It’s been said that Barack Obama is everything to everyone – a blank slate that the hopeful can project their political fantasies upon. Who would’ve thought it’d be the pro-life lobby to prove that true? Yes, apparently Barack Obama is their latest icon:
Most popular anti-choice slogans have this amazing quality of being long on emotion and short on sense – like the popular bumper sticker, “Aren’t you glad your mother was pro-life?” So many problems with that little gem. But this (ahem) “abortive” Superbowl ad has the lowest logic-to-emotion ratio I’ve yet seen. Either abortion is moral or it’s not: if you think fetus is a life, it shouldn’t matter what life is terminated, just that a life is terminated. Similarly, arguing against abortion by focusing on the potential successes of a child carried to term misses the entire point of the pro-choice argument: that it should be up to the woman, not the state, to weigh the risks and the benefits of pregnancy.
Not to mention all the bizarre counterfactuals you can dream up, if we’re to ask women to think about “who” their aborting. What if the little creature on the ultrasound grows up to be Adolf Hitler Joseph Stalin instead!?!!? Oh God no! See, now we have a debate. Or maybe a scifi series.
Nota bene: post edited to avoid Godwin’s Law.
I’ve… never thought of it that way. My God. We’ve got to stop the murder!
Also, little bit creeped out that they claim to have Obama’s mother’s ultrasound. That’d be taking opposition research a bit too far.
Posted by Gotchaye | February 1, 2009, 12:15 amThank you! I’ve been thinking the exact same thing. “Hitler” seems a bit cliched, but I wonder if there’s someone else we could mention. Maybe Stalin.
Posted by Anzezzle | February 1, 2009, 12:45 amI was going to say Khan Noonien Soongh to avoid violating Godwin’s law but was afraid people (other than you guys) might not get it :)
Posted by Ames | February 1, 2009, 1:15 amNot to mention that this “logic” doesn’t even apply to certain abortion situations that many would want to eliminate as well: when the baby, for medical reasons, would have a very poor quality of life.
Would you abort a mentally retarded fetus with physical deformities?
Posted by Kris | February 1, 2009, 4:48 amAmes,
I think you got Khan Noonien Singh and Dr. Noonien Soong confused.
Now I’m imagining Data with Ricardo Montalban’s chiseled abs.
Posted by Donovan | February 1, 2009, 8:02 amAgh! Star Trek fail! Good catch!
Posted by Ames | February 1, 2009, 10:48 amOr maybe a scifi series.
It’s kinda been done.
Posted by James F | February 1, 2009, 1:32 pmKhan NS, who’s that?
Anyway, the folks who made this commercial should check out Freakonomics. One of the author’s more controversial articles was on the relationship between availability of abortions and crime. Turns out, it’s a negative relationship – availability of abortions tends to lower crime rates. (Sorry, can’t remember the author’s name, but if anyone needs me to look up that book for you …)
Posted by Cujo359 | February 2, 2009, 6:08 amAnd this is why the President’s lawyers are looking into regulating the commercial use of his image. The message here is ridiculous . . . if you can’t tell the future, don’t terminate your pregnancy? Nice try.
Posted by ReyMac | February 2, 2009, 2:13 pmThey make the reference to the Presedent because he is pro-choice.
Posted by KMed | February 2, 2009, 5:25 pm