Sack the pro-life quarterback?

"Viable alternatives"? Let's see, what were the "viable alternatives" in Mrs. Tebow's case?

1. Continue the pregnancy. Very likely result - both mother and child die. Additionally, any future children she might have have no chance at life, and any current children she might have are left motherless.
2. Continue the pregnancy. Unlikely result - both mother and child survive.
3. Have an abortion. Almost certainly, mother survives, child does not. Current children retain their mother, and there is still a chance that she will have healthy future children.

So your "viable alternatives" are to persuade women in her situation to take a dangerous risk with their own lives in order to provide a small chance at life to their fetus, with the overwhelmingly likely result being the death of both mother and fetus. But hey, it's only women's lives we're throwing away - what's a thousand dead women compared to one miraculously preserved fetus, who might be male and therefore worthwhile?

And of course, urging this "viable alternative" on vulnerable young women - or worse, forcing it on them via legislation - is FAR less controversial and scary than suggesting that a church might *gasp* welcome gay people, or that *gasp* gay men might enjoy dating each other. Women dead because a misleading commercial urged them - or sought to force them - to take a dangerous risk? That's fine! Heterosexual bigots forced to acknowledge the existence of gay people? That's horrible and shocking!

"The real question is what are abortion advocates afraid of?"

They are afraid that people like you will get legislation passed, which, based on ignorant, superstitious, and magical beliefs, will deprive woman of the health care that they require.

"Are they afraid that millions of Americans will be exposed to viable alternatives as it pertains to abortion?"

Millions of Americans are already aware of the viable alternatives to abortion. They are also aware that for some pregnant women, one possible alternative to an abortion can be death.

"Tim Tebow is as wrong as President Obama who constantly addresses abortion reduction and seeks to reduce the number of abortions in America."

I agree, they are both wrong. The goal should not be to reduce the number of abortions in America; rather, the goal should be to reduce the need for abortions all over the world, while keeping the option legal for those who require it.

Thanks, Mr. Rodriguez, for being an activist for a cause that has nothing to do with you. We are not your baby factories. Leave women alone.

Pay attention to those polls, too; do more youths really want to make abortion illegal? "Pro-life" is an ambiguous term. Step away from the clinics.

I now understand that CBS worked at length with Focus on the Family to write this ad. I am surprised the CBS legal department let this continue. Does CBS realize the legal liability they may potentially face with this ad?

The ad is said to advise women to disregard doctor's orders and choose life, despite a medical condition, as Mrs Tebow did. Now suppose someone does that but does not get the same positive medical response that Mrs Tebow did. That woman's family could end up owning a substantial chunk of CBS.

I don't object to Mrs. Tebow's ad being broadcast. But I certainly would love to see a disclaimer that tells the full truth: that abortion wasn't a legal alternative for Mrs. Tebow at the time in the Philippines. And if there were any real truth in advertising, the network would be required to show what MIGHT have happened in Mrs. Tebow's case: a severely disabled child requiring enormous amounts of care. The ad should show just who provides and pays for that care and what the end result will be. Will most children of women afflicted as Mrs. Tebow was bear children like her son? Or will the majority be so disabled they cannot function without government support?

If there is to be "truth in advertising", then it should show the FULL truth, not just what's "touching" and "sweet".

It's amazing CBS agreed to run this ad, given that it rejected as "too controversial" this pro-tolerance ad by the United Church of Christ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx1u1v7hAtY

Mr. Rodriguez, do I correctly assume you agree that the UCC's ads should be aired?

It's not a question of being afraid of the mesasge. No one contemplating a decision as big as whether to carry or terminate a pregnancy is going to base that decision on a Super Bowl commercial. FotF et al are merely giving themselves a very expensive warm fuzzy, dislocating their elbows patting themselves on the back for having "reached" millions of people and "saved" millions of babies.

My concern is appropriateness. Janet Jackson flashing the audience was not pre-approved by the network - that was her idea.
CBS has had a long-standing policy of not accepting "issue" ads during the Super Bowl - if your ad was not hawking a specific product, then they would not sell you air time. Now they appear to have changed that policy, but only for certain groups. An anti-choice evangelical organization? Sure. A church that welcomes gay couples and will marry them? Not so much.