There was great news at yesterday's National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. According to NCRegister.com:
EWTN's Raymond Arroyo announced that this new pro-life video ad has been accepted for broadcast on the closing episode of American Idol.
Produced by CatholicVote.org as part of its series of "Imagine the Potential" ads, the new ad promotes adoption by highlighting famous people who were themselves adopted.
The ad is fabulous! You'll watch it more than once...
The first CatholicVote.org "Imagine the Potential" ad featured an ultrasound image of a baby in the womb and images of Barack Obama, along with a narration describing how the president's mother chose to give birth to him and nurtured him as a single mother after his Kenyan-born father left the family, allowing Obama to grow up to become the nation's first African-American president.
The ad was broadcast on the Black Entertainment Television in Chicago during its Jan. 21 coverage of the presidential inauguration. It was also initially accepted for broadcast during this year's Super Bowl, but NBC officials subsequently rejected it on the grounds that it involved "political candidates or issues," even though the 30-second ad had no graphic content or any mention of abortion.
Here's that great ad again:
[HT: moderator Suki]
As good as the ultrasound ad is, it falls short of making a solid pro-life statement.
The problem: it focuses on potential functional value - missing that human beings have infinite intrinsic value. One could swap in a picture of Ghengis Khan, Mao Zedong or Vlad the Impaler and make the opposite point using the same ad.
Here's some thoughts on intrinsic-value:Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 9, 2009 7:49 AM
You liberals should be proud of this ad.
I counted 9 confirmed liberals and 3 confirmed conservatives. The other 6 I wasn't sure of their political persuasion.
If ya'll would just stop mauling your young, you just might rule the world.
Posted by: carder at May 9, 2009 7:52 AM
I listened to a little bit of the interview with the RUN DMC member who was adopted. I had no idea. And he didn't know until he was an adult.
Chris, good point. Catholicvote.org has a website where you can register to vote on future video ideas. They are considering producing a pro-marriage video and something on Notre Dame, as well as adoption resources and abortion recovery.
Maybe you could give them a piece of your mind.Posted by: carder at May 9, 2009 7:56 AM
This is so wonderful. If we can get people to think adoption (life) before abortion (death), we wouldn't have to change the laws, they would be changed.Posted by: Pam at May 9, 2009 8:44 AM
I admit I got tired of seeing the 1st Imagine video. However, I LOVE the 2nd video. I have two cousins that are adopted (one by an aunt & uncle; and one by another aunt and uncle) and one that was placed for adoption and we met 20 years ago when she met her birth mother (my mom's sister, one of the aunts that adopted).Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 9, 2009 9:24 AM
Bill Clinton, Tim McGraw, and Nancy Reagan were adopted by step-parents. That is totally different from actually being put up for adoption and really doesn't support the message of the ad.Posted by: Kate at May 9, 2009 9:52 AM
I think the point is that someone was ready and willing to step into the role as parent. Adopting, even a stepchild, meant taking on parental and legal responsibilities and obligations. Not all stepparents have been so willing.Posted by: Mary at May 9, 2009 10:09 AM
"The problem: it focuses on potential functional value"
Chris, great point. Doesn't the 1st ad do that as well?Posted by: Jasper at May 9, 2009 10:36 AM
My first impression of the message was one of hope. For a young woman who is experiencing an unplanned pregnancy, a strong message of hope might be the difference between abortion or adoption.Posted by: Janet at May 9, 2009 11:21 AM
I loved it!
Think it sends a very positive message.Posted by: Joanne at May 9, 2009 11:37 AM
That was indeed great, but Faith Hill lost my vote for supporting Obama. Jamie Fox does too:[ I just couldn't believe Faith b/c I knew she was adopted.Posted by: heather at May 9, 2009 12:20 PM
Good news!Posted by: HisMan at May 9, 2009 5:24 PM
At one time I was inclined to agree with the whole "intrinsic value" idea, because without it people can always come back with horrible counter-hypotheticals (like what if it's Hitler in the womb?). But I'm no longer so inclined, for two reasons.
First, let's just be pragmatic. It does help get people thinking about these issues in a productive way if you stir their emotions with positive images. There's no shame in pro-lifers using common sense methods of getting our message across.
Second, I actually think there's something wrong philosophically with trying to completely divorce human value from human potential. After all, most of us pro-lifers don't hold other organisms to be sacrosanct in the same way as humans... why not? Well, because we can do things other organisms can't, like love and reason and search for meaning. In theological terms, we have a unique purpose for which we were made. So it matters we humans can actually do. Indeed, I believe that fully understanding human intrinsic value demands that we remember what humans can actually do when at their best.Posted by: Jameson at May 9, 2009 11:13 PM
I'm all for adoption, but I would never support an adoption organization that wanted to take away other rights - marriage, a woman's right to choose. In fact, in that regard, the effort diminishes adoption as a political ploy to gain sympathy for draconian homophobic anti-choice measures that are the true agenda of the org.Posted by: Yo La Tengo at May 10, 2009 1:43 AM
Oh YLT- I am so tempted to leave this one alone...I've been around the traps long enough to see what you're doing...but no, it's too easy...
First, opponents of "gay marriage" are not seeking to "take away others rights" but are seeking to preserve their own. It is gay marriage proponents who are seeking to redefine an ages old institution that we believe was created by our God within our faith system for specific purposes that are impossible within a homosexual relationship- it's you guys who have hijacked it and seek to make it something it was never intended to be.
Secondly- (and it's been said here so many times, I can hear the rusty cogs squealing as I say it again....) this group does not seek to take away a "woman's right to choose"- read Proverbs 31 and see just how the ancient scriptures describe a model woman (clue- she's not barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, even 3000 years ago)- we just don't see anywhere in Scripture, natural law or the Constitution where she has the "right" to kill her own offspring.
But hey, glad to see we can work together where we have common ground... Obama would be proud of your attitude.
And on further reflection, YLT, you make it sound like the Catholic church has only recently shown interest in orphans and only for it's own political expediency. Again, you've got it all backwards. It was an Old Testament command to care for orphans and it was the earliest Christians who rescued children who had been abandoned outside the city walls (who were mostly girls, and babies maimed by attempted abortions, btw). Those of us of Judeo-Christian faith have been adopting the throw-away children of other faiths for thousands of years and not because we benefit directly from it, but because we were told to.
It seems you and Ted Turner both need a new dictionary with an accurate definition of "draconian." Ted thinks forcing women at gunpoint to abort in the ninth month of pregnancy isn't draconian, and you think that people who rescue the weak and innocent from destruction (even when sometimes their destroyer is themselves) are the ones who deserve judgement. Black is white, up is down, truth is lies. And we're the ones who've got it all wrong, not you!Posted by: Michelle at May 10, 2009 12:08 PM
It should also be mentioned that Catholic religious orders established hospitals, schools, orphanages, unwed mother's homes, and shelters.
The bishop always knew to call on an order of nuns to get the job done, and they did.Posted by: Mary at May 10, 2009 12:43 PM
Michelle, great point!Posted by: heather at May 10, 2009 3:16 PM
They forgot President Gerald Ford !!
He was adopted, too !
That's a great ad.
Definitely a positive ad (for those in favor of and against abortion). It allows us to appreciate the value of human life. I do think that the most important factor that will reduce the slaughter of innocent unborn babies is a core change in our culture.
Too often it is selfishness rather than humility. Too often it is greed rather than sacrifice. Too often it is the "I" that is more important than the "we." And even the "we" are collectively saying that it's okay to kill the innocent.
Another thing about the Catholic Church, guys. It was the "evil" and "anti-knowledge" Catholic Church that allowed to advances in medicine, language, history, art, and many other fields. If it wasn't for the Church, then our society wouldn't have what we have today. Just a thought.Posted by: segamon at May 10, 2009 6:26 PM
Suggest you make use of a thesuarus.
Using the same old thread bare hand me down leftist humanist epithets is getting old.
Use your imagination, try your hand at some humor.
You would benefit from some laughter.
Here is some of pbho's idea of humor.
“Sasha and Malia aren’t here tonight because they are grounded. You can’t just take Air Force One on a joyride around Manhattan. I don’t care whose kids you are. And that reminds me: Tomorrow is Mother’s Day. This is a tough holiday for Rahm. He’s not used to saying the word ‘day’ after ‘mother.’"
pbho should invest in a teleprompter that as 'gaffe guard'. These attempts at humor were further off the mark than his 'special olympics' trip of the tongue.
yor bro ken
ps: thesuaurus- a dinosaur that escapes from predators by using a plethora of synoyms to bore them to sleep.Posted by: kbhvac at May 10, 2009 10:30 PM
I agree with Chris- People have the right to not be dismembered, even if they end up living an ordinary life. One's worth isn't tied to what they do.
However, the ad was about adoption and required famous adoptees to make it's point. Just a bunch of ordinary people would have made the ad ordinary.Posted by: Jacqueline at May 11, 2009 6:05 AM
Now Ken, 10:30PM
You know the president was blissfully ignorant of that whole AF1 innocent and some poor schlub took all the responsibility. Its just like sneaking mom's car out of the garage at midnite for a joyride. Taking AF1 is no different.
It happened all the time with previous presidents, didn't it??
As for Rahm, don't you recognize class when you see it??Posted by: Mary at May 11, 2009 6:25 AM
Posted by: Mary
at May 11, 2009 6:27 AM
Oh my, I meant AF1 incident. It IS earlier in the morning than I thought!
Ken, the President was pretty funny. What? You prefer Bush's WMD joke?Posted by: Hal at May 11, 2009 9:06 AM
"This is a tough holiday for Rahm. He’s not used to saying the word ‘day’ after ‘mother.’"
Hal..this would've been funny if he wasn't the Chief of Staff for the WH...and he didn"t do that "knife thing" after the Dems lost years ago...Posted by: RSD at May 11, 2009 11:34 AM
Imagine all of the missing talent in the world, had the people in the add been aborted.Posted by: heather at May 11, 2009 3:15 PM
The inability of the ad to find orphans given up at birth to strangers unknown to the biological mother shows how shallow this ad really is. It showcases the unethical behaviour of the antichoice side in its frustrated bid to "win" the abortion rights debate at all costs.
Ad = fail.Posted by: rightwing truthiness? at May 11, 2009 3:33 PM
"It showcases the unethical behaviour of the antichoice side.."
Oh please, LOL.Posted by: Janet at May 11, 2009 4:27 PM
Has anyone asked the brilliant White House photographer why the AF1 photo was taken on a hazy, far from perfect, day in NY?
Posted by: Janet
at May 11, 2009 4:31 PM
Hi Janet 4:31PM
Good heavens woman what are you thinking???
To begin with we all know Obama and the WH staff were all blissfully ignorant of the flight of AF1 so I doubt any WH photographer took the pics.
Keep in mind that poor schlub, Caldera, is solely responsible for this whole debacle and, (clearing my throat) has graciously "resigned".
Whoever was joyriding on AF1 along with the crew likely took the pictures and I'm sure was not a professional but just some schmuck along for laughs.
I mean, its so easy to take AF1 out on a joyride and I'm sure anyone that wants to go along can.Posted by: Mary at May 11, 2009 5:05 PM
Wait, you can't take a picture of a plane while riding in it..... There must have been MANY schmucks involved. LOL. Why haven't they ALL been fired? Who's the official White House weatherperson? That was a $300,000 oversight on his/her part.
I think just a couple of New York City and Washington, DC school children with a few hours to spend (after school, of course) could get to the bottom of this mystery. Get on it, kids!
(Mary, isn't this fun?)Posted by: Janet at May 11, 2009 5:19 PM
Indeed, this is fun.
Point taken about photographing AF1. I should have thought of that. What am I thinking??? Was it someone in one of the F-16 fighter escorts? Let me guess, the air force had no idea these jets were on a joyride, right? Just like the WH had no idea AF1 was out on a joyride. This has got to be the best planned joyride in history. Imagine those kids who sneak out with mom's car for a joyride thinking THEY are so clever!
Janet, please, only Caldera is responsible for this whole debacle which he badly planned from the beginning. He should never have ordered AF1 and those F16s to leave their hangers. How gracious of him to (again clearing my throat), resign. Certainly he should have realized the photos of AF1 and pics of Manhattan could have been photoshopped at no cost to the taxpayer, not to mention jeopardizing the planet and changing the climate with all those exhaust fumes.Posted by: Mary at May 11, 2009 6:39 PM