Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Hello?

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. . . Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

I'm sorry. There are few so-called "political issues" that get my blood boiling. One of these so-called "political issues" is the topic of abortion. Most other issues I take the "high road" on, but when it comes to this issue, I cannot keep silent and I cannot worry about whether I am offending someone. This issue is not, first and foremost, a political issue. It is a matter of life and death - which no person has the right to politicize.

The reason I am mentioning all of this now is because I have just been alerted to one of the most absurd stories I have come across in a long time. Tim Tebow, former quarterback for the Florida Gators, is supposed to be featured in a Super Bowl commercial that details how he was born despite pleas from physicians that his mother abort him because of illness while she was a missionary in the Philippines.

And what is the "pre-sponse" to this commercial - whose slogan is the ever-offensive and diabolical "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life"? According to WFTV.com, "Protestors say the ad will likely promote an anti-abortion message." Gasp! Oh, the nerve of Tim Tebow and his evil band of associates. How dare they promote a message that condemns death so much!

Beyond that, the National Organization for Women called the ad "extremely offensive and demeaning." Besides the fact that this group probably hasn't even seen the ad yet, who, exactly, do they think is being demeaned? Women who already feel guilty because they have had an abortion? (According to statistics, 40 to 60 report of women who have had an abortion report having negative psychological reactions to the abortion.) Such a sentiment simply demonstrates the inherent immorality in performing an abortion and their insistence that such an ad is "demeaning" actually lends support to the pro-life side. (Of course, the pro-abortion side's ultimate goal is that women would eventually be able to commit murder without any shame or remorse - and the sooner such ads are blocked from our consciousness, the sooner such a goal will be achieved - though, interestingly, in Sweden, where abortion has been allowed for a lot longer and thus there is less social pressure against abortion, 25% of women still report having feelings of guilt after performing an abortion.)

Beyond that, what perhaps is just as troubling to me is the ludicrous notion that such an ad should not be aired during the Super Bowl, of all things. Heaven forbid we should be forced to actually engage in thoughtful reflection during four hours of mindless entertainment.

But George Diaz writes,

There is a time and place for everything. On Super Bowl Sunday, people want to have a few beers, kick back and enjoy the show, and not get into an argument over abortion rights. The same standards would apply to any group that wanted to run an ad that was pro-choice. I’d say NO to that too.

Such sentiment is baffling to me. I don't care what the issue is, or whether I agree with it, I don't find it offensive, inappropriate, or wrong for a company or organization to spend millions of dollars on whatever particular issue they are passionate about. If a Gay Rights group wanted to air an ad during the Super Bowl, so be it! Why should the Super Bowl be off-limits to so-called "offensive" ads? Is the fact that Coke or Ford or Taco Bell spend millions of dollars on silly and brainless advertisements offensive to anyone else besides me? Or is it simply issues that relate to murder that should not be aired?

More than this, one lady from The Women's Media Center said that "an ad that uses sports to divide rather than unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year - an event designed to bring Americans together." Umm, hello? Did I miss something? Does she understand what the very nature of sports are? It's about, you know, beating your opponent. It's about combat. It's about domination. It's about dividing into two teams and - in this case - beating each other's brains in so you can stand on a podium and hold a metal trophy. Sports is the epitome of division rather than unity.

And since when is that which "unites" the criteria by which a commercial is allowed to air - especially during the Super Bowl? I am sure there will be plenty of other commercials that won't necessarily unite people's hearts to one another (you think commercials that feature busty blondes unite men's hearts to their wives?).

I know, I know. I am being really close-minded and "fundamentalist" and am not considering a woman's "right to choose." But in matters of life and death, the only One who, ultimately, has the right to choose is God. Anything else - and I mean anything else which entails one person choosing to prematurely end another person's existence - is called "murder" (and I include acts of war as well).

Anyway, I think I've made my point. This whole topic makes my blood boil, as you can tell. To, first of all, allow the mass slaughter of innocent children, is probably the greatest crime against humanity in the history of the world. And then, second of all, to claim people who are against murder are simply being political, well, that's too much to bear. And then to claim that such a message should not be aired during the Super Bowl is probably the most glaring reflection of our complete apathy and the let-me-be-mindlessly-entertained-at-all-costs attitude we have.

Lastly, the quote I shared at the beginning is from Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man. Our views on life and death are influenced incredibly by Darwinian philosophy. We are heading to a complete and total devaluing of human life. And such is a sad reality.

6 comments:

holamickey said...

point well made, Shawn. headed up north of you this Thursday... to judge for myself.

Shawn Brace said...

Thanks Mike. What, exactly, will you be judging for yourself up here, though?

Corey said...

Thank you for saying exactly how I feel but couldn't put into words. As you know, there is NO topic that gets me going like this one just as it does for you. A baby is being murdered. Why does someone get the choice to do that but if you went out and murdered a person that happens to be out of the womb, it's a crime? It especially boggles my mind that anyone who has given birth to a child, who has seen that child on a 4D ultrasound, who sees a child that is clearly a living being, sucking a thumb or kicking their legs in utero, believes that it's okay to murder that child. What kind of society is this???

Shawn Brace said...

Thanks for sharing, Corey! Glad I could verbalize what you were thinking.

Brent Buttler said...

I just read this blog post "http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog/?p=120", and thought of your post. Curious to read what you think of it.

Shawn Brace said...

Good stuff, Brent. I have to tip my cap to Barry (whom I have played hockey against!). He is right in saying that Dawkins has the freedom to say what he thinks. But, of course, Dawkins proves how silly he is once again.