Duly noted

William Saletan over at Slate argues that Tim Tebow's Pro-life ad about to appear on the Super Bowl this Sunday sends the wrong message about the kind of complication Tim's mother went through:

Pam's story certainly is moving. But as a guide to making abortion decisions, it's misleading. Doctors are right to worry about continuing pregnancies like hers. Placental abruption has killed thousands of women and fetuses. No doubt some of these women trusted in God and said no to abortion, as she did. But they didn't end up with Heisman-winning sons. They ended up dead.

Being dead is just the first problem with dying in pregnancy. Another problem is that the fetus you were trying to save dies with you. A third problem is that your existing kids lose their mother. A fourth problem is that if you had aborted the pregnancy, you might have gotten pregnant again and brought a new baby into the world, but now you can't. And now the Tebows have exposed a fifth problem: You can't make a TV ad.

Though I consider myself a solid pro-life, I have to agree with Saletan's analysis. I don't think it's being wishy-washy to consider the life of the mother a valid exception for having an abortion.

I do recall weeks ago when a friend forwarded me the story about Tim Tebow's ad, and how it might potentially air on the Super Bowl. At the time, I thought nothing of it, except that 1) it probably wouldn't air (oh me of little faith) and 2) it doesn't really do much for our cause, anyway, since that kind of exceptional case isn't the kind of case we need to be talking about.

And that's the fact of the matter. Tim Tebow's story is inspiring, and it has gotten people's attention because of the very public stage on which it is being told. But that's where its usefulness for the pro-life movement ends. As a pro-lifer, I don't seriously want to argue that every woman must act just like Pam Tebow and risk her own life for the sake of her baby.

The thing is that most abortions simply aren't about saving the life of the mother. As you can easily read for yourself in studies like this one at the Alan Guttmacher Institute (which is basically an arm of Planned Parenthood) no more than 15% of abortions have anything at all to do with the health of the mother; I imagine actually saving the life of the mother represents a much smaller figure than that.

In other words, we have a real moral problem on our hands. I don't think we need to go convincing women that they all have to be super-woman and willingly risk their lives for the sake of childbearing. That's not what being pro-life is about.

I'm sure the ad on Sunday won't overtly suggest that all women need to be superheroes. Nevertheless, if you hold that Tebow's story is instructive for all women, you're kind of pushing the pro-life case a bit far.

Saletan correctly points out the reason for an ad like Tebow's:

Pro-lifers have always struggled with the invisibility of unborn life: millions of babies aborted every year, concealed in wombs behind closed doors. How do you open the world's eyes to what it can't see? In Tim Tebow, they see the invisible made visible: a child who has lived to tell his story because an abortion didn't happen.

In essence, I suppose Tebow will just have to do. I would be much more comfortable with someone sharing a more instructive story, such as, say, Nick Cannon's. But right now Tebow is in the right place to be seen by a large audience and share an important message.

As you can tell, I'm caught in a bit of a dilemma about what makes the most sense pragmatically. But hey, it's not my $2.5 million to spend. So, I guess I'll just keep adding my voice to the conversation, and see how it all plays out.

In the meantime, have a look at Nick Cannon's video (if you haven't already)!

True Pro-Choice Response to Tebow's Ad

Google alerts fills me in daily on what's going around the web related to abortion and other political issues. Lately it seems half the articles tagged "abortion" are articles criticizing the decision to have Tim Tebow's story appear in a 30-second ad during the Super Bowl. There's been quite a lot of backlash from pro-choicers, including some who go so far as to imply Tebow's story isn't true.

But there has been some very reasonable response from the pro-choice camp. A New York Times editorial entitled "Super Bowl Censorship" argues that it was a good thing that CBS allowed the ad.

The would-be censors are on the wrong track. Instead of trying to silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about: protecting the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices.

CBS was right to change its policy of rejecting paid advocacy commercials from groups other than political candidates. After the network screens ads for accuracy and taste, viewers can watch and judge for themselves. Or they can get up from the couch and get a sandwich.

Can't say it any better than those last two sentences, you know?

Another article from the Washington Post, written by the former president of NARAL Pro-choice America and the former president of Catholics for Choice, argues that the pro-choice movement needs to stop whining about the ad and adopt a similar strategy.

Women's and choice groups responding to the Tebow ad should take a page from the Focus on the Family playbook. Erin Matson, the National Organization for Women's new vice president, called the Tebow spot "hate masquerading as love." That kind of comment may play well in the choice choir, but to others, it makes no sense, at best; at worst, it's seen as the kind of stridency that reinforces the view that pro-choice simply means pro-abortion.

For me, Erin Matson's comment fits both of those descriptions: it makes no sense, and it reinforces my view that pro-choice often simply means pro-abortion. But I'm glad to see pro-choicers arguing for a more reasonable stance.

The other nice thing about the Post article is how in-depth it goes talking about the recent history of attitudes toward abortion. For one thing, they admit that science has taught us a lot about the abortion issue:

Today, the first picture in most baby books is the 12-week 3D ultrasound, and Grandma and Grandpa have that photo posted on the fridge. We read about successful fetal surgery; we don't read about women dying in pools of blood on their bathroom floors after botched abortions, as we did when the procedure was illegal.

And for another thing, they give a nice free shout-out to Feminists for Life:

Groups such as Feminists for Life started out relatively small but invested heavily in reaching out to college students, talking not about making abortion illegal but about helping college women keep their babies. Their pro-life message wasn't exclusively anti-abortion; it was anti-capital-punishment, antiwar, for saving the whales, for not eating meat and for supporting mothers.

Advances in science and the development of a coherent, progressive pro-life ethic are two things that get me excited about the pro-life movement. It makes me happy that folks on the other side are noticing those things, too.

As I read these articles I began to think, as I often do, about the issue of common ground between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Ultimately, I know that I can't compromise my views on abortion, mainly because of the nature of the act. One decision can end the life of a human being in the womb; once that's done, that human being will never live again.

But there is certainly common ground on this issue. Common ground doesn't mean compromise. It just means there are certain things that people on both sides understand. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers can both see how beautiful it is for a child to be raised in a loving family. Both can see how hard pregnancy is. Both can see how heart-wrenching it can be when the issue of fetal deformities comes up. Both can understand "that life without tough choices doesn't exist."

Sure, it's hard to know what to do with that common ground, since fundamentally there is no compromise on this issue. But coming from a pro-life perspective, I know it's important to recognize this common ground because we need to continually set before our eyes the humanity of our opponents.

We are pro-life; we respect the true dignity of all human beings. This can't just be an abstract principle. It has to be put into practice through civility in our public discourse, and through genuine understanding of the struggles that lead to abortion. The goal is not simply to prevent one act of violence, but to promote human flourishing more generally.

I sure hope that's something we can all agree on. Anyway, try not to let all the controversy ruin the Super Bowl for you.

Imagine the Potential (tm)

Provocative, perhaps, but I appreciate the emphasis on the positive. (Click here to help air the ad.)

Number Six

My brother beat me to it, but I just wanted to say that yes, the Super Bowl was amazing. It's fun being a Steelers fan.

The Office was pretty great, too.