It probably wouldn't be much of a match-up on the gridiron, but during this year's Super Bowl Tim Tebow will encounter perhaps the most vehement opponent of his entire career: pro-choice Americans.
For thirty-seconds during Super Bowl XLIV, Tebow will be featured in a commercial by Focus on the Family designed to highlight the errors of abortion, and challenge viewers to consider what potential unborn life might hold. Tebow, whose mother Pam was sick during her pregnancy with the Heisman winner in 1987, was almost himself the victim of abortion. But in just twenty years, Tebow has demonstrated firmly the value of his own life (leading the Florida Gators to a BCS championship), and the value of his pro-life morals. "I know some people won’t agree with [the ad]," said Tebow, "but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe."
Tebow is right: some people won't agree with the ad, and in fact they won't even agree that it should be shown. Pro-choice groups, like the National Organization for Women and the Women's Media Center, are campaigning relentlessly against CBS, saying that the broadcasting company is aligning itself with an "anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization." Others, like a caller I recently heard on a Washington, DC area radio station, have decried the ad as an unwanted solicitation of religious values during an event designed to be light-hearted and impersonal. At their most cynical, critics have even professed that the ad implicitly condemning abortion will throw "women under the bus."
Evidently, the ad (the precise content of which is still undisclosed) is intended not to make any strong political claims, but only to "celebrate" the beauty of life. “There’s nothing political and controversial about it,” said a representative for Focus on the Family. “When the day arrives, and you sit down to watch the game on TV, those who oppose it will be quite surprised at what the ad is all about.”
At any rate, it seems that "coming out" as a pro-lifer during the Super Bowl is a viably contentious point in the eyes of many. But what is really at stake with the already infamous Tebow ad?
Without knowing much about the nature of the commercial, it's hard to say definitively. But given Tebow's strong evangelical roots, and his habit of sporting scripture verses on his eye black, it is probably a safe assumption to believe it will be anchored heavily in Christian values, and in a basic conviction for the value of unborn human life. Beyond that, it's difficult to determine.
One thing, though, that CBS's critics may have right is that the ad, most likely, will be a thoroughly religious representation of anti-abortion sentiments; and it will probably avoid any sort of appeal to the fundamental importance of human personhood as a basis for pro-life argumentation. In other words, the focus of the commercial will presumably be geared toward defending the reality of unborn human life rather than asserting (in any real way) that such a life ought to be treated as the subject of rights.
Of course, arguing against abortion from a strongly religious perspective is not wrong, and I would never speak ill of anyone whose faith (as Tebow's mother's did) leads him or her toward preserving and nurturing the life of an unborn baby. But it is also true that commercials portraying human life in terms commonly perceived as "religious" (i.e. by an appeal to the "value of human life" rather than the "dignity of the human person") convey only half of what Americans need to hear concerning the tragedy and crime of abortion. In other words, showing people that human life is sacred, and is filled with God-given potential, can be a convincing testimony; but for those who already recognize unborn fetuses to be human lives, yet still deny them the right to life, something more is necessary.
Let me be very clear: I do not mean to downplay the significance of Tim Tebow's commitment to the pro-life cause. But I do think this prime time controversy affords an opportunity to come to terms with the popular mindset surrounding abortion, and also to distinguish the basic difference between understanding abortion as a strictly religious phenomenon, and understanding it as an issue that can--and rightly should--be treated as an overt violation of universal human rights. In both cases is the unborn child a human being, and in both cases is his or her life a valuable one; but only in the latter (when the fetus is considered as a "person") is the child considered explicitly as an integral unit in the societal whole, who deserves and is entitled to certain standards of treatment. While the words, "the value of human life," resound in the modern ear as arising solely from a religious attitude, the words, "dignity of the human person," correspond more readily to a secular discussion of ethics and politics--and a discussion that must take place if pro-life Americans hope to persuade their opposition that abortion can and must be criminalized.
Ultimately, there is nothing distinctly Christian about recognizing the innate value of human life. It is a good that occurs prior to and apart from faithful religious assent. But we must be careful not to lose that understanding--the recognition of the dignity of human persons--in the mire of popular, secular culture.
