• Vanessa
  January 28th, 2010 at 11:38 AM

  what a great post! This whole thing makes my stomach turn. Not a fan of the super bowl myself, but I wonder how many people really want a side dish of propaganda with their chicken wings and beer.

• Sandy
  January 28th, 2010 at 11:54 AM

  It is a very scary and EXTREMELY slippery slope that takes one from environmental problems to over-population to abortion and euthanasia.

  I think it’s best for environmentalists to focus on technology and education to address environmental problems — they have solved MANY of them – and steer clear of abortion as a means to handle it.

  It’s always interesting to me to hear this couched in terms of a “woman’s right to choose”. Why do you think China and India have such an over-abundance of males under 20? Because the female babies were aborted.

• Lora K.
  January 28th, 2010 at 12:11 PM

  @Sandy – You raise a good point.

  I’d like to emphasize that nowhere in this post or in the world would I state, nor do I believe, that abortion or euthanasia are appropriate means of “handling” overpopulation.

  I think it is worth considering this question though: is it appropriate to encourage women (or couples) to have babies at all costs when we know about overpopulation?

  This $2-million ad might be a part of a cultural problem and a message that leads to overpopulation, rather than helps and supports families and women who choose not to have an abortion for good, moral reasons.

  Family planning, taking good care of your children even if you had them without planning, and responsible sexual behavior is a more environmental message to send, if you ask me.

  I look forward to hearing more of your ideas about how we can solve scarcity, pollution and many other environmental problems that come with overpopulation and not enough innovation.

• JF
  January 28th, 2010 at 1:24 PM

  1.) All commercials are “propaganda” of some sort

  2.) Whomever wants to pay and isn’t promoting illegal things has the right to advertise (you’ve seen the bumpit commercials, correct?)

  3.) Do I agree? Heck no. But I am used to this sort of hypocrisy among the religious world. “Be like Jesus, pray every night to be more like Jesus, wear a bracelet that says What Would Jesus do?” and what do they do? Give millions in apparent ‘loose change’ to organizations that help trafficked children and sustainable projects to teach people in Africa how to grow their own food….oh wait… They took their millions in loose change and put together an ad that would push their religious ideals on US citizens during one of the most televised TV events ever…smart? maybe…only if they actually think that tear jerking commercials w/ a young hot football player and his momma actually change people’s minds about extremely intense issues.

  I think the bigger issue with overpopulation and sustainability is education. The US is so incredibly repressed. I am surprised daily by how many people I encounter that are simply clueless. Hell, sex education is still being fought by parents across the nation.

  We’re actually denying educators the right to teach children about the human body and reproduction…

  I have actually heard through friends of friends of parents’-daughters’- schoolmates that a lot of young women don’t even know how many, errr, “openings” exist downtown. You see reality shows like “Teen Mom” where these kids actually thought that as long as they did certain “things,” they couldn’t get pregnant.

  We need to open our minds to education and also I think that you should have to take a mental stability test to be given permission to have children in the first place….(that’s a joke…but not really….kidding…no not really)

  But I digress.

  Essentially, I think that people need to be exposed to and educated about sex, protection, reproduction, being a mother/father, obtaining and keeping a job etc.

  If more of our youth ‘get’ the actual implications of becoming pregnant/having and keeping a child, perhaps safe sex will actually become much more prevalent in the American society.

  I wonder how we pale in comparison to other countries that are notoriously much more ‘open minded’ (so to speak) on abortion levels / over population.

  Going to do some reading. Will be back.

  Thanks for this post.

• Anthony
  January 28th, 2010 at 1:58 PM

  You know what, people have had to put up with GoDaddy and their “offensive” ads for years. If Focus on the Family have the money then they deserve a run. It is actually quite relevant to football given that is revolves around Tebow.

• Sam
  January 28th, 2010 at 3:08 PM

  Yeah, I do believe if they can afford it, then it’s their prerogative. However, it is highly inappropriate. I don’t mean because of the content itself, but it’s just not the time and place for it. People just want to have fun on Super Bowl Sunday, and then you shove that in their faces. C’mon. It’s just tacky.

  If you ask me though, I would really appreciate not having my rights taken away. Just saying.

• Renae
  January 28th, 2010 at 3:59 PM

  if you call this propaganda, don’t just give me a side dish – give me 2 heaping platefuls!!!!! jerks….

• Lora K.
  January 28th, 2010 at 5:02 PM

  @Renae – trying to keep it positive, limit name calling to just jokes, here.

  I think the person’s point above (see @JF) was that all commercials are pushing an agenda of some sort.

  Would appreciate your thoughts about why you like the ad in question, or ads in general though.

  I’ve personally watched the SuperBowl with greater interest in the ads than in the games, which typically have about 13 minutes of actual ball-in-play time. I just really don’t know if SuperBowl Sunday is my favorite time to consider this profound issue.

  Or to deal with the clash of my diverse group of friends’ points of views on it either. . .

  Hoping no fights ensue!

• JF
  January 28th, 2010 at 5:08 PM

  @Renae – Renae, LK is right. I meant that all commercials, in one way or another, are produced to push you, the viewer, into thinking or believing the message that they spent hours upon hours crafting – in essence, propaganda.

  I didn’t mean this blog post was propaganda (if that’s what you were referring to)

• Victoria
  January 28th, 2010 at 10:22 PM

  A much closer issue to me at the moment is not only the resistance to abortion, but resistance to HOW a woman can have birth, and her choices during pregnancy. You can be court-ordered to be imprisoned in the hospital. Your insurance will not cover an ‘elective’ c-section even when medical journals agree that the procedure is less risky to both mother and child than ‘natural’ childbirth (possible risks of C-section are to the woman’s future *fertility*, not to the health of mother or child).

  Sound barbaric? Are we simply threatened by science over-taking ‘nature’?
  The next time you pull out an umbrella to shield yourself from sleet or hail, perhaps you should consider the advantages of a ‘natural’ walk home, and follow that with a natural endurance of your consequent illness without the aid of modern medicine.

  Superbowl mom had the choice to carry her child to term despite risks because our society is more pro-fetus than pro-woman, which was not the case throughout much of history. More devastating than overpopulation or the termination of a fetus who may or may not be considered to have begun life, are the stories of unwanted and abused children in CPS. Superbowl mom’s child grew up to be pro-football. Others end like Nixmary.

  If we have to watch a PSA during the superbowl, what could be more appropriate, given its audience, than the issue of violence against women. That includes violence perpetrated by doctors and insurance companies.

• Pete Murphy
  January 29th, 2010 at 5:59 AM

  The biggest obstacle we face in changing attitudes toward overpopulation is economists. Since the field of economics was branded “the dismal science” after Malthus’ theory, economists have been adamant that they would never again consider the subject of overpopulation and continue to insist that man is ingenious enough to overcome any obstacle to further growth. Even worse, economists insist that population growth is vital to economic growth. This is why world leaders continue to ignore population growth in the face of mounting challenges like peak oil, global warming and a whole host of other environmental and resource issues.

  But because they are blind to population growth, there’s one obstacle they haven’t considered: the finiteness of space available on earth. The very act of using space more efficiently creates a problem for which there is no solution: it inevitably begins to drive down per capita consumption and, consequently, per capita employment, leading to rising unemployment and poverty.

  If you”˜re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit my web site at http://PeteMurphy.wordpress.com.

  Pete Murphy
  Author, “Five Short Blasts”

• Daniel @ Casual Kitchen
  January 29th, 2010 at 12:58 PM

  The issue here is one of free speech, regardless of how repugnant or propagandistic you find the subject matter. People need to step back and recognize that free speech isn’t just for issues you happen to agree with.

  One other point I’d make is I’m actually impressed by Tebow standing up for his views on an extremely controversial issue, even though I may not agree with him. Does anybody remember the controversy early on in Michael Jordan’s career as a shoe pitchman for Nike? He was asked why he didn’t use his celebrity to get involved in what was becoming a racially-tinged Senate race in North Carolina (Jesse Helms vs Harvey Gantt). He declined, saying “Republicans buy sneakers too.”

  Now that’s cynical.

  Dan @ Casual Kitchen

• Lora K.
  February 1st, 2010 at 12:55 PM

  @Daniel, et al — Re: CBS and free speech? The network rejected ads for a gay dating site that are well within allowable FCC mandates for content. A post about it via Yahoo! Sports here:

  http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/CBS-is-fine-with-Tebow-s-pro-life-ad-but-reject?urn=nfl,216642

  This is after they claimed that the Tebow ad was ushering in a new era, where they would allow lobbies and different points of view to advertise, though they had shied away from politically and religiously charged content, before.

  Oh well. Corporations and hypocrisy part a hundred billion something!

• kerijberry
  February 2nd, 2010 at 8:10 PM

  Okay – I’m all for free speech. All sides deserve to be heard, so here’s my 2 cents:

  Good for Tim Tebow’s mom – it was her CHOICE not to have an abortion – something that people who are pro-choice (like me) support. It’s not like I want to force women to have abortions – I just want them to be able to choose what they believe is best for themselves and their families. Grrrr……

  Also, hello? Focus on the Family?! How about 2.5 million dollars spent on PREVENTING unwanted pregnancy?!?! If you want to talk about stopping abortion, you need to talk about PREVENTION. It ain’t rocket science. Outlawing is not prevention – it just makes women criminals…….

Who Linked To This Post?

1. Link Loving 29 "¢ 01 "¢ 2010 | Red Headed Frog
2. EcoMeme: Superbowl Ad Controversy | EcoSalon | Conscious Culture … | Pro Earth Forsyth