Amazon Contextual Product Ads

Friday, February 12, 2010

The Pro Choice/Life Ad?

While I didn't watch the Super Bowl at all (haven't for a couple of years; never been interested in sports to begin with, particularly team sports), I did get emails from Christian Response (research purposes primarily) emphasizing how pro-life the 30 second ad is. While the point I found amusing was point where Tim tackles his mother (odd, isn't it?), the supposed focus of the ad towards pro life is contested and for good reason.

The only instance where it really gets into pro-life territory is in the beginning where she emphasizes how she persevered even though her pregnancy was hard. The backstory, from my limited research, is that she was infected with a dysentery amoeba and the medicine she took to cure it caused a complication in the pregnancy that probably would have killed her and/or her fetus. While she does demonstrate that it is possible to carry a child to term with this complication, the pro life aspect that is emphasized in the commercial is hardly admirable. To admire someone for persevering against someone's better judgment seems especially troubling when one does not by necessity need to continue having children, in the context of the Tebow family. Tim is the youngest of five, count them, five children. Why the family insists that they must have another child when providing for four as missionaries would be difficult enough, I cannot say.

I can say that while I see the pro choice aspects of the ad, the ad itself is mostly there to get laughs. But in the beginning there is an emphasis by Tim Tebow's mother that he is a "miracle baby" and such things. Last I heard, in a Christian's perspective, all babies are miracles from God. But then, that would make Mr. Tebow even more miraculous. Like there's a hierarchy or some such nonsense. I'm not one for censoring, but I am one for contesting a position that I find objectionable that Focus on the Family holds. Although to continue on this rant would necessitate another blog post entirely.

For now, I will leave it at this: I disagree with Focus on the Family, but it is good that they are exercising a basic right to a free marketplace of ideas. Though frankly, I would think they'd direct their funds towards other modes of advertisement. The Super Bowl attempt recently seems to only demonstrate desperation in trying to push their message when they are in an extreme area of the position of pro life and "family values". Perhaps they will succeed, but perhaps they will realize a fault and try a new approach in the future. Why not, oh, I dunno…advertise on the 700 Club?!

1 comment:

  1. I have a couple of problems with the whole "keep-with-your-pregnancy-because-you-could-have-a-MIRACLE-BABY" argument.

    1) It directly sets the standard for evaluating a woman's worth by the quality of children she produces. I don't need to explain any more why this is total B.S. unless you've sprung directly out of the Dark Ages.

    2) Sure, you could produce a little genius. However, there's currently just one Tim Tebow in the U.S. right now, and around 2 million convicted criminals. Hell, chances are highly favourable that even if the baby survives he or she would grow up to be just average. And he or she could also be minus a mother at that point.

    I don't mind at all when a woman makes a decision to carry a pregnancy to term against (supposed) odds. I just get pissed when they think every woman has the responsibility to take that risk. This Superbowl ad pissed me off for that reason. (And yet, CBS refused to show an ad for a gay dating Web site. F*** Us With a Family, indeed.)