Disclaimer

Some parts of this blog may contain adult-oriented material. (It is NOT porn or erotica, but some of the content is inappropriate for children). If you are under your country's legal age to view such material or find it to be "objectionable", please leave this page now. Reader discretion is advised...but if you couldn't infer from the title that this may be an adult-oriented blog, then you shouldn't be on the Internet at all.

Everything on the Evil Slutopia blog is copyrighted by the E.S.C. and ESC Forever Media and may not be used without credit to the authors. But feel free to link to us as much as you want! For other legal information, disclaimers and FAQs visit ESCForeverMedia.com.

January 31, 2010

The AFA Embraces Hypocrisy in Support of Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad

I decided to check in with the American Family Association to see if they had weighed in on the Tim Tebow/Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad controversy. I figured they wouldn't miss the chance for one of their famous action alerts, and sure enough:

Urge CBS to stand firm on airing pro-life Tebow Super Bowl ad

Our good friends at Focus on the Family have purchased time during this year's Super Bowl broadcast to air a compelling pro-life ad featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and the decision his mother made 23 years ago to give birth to her unborn son when doctors were urging her to abort him.

CBS has come under withering fire from the left for its decision to air this ad. Joy Behar of "The View" even said abortion would have been an appropriate choice since there was no way for Tim's mom to know that he wouldn't grow up to be a "rapist pedophile."

I must have missed the meeting where we elected Joy Behar as the official spokeswoman for "the left". I'm also going to assume that what Joy meant was that 'don't ever have an abortion because you might give birth to a future college football star!' is not necessarily the world's best argument.
The hypocrisy here is thick. Abortion proponents claim to be all about choice, but they are outraged over an ad that features a woman exercising her right to choose life for her baby son.
Yes, of course that's precisely why we're outraged. As usual the AFA has its finger right on the pulse of the pro-choice movement. And apparently by "the hypocrisy here is thick", the AFA means here in this action alert:
Unfortunately, CBS sent a signal this week that it would be willing to accept "responsibly produced" ads that promote abortion or homosexuality. But a message that promotes death or sexual deviancy is not the moral equivalent of a message that celebrates life, and CBS must be urged to reject any such advocacy ads.

CBS needs to hear from all of us who support the decision to air the Tebow ad.
So while most feminist and liberal groups are arguing that if CBS is going to accept anti-choice ads, they should also be willing to accept advocacy ads from the other side of the political spectrum (several of which they've rejected in the past), the AFA is arguing that only ads that conform to their moral standards should be accepted. And while most feminists are simply asking that CBS clearly state exactly what their new policy is regarding advocacy ads so that the playing field is more level, the AFA is apparently fine with CBS cherry-picking ads and providing vague explanations as long as it means that only AFA-approved ads ever make the cut. And of course the morals card is used to justify their stance.

This morality argument was explored further in a post by Bryan Fischer on the AFA's blog.
Below is a letter I wrote today in response to a CBS affiliate manager in Roanoke, Virginia, who told a member of the AFA network that if a station chooses to air one advocacy ad (e.g., the Tim Tebow ad) they must be prepared to air any and all advocacy ads (e.g., an ad promoting abortion or a homosexual dating service.)

---

Dear Jeff,

One of our constituents was kind enough to forward on to us your reply regarding the airing of advocacy ads.
I can only imagine how thrilled Jeff's going to be when he receives our boy Bryan's letter.
I'd like to kindly challenge you on one point. You expressed that once one advocacy ad is aired, you have some kind of moral obligation to air all advocacy ads. But I'm quite sure you do not believe this in practice, for I'm guessing you would turn down an advocacy ad for the KKK or for neo-Nazis and feel quite correct in doing so. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I guess we should be glad that he compared a pro-choice ad to a neo-Nazi ad rather than just straight up going for the Hitler comparison.

Now what this means in practice is that if an ad represents a morally objectionable point of view in your judgment, you rightly feel quite free to reject the ad.

The bottom line here is that ads that promote abortion promote the practice of putting an innocent human life to death. Ads that promote the normalization of homosexual behavior promote behavior that is so dangerous and unhealthy that the FDA - hardly a right-wing religious organization - will not allow a man to donate blood if he has had sex with another male even a single time since 1977.

According to the CDC (again, not a right wing organization), homosexual behavior is the single greatest risk factor in acquiring HIV/AIDS. The second highest risk factor is IV drug use. You surely would not accept an ad that promoted IV drug use, but homosexual behavior is even more dangerous than that.

This would put you on solid moral, social and cultural ground to reject any such ads. An ad that celebrates life can hardly be considered the moral or social equivalent of an ad that promotes the death of unborn children or a dangerous and destructive lifestyle.
So are we all clear now? Anti-choice ads are innocent and beautiful celebrations of life, while pro-choice and pro-gay ads are morally bankrupt death orgies that may as well be promoting Nazism. It's so admirable that Bryan has the courage and compassion to look for common ground on this divisive issue.

3 comments:

foxdragon415 said...

So the only danger associated with IV drug use is contracting HIV? Wow, that's a relief. I guess it's just been overhyped. Thanks, AFA!

It's this lack of logic that would keep me from listening to people like this even if I didn't totally disagree with their views.

Kyra said...

"But a message that promotes death or sexual deviancy is not the moral equivalent of a message that celebrates life, and CBS must be urged to reject any such advocacy ads."

Ooooh, framing! And arbitrary values judgments! I can do that too! Watch me:

"But a message that promotes irresponsible parenthood* is not the moral equivalent of a message that celebrates love or freedom."

*Ms. Tebow had other children, if I recall correctly, and this ad celebrates that she chose to risk leaving them motherless---abandoning them---in order to produce another baby.

They are playing on the assumption that they're the sole defining authority of what's moral, and I hate that more than anything.

Anna said...

So by their logic, does this mean that ads for pro war candidates should be rejected because they jeopardize innocent life of civilians of the "wrong" national origin?

Guess that would eliminate a lot of their candidates, then.