionists and blow up clinics. The ad showed people who were rational and low-key, which is what most prolifers are.

Second, by showing the mom first, it negated the ridiculous pro-choice criticism that pro-lifers don’t care for mommies, but only for the babies. This ad was all about women, mothers, and that’s important for the other side to hear. Oh, Yes, we DO care about women.

Third, the ad was a strong contribution to a “culture of life.” It was cheerful, positive, loving. There are other ad campaigns from secular companies that are also “culture of life” ads; e.g. the wonderful “Dove” ads. This, IMO, was the most important aspect of the ad. EVERYTHING we do that contributes to a “culture of life” is important. When we volunteer to lead a Brownie troop, or play piano for a children’s choir, or serve on the Board of a figure skating club, or simply have children over to our houses for dinner–it’a all an affirmation of the importance we place on human life.

Fourth–as for the reason why the young man tackled his mother, that was for all of us who had no idea who he was or what a Heisman trophy winner is. There are a lot of people who don’t follow college football–I don’t. I’ve never heard of the man. So the “tackle” clued me in–this is a football player.

Fifth–by showing the football player tackling his mom, the implication was strong that Mom had something to do with his preparation to one day become a great football player. Maybe she actually worked out with him, or more than likely, she approved of his involvment with the game while he was growing up (a lot of moms don’t like to see their boys involved with football.) Again, a positive affirmation about motherhood.

Sixth–by showing a “tackle,” the ad made use of humor. Yes, it was kind of stupid jock-humor, but Mom and Son seemed comfortable with it, so why not? Again, so often pro-life organizations like Focus on the Family are seen as stuffed-shirt, isolated, fanatical cults. The humor demonstrates that we’re involved with real life and willing to enjoy a laugh along with the rest of the Super Bowl crowd.

Seventh–A continuation of Point Six. “Christians” have the reputation, which, IMO, is deserved, that they avoid “worldly” events like the Super Bowl because of the “immoral ads” and “sexploitation” and “materialistic emphasis,” and for evangelical Christians, the presence of alcohol. Just read some of the threads on CAF and you’ll see why the reputation is deserved. Well, Focus on the Family, bless their hearts!–stepped right into it and made it clear that Christians, including evangelical Christians, don’t shun wholesome family events like football games and the Super Bowl just because a few of the women show too much skin and a few of the people involved are only out for the almight dollar and a lot of the people are drinking alcohol. No sir! We love sports and America and our teams just as much as anyone. We’re not isolationist prudes. And once again, we’re not nutcases who only want to rescue babies.

 

[Ana]

Interesting take, Cat.

 

[Cat]

Why alienate people?

What do y’all want to see–more posters of dismembered babies? We all know the truth, but others find this obscene and inappropriate, especially when children have to see it.

We need to “ease” people into a pro-life mindset, not throw them into a bloodbath head first with no life preserver. This ad accomplished much.

 

[Bendecida]

Bluerose took the words out of my mouth but I think Cat’s take on it is really interesting.

 

[lizaanne]

Why alienate people?

What do y’all want to see–more posters of dismembered babies? We all know the truth, but others find this obscene and inappropriate, especially when children have to see it.

We need to “ease” people into a pro-life mindset, not throw them into a bloodbath head first with no life preserver. This ad accomplished much.

I don’t believe anyone here said anything about “dismembered babies”. But it would have been nice to have least mentioned what the whole thing was about. If I never knew the back story of the ad controversy that ad would have flipped right by me without a blink of an eye - I would have had absolutely NO clue what it was about unless I followed the url listed, and even then there isn’t much in the ad to make me even somewhat curious.

The ad ONLY accomplished much because PP flipped out over the prospect of any such ad running during the Super Bowl. It didn’t really matter what the ad was, they didn’t care. So if that was the case, it would have been nice to have a little content there.

All she had to say was - they told me I should have ended my pregnancy - I’m so glad I didn’t do that. No bloody babies, not even the dreaded “A” word, not even “choice”. But at least it would have said something of substance.

~Liza

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I don’t believe anyone here said anything about “dismembered babies”. But it would have been nice to have least mentioned what the whole thing was about. If I never knew the back story of the ad controversy that ad would have flipped right by me without a blink of an eye - I would have had absolutely NO clue what it was about unless I followed the url listed, and even then there isn’t much in the ad to make me even somewhat curious.

The ad ONLY accomplished much because PP flipped out over the prospect of any such ad running during the Super Bowl. It didn’t really matter what the ad was, they didn’t care. So if that was the case, it would have been nice to have a little content there.

All she had to say was - they told me I should have ended my pregnancy - I’m so glad I didn’t do that. No bloody babies, not even the dreaded “A” word, not even “choice”. But at least it would have said something of substance.

~Liza

Actually, because of this what they did was brilliant!! The ad showed a low key side of the prolife cause, without getting in anyone’s face and introduced the idea that not all “trouble kids” need to be killed. That choice means one can actually gasp! choose life! Now this is where their move was so brilliant:

1. They never once mentioned abortion. They talked about the joy of life. (I found the ad on youtube just so ya’ll know) This didn’t get anyone on the immediate defensive. They didn’t use any typical pro life arguments that the proaborts have heard and immediately get on the defensive about.
2. Because the ad does have a prolife message, they freaked out the proabortion organizations. This caused tons of press to let the world know that the message of the ad was to be prolife. THey knew it was prolife going in to it, and when they saw it they weren’t offended or had their buttons pushed.
3. Because it was so non-offensive, it is showing a vast number of people who identify as “pro choice” how ridiculous their side is by their reaction. I have read a few articles where prochoicers seem to be questioning whether or not organizations such as NOW really have women’s best interests at heart, or are just promoting their own agenda and abortion. People are starting to ask “Is it really ‘choice’ if they just want people to get abortions, and not have the cause for life represented?”

I have a great deal of hope for this ad, and I am dearly hoping it is a first step to sway the tide of america even more towards choosing life for those who are most innocent.

 

[Cat]

I don’t believe anyone here said anything about “dismembered babies”. But it would have been nice to have least mentioned what the whole thing was about. If I never knew the back story of the ad controversy that ad would have flipped right by me without a blink of an eye - I would have had absolutely NO clue what it was about unless I followed the url listed, and even then there isn’t much in the ad to make me even somewhat curious.

The ad ONLY accomplished much because PP flipped out over the prospect of any such ad running during the Super Bowl. It didn’t really matter what the ad was, they didn’t care. So if that was the case, it would have been nice to have a little content there.

All she had to say was - they told me I should have ended my pregnancy - I’m so glad I didn’t do that. No bloody babies, not even the dreaded “A” word, not even “choice”. But at least it would have said something of substance.

~Liza

But then people would have turned away and not watched. They would have turned up their nose and flashed the bird at the ad the instant they heard the pro-life spin, which they consider to be propaganda from fanatics and religious freaks.

Again, why alienate people?! What good does that accomplish? Isn’t it better to subtly “woo” people over to the pro-life mindset? Slow but steady.

This ad was brilliant because it “eases” people into a pro-life mindset. It makes people see babies and children as something “good”, not as a "mistake. This ad does what all the “immoral” ads do–it gradually accustoms people to thinking a certain way. It goes after the subconcious. It gets people used to thinking “Life is good. Family is good.” It “trains” people to think a certain way (in this case, the good and correct way).

Why do so many people think that it’s OK for two people to have sex on their first date? It certainly isn’t because television jumped right in and showed an unwed couple having sex. What happened was that this was gradually introduced to the public. We were shown a couple kissing passionately, and we all said, “Awww, how sweet.” Then they showed a couple lying down and kissing passionately, and we all said, “Awwww, how sweet.” And so on, until now they show couples doing the deed, and we still say, “Well, I know it’s wrong, but awww, it’s so sweet!” Thanks to subtle and repeated reinforcement, many of us have come to accept something that is actually a mortal sin and utterly detrimental to our souls, our families, and our society.

My only hope is that Focus will continue to show this ad and others so that the reinforcement will continue. One lone ad isn’t going to accomplish too much. The message must continue to get out there to the people living in the Culture of Death. We have to keep lighting that candle.

 

[bluerose]

I posted this on a different thread, but I think it bears repeating here. My SIL put her finger on the spot that bothered me about the ad. It was the way Pam Tebow said she “almost lost” her baby. Not one word about being pressured to make a “choice”. My SIL said it almost sounded like they were equating abortion with miscarriage or stillbirth. If I hadn’t been aware of the controversy, I would have thought that it was an ad for a hospital’s pre-natal or neo-natal clinic.

I know not everyone agrees, and I know that clobbering people over the head is not the best way to make a point, but I thought the ad should have at least mentioned that she CHOSE life for her son, not just that he didn’t “lose” it.

 

[Cat]

I don’t believe anyone here said anything about “dismembered babies”. But it would have been nice to have least mentioned what the whole thing was about. If I never knew the back story of the ad controversy that ad would have flipped right by me without a blink of an eye - I would have had absolutely NO clue what it was about unless I followed the url listed, and even then there isn’t much in the ad to make me even somewhat curious.

The ad ONLY accomplished much because PP flipped out over the prospect of any such ad running during the Super Bowl. It didn’t really matter what the ad was, they didn’t care. So if that was the case, it would have been nice to have a little content there.

All she had to say was - they told me I should have ended my pregnancy - I’m so glad I didn’t do that. No bloody babies, not even the dreaded “A” word, not even “choice”. But at least it would have said something of substance.

~Liza

What we should do now is write PP and thank them for giving pro-life issues and Focus on the Family all that good publicity!

Because of all the PP fuss, I think that everyone in the public was expecting to see a real shocker–an ad plastered with bloody baby limbs and wild-eyed mad scientists chasing innocent women and demanding that they kill their babies and hand over billions of dollars. Or perhaps the public expected to see an ad featuring Mother Mary and the Pope giving the “shame sign” to President Obama as he presides over a pile of little dead bodies.

Instead, the public saw a low-key, playful, friendly ad featuring a loving mother and son and a simple affirmation about life and family.

And the public did exactly what you all are doing–said, “So what’s all the fuss about?”

It really makes PP look bad, doesn’t it? Really bad. What possible objection could they have had to such a nice ad?!

Yet another reason why this ad was brilliant. It shows PP in their TRUE form–monsters who can’t even tolerate a simple “Life Is Good, Family is Good” message.

Once again, congratulations to Focus for getting PP to rise to the bait and snap at it like crazed fish. They really look stupid making such a fuss. Hopefully the public will make the connection and think, “If they’re that crazy about a nice little ad, maybe they really are feeding us a pack of lies about choice.”

 

[whatevergirl]

I posted this on a different thread, but I think it bears repeating here. My SIL put her finger on the spot that bothered me about the ad. It was the way Pam Tebow said she “almost lost” her baby. Not one word about being pressured to make a “choice”. My SIL said it almost sounded like they were equating abortion with miscarriage or stillbirth. If I hadn’t been aware of the controversy, I would have thought that it was an ad for a hospital’s pre-natal or neo-natal clinic.

I know not everyone agrees, and I know that clobbering people over the head is not the best way to make a point, but I thought the ad should have at least mentioned that she CHOSE life for her son, not just that he didn’t “lose” it.

*Exactly. That was my perception. I agree that clobbering over the head, and standing on street corners with huge signs showing the atrocities of abortion for example are completely the wrong way to go…but I think that this ad was confusing. I thought the ad could have been better, and the term abortion should have been used. Or that at least Tebow’s mother was confronted with a choice to make, and she chose life. I see your points Cat, but that’s just my take on the ad. *