Is Anyone Going to Listen to Tim Tebow?
by Steven Rossi on February 8, 2010 in In the News
In thinking of the Tim Tebow Superbowl ad lately, I’d love to see some numbers someday on how many lives it saved. And yes, I am being genuine—I’m really curious about the influence of something like this on such a significantly deep decision that a woman makes. In general, I’m pretty pessimistic about it. I would love to be proved wrong…seriously.
The way I see it, Focus on the Family should probably have donated the 2.x million to an organization like Don Miller’s Mentoring Project or former Survivor Rupert Boneham’s project, Rupert’s Kids, one that works to solve part of the problem that causes the need for a commercial like this. It’s easy to be critical, though, and these statements are probably way too bold of me, particularly in the context of such a terribly important issue.
Anyway, I’m sincerely curious about the effectiveness of something like this. Thoughts?
by Adam_S
On February 9, 2010 at 2:37 am
Especially since he wasn't born in the US. He was born in the Philipines, where abortion still isn't legal, but there are an estimated 600,000 abortion a year done illegally. And done so poorly that botched abortions count for 12% of all maternal deaths. I am pro-life, but no one will either get an abortion or not get an abortion because of a tv ad during the Superbowl. People get abortions or don't get abortions because of long term support (or lack of support). We know how to do something to reduce teen pregnancy, provide sex education, provide after school programs and good schools, provide good accessible medical services to those that can't afford them and provide good crisis pregnancy centers. Abortions and teen pregnancies are at some of their lowest rates in decades. The pure number of abortions is at the lowest since 1976. And the rate of teens saying they are virgins has been increasing since the early 1990s. My opinion is that this ad did nothing except create controversy.
My recent post Sex, Lies and Religion by Randy Elrod
by Steven Rossi
On February 9, 2010 at 2:30 pm
"People get abortions or don't get abortions because of long term support (or lack of support)."
"My opinion is that this ad did nothing except create controversy."
That's sorta the line of thought which I was following. I would love to hear the perspective of someone who believes that this ad (or one like it) could be successful in changing a person's decision to get an abortion. I suppose that supporters of this ad would argue that if only one person who was going to abort their baby decided based on this ad to not go through with it, then the ad was successful. I tend to agree with that, but I'm interested in the overall effectiveness…particularly in that the thing was so darn expensive.
by @adamrshields
On February 9, 2010 at 3:39 pm
I hate the "if just one person" argument. It fails to take into account the opportunity cost of the thing. In this case the $2 to 3 million that was spent on the ad would have been enough to fully fund a crisis pregnancy center (and maybe two) for a year. There is no doubt in my mind that a fully funded crisis pregnancy center would prevent more abortions than the Tebow ad.
On the other hand, I do think that God sometimes calls us to do things that don't make a lot of economic (or other kinds) of sense. I have no way of knowing if God really called those behind the ad to do it or not. But I think that when God calls us to do things, it is often not what the world would assume. An ad like this I would usually classify as a worldly attempt at solving the problem.
My recent post Sex, Lies and Religion by Randy Elrod
by Dee
On February 11, 2010 at 9:35 am
I think Focus on the Family really softballed this ad, considering how hard-hitting and condemnatory they are in other avenues. As much as they appreciate Tebow giving a shoutout to God on his eye patches and how they love Carrie Prejean's opposite marriage stuff, they knew they had to take it easy on their spot. Pam just sounded like any mom who had a tough pregnancy. Say that to premature baby mothers. Sounds just the same.
I don't think this is spurning any mother away from a clinic, but I say that because I'm pretty sure that it's just a tough and grueling decision for a woman to make, as opposed to some flippant response to forgetting a condom or having one break. So, maybe they blew 2.6 million on an ad. It's more outrageous, like someone said, that FF blew the money on an ad instead of working proactively toward the systemic issue. That's not FF's business. They want to condemn women for making the choices and actively work toward cutting down the number of choices women have.
Personally, if they're all for adoption, I'd like to see them lobby that 2.6 mil toward allowing gay couples to adopt. They're just as healthy and happy to have children, right?
My recent post Sankofa
by Harvey
On February 11, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Another way to look at this is it's a pro-choice commercial and she's happy with her choice!
May everyone HAVE choices and, in the end, be happy with them!
My recent post LAZY!
by Steven Rossi
On February 11, 2010 at 7:18 pm
I agree with that…I was mostly playing devil's advocate. I really don't know the effectiveness of this thing, and I can only hope it was successful. I just don't know if this was the best way to spend that sort of money.
by Steven Rossi
On February 11, 2010 at 7:21 pm
That's the thing. The ad itself really wasn't as dramatic or forceful as I expected. For me that's not the issue…the issue is really its usefulness. And I'm totally for getting stories like these out there; I just don't know if this was the best medium for that.
Side thought: is controversy really the best way to bring change?
by Steven Rossi
On February 11, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Heh, actually, that's a pretty fair perspective on the commercial, if you think about it. It's obviously not what they're advocating, but because of the simplicity of the commercial, you could definitely argue in favor of that message.
by Steven Rossi
On February 11, 2010 at 7:26 pm
So you're saying you think they played it safe on purpose? Heh, that's actually a pretty big compliment to them, I think, in comparison to the way they normally do things.
And what you're saying is what it really comes down to. We're not talking about some quick-fix deal like buying a new dishwasher detergent because your dishes smell funny. We're talking about a serious decision, and I just don't know if a commercial is the most effective way to work toward solving the problem.