Pampers’ pro-life t.v. commercial
by Andy Moore
Recall that last year Pampers released an iPad app allowing families to track the development of their preborn baby.
Now Pampers has released a commercial that is simply fantastic:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxbRdxbBROI[/youtube]
Where to start? This short, 1-minute video undermines a host of pro-abortion lies in a simple, understated fashion.
- Ultrasound footage of a preborn child is shown. The proliferation of sonograms through social media is undoubtedly contributing to increased awareness amongst the next generation of the value of each human life, in particular, those in the womb.
- The ad states every baby is precious, whether s/he is planned or not. Did you hear that Planned Parenthood?
- Every baby is precious, even if born three months early. That’s roughly 29 weeks – the same age late-term abortionists here in the U.S. are murdering preborn children.
- Every baby is precious, even if he has a young mom. Oh, that’s odd, because the pro-abortion lobby is always telling us that if a young woman carries her pregnancy to term, her life will be ruined and career over.
- Adoption is encouraged.
- Babies with special needs are no less precious than “normal” babies.
The advert finishes,
“Pampers believes every baby is a little miracle, to celebrate, support and protect.”
Admittedly the advert seems to take a pro-surrogacy, pro-IVF stance – although babies conceived through these methods are no less valuable than those conceived naturally.
Pampers is 1st and foremost a profit-driven company, so this advert shouldn’t be seen as primarily intended to send a “pro-life” message.
But regardless of the company’s intent, the advert is clearly pro-life. The advert is not speaking about preborn babies but babies who have been born. Yet, the implication remains – babies are valuable regardless of their age, size, physical capabilities, readiness of their mother, etc, etc. All up, a solid pro-life message.
Good work Pampers, keep it up.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Wow! That’s a refreshing and terrific message! Way to go Pampers!
Love it! So happy I use Pampers! I’m writing to tell them I approve! Thanks for sharing this, Jill!
I saw a shortened version of this yesterday on TV. Love it! I especially like the pregnant woman in the wedding dress. Not that it is ideal but I was in that situation and I think a lot of people in that situation have abortions, so its nice to see the alternative.
Pampers supports UNICEF and UNICEF supports abortion so I don’t think pampers is prolife at all.
Here is a link re: unicef http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/secretive_unicef_support_for_abortion/
here is a link re: pampers supporting unicef and vaccines http://www….unicef.org/southafrica/support_4723.html
Additionally vaccines are made with aborted fetal tissue. http://www.cogforlife.org/
compare this to the video put out by Guttmacher normalizing abortion and saying that we should pay for it.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/provincialelitist/facts-about-abortion-in-the-united-states
I love this commercial, but I have to say I’m torn because I’m a strong believer in cloth diapering! Still, well done Pampers. If I used disposables, I’d use them for this uplifting message alone.
Michelle, Pampers may support a pro-abortion organization, but the fact remains – this simple advert is strongly pro-life. It’s not that Pampers decided “hey, let’s do a pro-life advert” – but rather, the fair, straight-forward, logical and consistent way it was produced couldn’t help but be pro-life. Tearing a pre-born child out of her mother is heinous and unnatural. Pampers simply took a “natural” perspective on the value of human life.
Beautiful – I think this would be good for sidewalk counselors to use with women – nicely done, factual, lovely to behold, great message, short, loving and conveys the loveliness of life! Woo-hoo! ;)
I am just curious why it is that people on this site are so against IVF, IUI and surrogacy? I understand that in some cases IVF “throws away” embryos, but I would assume that each individual can request that not be done. As for IUI and surrogacy- how is this wrong? Not every person is able to have the cookie cutter mother/father, get pregnant instanly life. And adoption is not necessarily as easy as it can be made to sound. I’m not trying to start a debate, I’m honestly just curious as to why this is seen as anti-life.
Great ad Pampers. I think sidewalk counselors could use this also joyfromillinois.
I just saw the new ad on Nick Jr. showing a mom with a special needs little girl, the VoiceOver mom says ” the docs told us you would never walk” and they show the girl with a walking toy….
At the end it mentions Special Olympics…
As I am adopting a child with special needs, this one really made me teary!
PS for the Catlolic perspective of why IVF is morally wrong, go to http://www.littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com, she has a button on the right sidebar which says “before you do ivf click here”
Blessings!
Hanna1112, in principle I am not opposed to either IVF or surrogacy. I agree that if IVF is done using only one embryo and with none thrown away, then it can be moral. Also, surrogacy can be moral in some circumstances.
Makes me want to go out and buy Pampers even thought I do not have a baby.
True Andy, not everyone is against IVF, and the readers of Jill’s blog have a variety of opinions on that subject.
Personally, I heartily oppose it because a) it treats children like products, and b) a business that makes money on IVF isn’t motivated to combat abortion, and c) people are turning to IVF at the same time healthy pregnancies are being terminated by their healthy parents. In the same city, in one building children are destroyed, while in another building they are artificially created. Not a pretty picture.
against abortion blog – why not buy a box of Pampers and donate it to your local CPC? :)
Ninek… agree with your post. Those are also the reasons I am not keen on IVF.
I am going to contact Pampers and tell them that I love the commercial and can they please stop supporting UNICEF.
Ninek- I guess I would disagree with you about IVF. It seems to me that those who turn to IVF are people who have a strong desire to be parents and want to be able to welcome a child into the world and obviously are struggling to do so naturally. That does not seem to be treating children like products. And as for your point about terminated pregnancies, I’m not sure how a person having an abortion has any affect on someone using IVF. Of course, “designer babies” is a different issue.
Hanna112, a lot of people who do IVF dispose of their embryo children after they are done having the kids they want. Also consider the women who abort after being implanted with other women’s embryos (has happened quite a few times actually). Also consider the women who even after infertility and IVF (which is very expensive) these women have aborted because children are wrong gender or they have disabilities. I remember hearing these stories in the news and being horrified a woman would admit to aborting for those reasons.
Hanna1112,
I think the issue of enhanced reproductive techniques is complicated. First of all, if any embryos are destroyed, obviously it is immoral. However, if this is not the case, it becomes a bit more murky. IUI can lead to many children being conceived resulting in the push for “selective reduction.” Obviously, many women choose NOT to kill any of their children, even if they are pregnant with several, but even if the woman is pro-life her children might be lost to miscarriage.
I’m not comfortable saying that IVF/IUI that don’t intentionally kill are inherently immoral from a secular perspective, but I’m not 100% comfortable with them either. Does that make sense?
I wouldn’t do it myself, but I could see how someone could pursue IVF/IUI with pro-life intentions.
Sydney- Obviously I find those uses of IVF to be completely wrong and immoral. My point is, why write off IVF completely based upon some poeple’s misuse of it? How do those cases influence a loving, stable couple using it in an effort to have a family they may desperately wish for?
Lauren- I understand your point and agree to some extent- doing these procedures is something that one should go into with a lot of thought and consideration to the decisions you may be faced with. I just can’t help think what any of us would think about it if we found oursleves struggling to get pregnant and how it may look thorugh those glasses. And btw, what is wrong with surrogacy? No one has really explained that one.
Hanna,
Many of us on this site are Catholic. The Church opposes IVF and surrogacy (not necessarily fertility treatments though) and our opposition comes from our understanding of the Faith.
I can understand that people unable to have children want to do everything they can to have a child. I also understand that not everyone is Catholic and are not bound by this teaching. (And there are plenty of Catholics who use IVF and surrogacy anyway.)
70% of IVF procedures fail. IVF by its very nature is eugenic. IVF leads to “leftover” embryos which are frozen until they are “wanted” or if “unwanted” they might be disposed of or used for stem cell experimentation, and thereby killed. IVF treats children as commodities to be created and used at will. This is why I personally oppose IVF.
Hanna, another reason to avoid/dislike IVF, there have been studies all over the globe that link IVF children to a much higher risk of diseases, disorders, and birth defects. And the notion that it treats children as a comodity doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the mother/fathers heartfelt wish for a child. Rather, that they see a child as something THEY have a right and want for as something for them. It’s so important that they have a biological child they are willing to: spend far more money than the average adoption, risk the mother and babies health, usually ‘dispose’ of leftover/imperfect embryos, and try repeatedly after miscarriages despite points 1,2, and 3. At one time it was considered a parent’s social obligation and solemn duty to raise a child up and to see to the needs of that child. But if that is how one views parenthood then adoption is a far better option than IVF, IVF will never be able to separate itself from the parent’s ‘but *I* want a biological child’. Especially when there are far more people than not who do selectively implant prescreened babies, or selectively terminate if too many gestate successfully. Wanting a biological child is not a bad thing, but wanting a *biological* child over the health and welfare of having *a* child is (to many in the pro-life comunity) a bad thing.
forgot to say surrogacy usually suffers from the same issues as IVF, since the baby is usually conceived outside the surrogate and then implanted after it has been screened for ‘defectsj or desired traits. I’m actually not sure what IUI is (intrauterine insemination?), so I can’t comment on that. If I guessed right, then objection to it probably follows Catholics in the pro-life circle, not necessarily just those who are pro-life. But I know even secular pro-life people have raised some of the issues with IVF and surrogacy as discussed.
Hanna112, I hear what you’re saying/asking and I would answer… I just don’t know. If I couldn’t conceive i probably WOULD want IVF. I know what it is like to desire children and not be able to have them… my situation is different because it is my husband saying no, not my body. I have one child already. But I know that very real ache to get pregnant and hold your child. So I guess I would have to agree with what Lauren said.
Kel made an excellent point too though.. in IVF they will discard any embryo that is not dividing to a certain standard. They will not implant it. My cousins who are Catholic and pro-life however (and infertile though no doctor can say why) finally tried IVF after ten years of trying to get pregnant with other methods. They were torn between conviction and desperation. They did not discard any embryos but in the end it didn’t work.
this is a tricky topic for sure.
Hanna,
There are a couple issues wrapped together in your question. Obviously any fertility treatment that leads to the storage, destruction and discarding of embryos or to the selective reduction of implanted embryos (abortions) are inherently wrong and can never be justified. No good intention on the part of the parents can overcome that type of deliberate disregard for human life. Because these practices are so routine w/in the assisted reproductive technology industry, many make the blanket statement that these treatments are immoral, and generally speaking that’s true. Standard operating procedure is to create as many embryos as possible and to selectively reduce without batting an eye.
But let’s assume there is no embryo storage/destruction – every embryo created is given the opportunity to implant and none are “selectively reduced. The following lays out the moral objections as I understand them.
1. From a Catholic perspective (and many people on this site are Catholic), It separates the sexual act of the husband and wife – separating the procreative aspect from the unity of marriage. In IVF and surrogacy, the egg is harvested from the woman, the sperm from the man and procreation occurs in a lab. The same separation of procreation occurs with IUI when the sperm is collected via masturbation. There has been some theorizing that IUI may be licit if the sperm is collected in a perforated condom during sexual intercourse (perforated w/ a small hole so that the marital act is technically completed). You can look up more on that debate if you’re interested. I’m still not sure what I think about that.
2. The procedures that create the embryo in a lab for later implantation into the mother or a surrogate undermine the human dignity of the embryo and render it a commodity owned by those involved in its creation and trade. You get children who are created apart from their parents. Thus when mistakes happen (mix ups either in the creation of the embryo or in the implantation), the woman carrying the “wrong” child has to choose whether to continue and either give the baby away (for a complte error) or work out a custody arrangement (if sperm was mixed up), or abort the baby. Children have the right to be created in a manner that is in keeping with their dignity as human beings.
I understand the temptation that these procedures pose to couples facing infertility. The doctors have big books full of glossy pictures of all the babies they’ve “created”. All that stands between you and what you want is a seemingly harmless procedure. I know that people argue that these children would not have been born at all w/out these technologies, but a good outcome cannot retroactively make a bad act good. If it could, then a baby being born from a rape (who would not have been born but for that rape) would make the rape ok, b/c a good came from it. The act of these technologies commodifies children and renders them objects. Obviously though, the fact that children were created in a manner not respectful of their status and dignity as humans does not in any way diminish their human value. So the commercial is right – no matter how a child was created, he/she is a human being and should be loved and protected.
Hope that answers your question, Hanna.
I don’t know WHAT to add to this debate, because I desperately WANT another baby, we can’t AFFORD IVF or a surrogate….or an adoption lawyer for that matter. I can only continue to pray that it happens “naturally” for us. I LOVE the commercial though, just because it’s precious and I love babies ;)
Pamela, perhaps you could try ringing local Pregnancy Counseling Centers asking them if they can help. They may have funds or a supporter who could pay for a lawyer, and you may get an opportunity to adopt a child who would otherwise have been killed by abortion. All the best.
Pamela… HUGS HUGS HUGS. Praying for you by name. Abby Johnson wants another baby and can’t conceive either. I have my own hurdles to having another baby. Praying for you and Abby and myself that God will give us the desires of our hearts and see fit to place life in our wombs once more. Its really hard isn’t it? Its hard to hear about every woman around us getting pregnant over and over and over. Sometimes I have peace and sometimes I feel so angry and hurt I want to scream. I just want you to know you are not the only one.
My sister has 4 boys and cannot have any more children for health reasons but she wants a daughter. They cannot afford adoption which runs around 30 k but she has started an adoption fund anyhow. But I want to echo what Andy told you that pro-life organizations can help you with that. CPC’s have been keeping their eyes and ears peeled for my sister.
BTW, I contacted Pampers and got a nice response. They are pleased i like the commercial and said they want to stress the worth of all babies and support parents from the very moment of conception. I forget how they put it exactly but it sounded VERY pro-life. However, they say they give to UNICEF because UNICEF provides vaccinations but they hear my concerns and are investigating.
Carla, so neat to hear you are adopting! Good luck!
Hanna, I have faced infertility. I know what it is to want a child and not be able to have one.
For IVF:
Even if a particular couple chooses to create a reasonable number of embryos and implant them all, they’re still working with doctors in a profession that kills babies and treats their lives as disposable. God created sex for making children, and it seems like it would be really weird to have a child created some other way… That applies to IUI too. In surrogacy a baby is carried by a woman who is not his natural mother after natural creation. If somehow it were possible to remove a newly conceived blastocyst from his or her mother’s fallopian tubes before implantation, because the woman’s womb was not safe, and to the womb of a woman whose womb was safe, that might be okay. But there’s still the whole renting a person’s body thing.
Adoption is a better option. If the pregnancy experience is important embryo adoption is much more life-affirming.
I think that the marital act is how children were meant to be conceived, basically, and to deliberately create children outside it opens up all sorts of problems–especially when (as often happens) some of the gametes are not from the married couple (donor egg or sperm).
After 4 years of infertility, God granted me my first child (naturally), and I now have two. No matter how desperately I wanted a child, I could not consider myself a Christian if I broke God’s law to do it. Also, that would not have helped me learn how to keep my body healthier with the condition I have.
And the infertility industry remains one where children are devalued, killed, and bought and sold as property. The adoption industry acknowledges the rights of children and puts their needs first, though there are disagreements on how best to do that.
Pamela, have you considered adopting through DSS? It’s basically free.
I’m not against IVF in theory, but the way that it’s practiced is often ethically reprehensible. That being said, when you compare IVF with other assisted conception techniques like ZIFT and GIFT, the price ranges are similar, and IVF has the least chances of success of any of them. All three techniques hover around a 25% success rate. And GIFT methods are significantly less likely to be unethical. One of the cheapest of the assisted conception methods is, I believe, intrauterine insemination (cheapest as in the average cost is in the $100-$300 range), and the success rate for those procedures is between 20-25%. Given that the other methods I mentioned have costs starting at $6,000 with success rates that are not really a lot higher, I don’t really understand the push for IVF.
I oppose IVF, even when all the embryos are implanted. IVF KILLS CHILDREN. Here is a good analogy:
“Imagine a building with an open window in which stands a childless infertile couple hoping for a baby. Across a laneway is another building, on the roof of which is a scientist with 20 babies, looking adorable in their diapers and smiles.
In an attempt to get the infertile couple a child the scientist throws babies, four at a time, across the laneway toward the open window. Unfortunately on the first toss they all miss and fall to their deaths. But there are many more babies left over to try again. Another four are thrown toward the window and one makes it in, the other three falling to their deaths.
Hooray! The childless couple has a child. A miracle, not of God, but of science!
The analogy has many similarities to the actual IVF procedure. By combining ova from a woman and sperm from a man in a lab, scientists performing IVF routinely create 20 embryonic children for a couple under IVF treatment. Most of those children will never be born alive, nor are they meant to be.
The doctor will then implant embryos, sometimes four at a time, in the hopes that one of the embryos will implant in the mother’s womb and survive till birth. If the first batch, or cycle, doesn’t take, they try again.
A study released last month by those involved with IVF indicates that in the best scenario only 7.5% of embryonic children created via IVF survive till birth.
With over one million babies having been born by IVF, the numbers of deaths due to the procedure are staggering—in the tens of millions. ”
John Henry Weston.
A study released last month by those involved with IVF indicates that in the best scenario only 7.5% of embryonic children created via IVF survive till birth.
Wow, that is even lower than I thought.
Back to the ad – I’m sure Pampers did their market research and determined that being pro-life is good business! Not only are more people pro-life – more and more younger people are pro-life – people of child-bearing age. What a wonderful reflection! I hope more companies, especially manufacturers of baby products follow suit.
Good point MaryBeth. Also, if Pampers can convince people to become pro-life, that means less babies are aborted, which means there will be more mothers looking for diapers. A win-win situation
Hanna112 – I am an adoptive mother to three fantastic sons…heartaches, joys, laughter and tears – the whole enchilada of life has been afforded to us by these sons of ours. They came to us through foster/adopt.
I read your question, and have read many answers it, regarding why is IVF wrong.
Being infertile as a couple (my husband has two adult children and I have two saints in heaven), it was very tempting to look at IVF and surrogacy. However, I would never want any of my children frozen…and that is what happens with IVF. That thought, in and of itself was off putting to me. Then, what would happen with all those babies (embryos) that had been frozen…they would have stayed that way until I (the selfish I) was “ready” for another child. And, then if there were too many how could I have possibly had all of them … five, six children or more destroyed because of my selfish desires…
A child is not a “right” it is, indeed, a blessing, a gift from God. The women who gave birth to our sons gave us a gift … and as I have told our sons over the years, “In a perfect world, you would have lived with your biological parents, however, God in His wisdom, decided to place you in our lives and in our home.” If I had tried and tried to get pregnant and had children through IVF … a 7.5 % chance, would I have even thought to welcome our sons into our lives? No … I would have been so focused on having my “OWN” children – and that would have been a shame,
The unitive act between husband and wife is circumvented using IVF or other unnatural means of reproduction. That in and of itself is considered adultery. Not very pretty, but true.
Of course, every woman who wants to bear a child would love to have the opportunity – but life is not perfect, life is messy, and life does not always give us what we WANT! God does not promise us that we will all have children (or not) just because we “want” one. How self centered and wrong that thinking is.
A surrogate mother is using her body for commercial end – that is wrong – women are not property and neither is a child – but when surrogacy is used, that is what happens. A woman sells her body for a certain length of time. Sad, sad and sad.
God Bless –
Thank you all for your kind words, prayers and suggestions. Love to you all!
I’m so happy for you Carla! :D
One of the two major disposable-diaper companies used the same voice-over announcer who does many of the pro-choice ads for Democratic candidates.
Does anyone have any more information about this?
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=67200.0
The mod Carla is not adopting.
Just so we are clear. :)
i love this commercial. however Pampers supports PP :(
NO WAY! Do they really? Pampers supports PP? I will never understand that. How a company would support an organization that kills of their potential customers. Like when Toysrus used vocally pro-choice spokespersons. It boggles my mind!
Lovely commercial. I don’t have an issue with IVF, but something about surrogate parenting has always kind of creeped me out. Maybe it was what someone posted earlier–a woman using her body for a commercial enterprise. I remember a TV movie about actress Deirdre Hall’s surrogate parenting experience, and the thing that struck me about it was when the press started harassing the surrogate mom, Deirdre’s first question wasn’t to ask the mom if she was okay–she just kept saying “You’re not going to change your mind about this, are you?” It was like she didn’t even see the other woman as a human being, just a walking carrier for the baby she wanted.
Sydney,
I would have to look into it more. What I linked to was from 2008 I believe but I thought it was frightening!!
Pamela, have you ever heard of NaPro technology? It’s much cheaper than IVF, ethically and morally acceptable, and has a much higher success rate.
http://www.naprotechnology.com/
Also, check out your state’s foster-to-adopt program… much cheaper than the private adoption route.
Sydney M – I just started reading this thread and got to your statement regarding infertility of your relatives -they should look up Na-Pro- technology and Dr. Hilgers from the Paul VI institute. he has devised a method to work with a woman’s natural cycle and deal with that instead of masking symptoms with artificial hormones. After doing charting, and blood samples, they may figure out what is gong on underneath the symptoms.
They do do some surgery there – and they have very good results…mostly it’s about regulating the fertility cycle with all natural hormones.
Also – individual practitioners of the Na-Pro technology methods are around the country – most of them are nurses…
Oh – I see JoAnna just posted on that! Great minds think alike! ;)
The pregnant women in the wedding dress is awful. and classless. I’m sick of seeing the morals of this generation in the garbage. Starting a marriage off is hard enough let alone with a baby! Showing a pregnant bride as a normal acceptable beginning to a marriage is foolish. Stop forcing your political views on us and just sell me a quality diaper at a fair price!