By Kit
A week and a half-ago was the Super Bowl. Which means, once again, the American people were forced to endure an onslaught of ads as we indulged in the ad makers’ pretense that these were the best they, or anyone, could create. While no doubt some were good there were quite a few that were dreadful, such as the unholy abomination from hell that was the Puppymonkeybaby. The American people deserve better after enduring such a horror.
But the most controversial ad of the night was the Doritos’ ad featuring a mother getting her first ultra-sound with her stereotypically schlub of a husband next to her munching on, what else, Doritos chips. Soon, the baby on the ultrasound starts grabbing for the chips and the husband, who finds this amusing, moves one back and forth over the (now annoyed) woman’s pregnant stomach with the baby moving within the stomach trying to reach for the chips. The mother eventually grabs one of the chips and tosses it away and the baby, using his legs, jumps out of the woman’s stomach, thus ending the ad to the cue of the mother’s the doctor’s, and the father’s mass of horrified screams.
It was a dumb ad.
But that is not what made it “controversial.” No, what made it controversial was that NARAL Pro-Choice (originally, “National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws”) sent out a tweet attacking the ad for using the “anti-choice tactic” of “humanizing fetuses”. Yep. They also attacked the “Ryanville” ad for being sexist because it depicted three women being distracted by the dreamy good looks of Ryan Reynolds.
Anyway, one has to find their objection to the Doritos ad rather interesting, “humanizing fetuses”.
At 17 weeks the baby, who has already grown teeth and can turn his or her head, begins to dream, at 25 weeks, a little more than halfway through the pregnancy, he is growing baby fat, and at 30 he can follow a light source.
And at 20 weeks, the point where you can determine your child’s sex, he can feel pain. Which means that people might be turned off by abortion when they hear those facts laid next to Anthony Kennedy’s description of the very technical-sounding Dilation and Evacuation Abortion: “the fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off."
And he feels it.
One can easily see why NARAL would rather we ignore this little fact. They would rather we pretend that abortion is “like going to the dentist” and that the unborn child is, instead of a human being, nothing more than a glob of cells. But ultrasounds have thoroughly disproved this point, even if the results are not as glaring as those in the commercial. We throw baby shows and chatter about what are unborn child can do at this week, at the same time calling it a "baby," while we "terminate" the "inconvenient" ones. How will can such a national cognitive dissonance continue?
Anyway, all this mess succeeded in doing was getting Doritos a bit more coverage for an ad that should probably have been forgotten as just another a dopey Super Bowl commercial. All because NARAL desperately wants to avoid the fact that they advocate the killing of human beings. NARAL probably would’ve been better off using Puppymonkeybaby as a jumping-off-point to push their evil views. Even I might’ve been persuaded a little by that one (only might and only a little).
A week and a half-ago was the Super Bowl. Which means, once again, the American people were forced to endure an onslaught of ads as we indulged in the ad makers’ pretense that these were the best they, or anyone, could create. While no doubt some were good there were quite a few that were dreadful, such as the unholy abomination from hell that was the Puppymonkeybaby. The American people deserve better after enduring such a horror.
But the most controversial ad of the night was the Doritos’ ad featuring a mother getting her first ultra-sound with her stereotypically schlub of a husband next to her munching on, what else, Doritos chips. Soon, the baby on the ultrasound starts grabbing for the chips and the husband, who finds this amusing, moves one back and forth over the (now annoyed) woman’s pregnant stomach with the baby moving within the stomach trying to reach for the chips. The mother eventually grabs one of the chips and tosses it away and the baby, using his legs, jumps out of the woman’s stomach, thus ending the ad to the cue of the mother’s the doctor’s, and the father’s mass of horrified screams.
It was a dumb ad.
But that is not what made it “controversial.” No, what made it controversial was that NARAL Pro-Choice (originally, “National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws”) sent out a tweet attacking the ad for using the “anti-choice tactic” of “humanizing fetuses”. Yep. They also attacked the “Ryanville” ad for being sexist because it depicted three women being distracted by the dreamy good looks of Ryan Reynolds.
Anyway, one has to find their objection to the Doritos ad rather interesting, “humanizing fetuses”.
At 17 weeks the baby, who has already grown teeth and can turn his or her head, begins to dream, at 25 weeks, a little more than halfway through the pregnancy, he is growing baby fat, and at 30 he can follow a light source.
And at 20 weeks, the point where you can determine your child’s sex, he can feel pain. Which means that people might be turned off by abortion when they hear those facts laid next to Anthony Kennedy’s description of the very technical-sounding Dilation and Evacuation Abortion: “the fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off."
And he feels it.
One can easily see why NARAL would rather we ignore this little fact. They would rather we pretend that abortion is “like going to the dentist” and that the unborn child is, instead of a human being, nothing more than a glob of cells. But ultrasounds have thoroughly disproved this point, even if the results are not as glaring as those in the commercial. We throw baby shows and chatter about what are unborn child can do at this week, at the same time calling it a "baby," while we "terminate" the "inconvenient" ones. How will can such a national cognitive dissonance continue?
Anyway, all this mess succeeded in doing was getting Doritos a bit more coverage for an ad that should probably have been forgotten as just another a dopey Super Bowl commercial. All because NARAL desperately wants to avoid the fact that they advocate the killing of human beings. NARAL probably would’ve been better off using Puppymonkeybaby as a jumping-off-point to push their evil views. Even I might’ve been persuaded a little by that one (only might and only a little).
47 comments:
Kit, I thought the Super Bowl ads were generally failures, except for advertising the event itself. Indeed, some were fun, others were stupid. A couple were bizarre and many were dull. But I don't really remember the companies who paid for the ads, except for a couple rare exceptions.
I thought the Doritos ad was predictable and dull for a Super Bowl ad. It was meant to do something shocking that people would talk about. The problem was that everyone at my house said "well, that was stupid" and then we liked the next commercial better. So it failed.
It wasn't until the next day that I even heard that some hypersensitive people where whining about this commercial being offensive and whatnot. Then I heard about NARAL and I had to laugh. If this is what they are fighting, then they are doomed.
Except for doctrinaire leftists, everyone sees these things as babies. Everything in our culture backs that up. That's why women want to touch other pregnant women, why we celebrate "baby bumps", why we want to see the ultrasounds, why we go to "baby" classes and "baby showers." This is why children's books talk about the coming baby and why baby stores sell baby stuff for before they are born.
No one carries a fetus. No one calls it that. They are babies. They are humanized. They are seen as little growing humans. In fact, could you imagine how creepy it would be for women be told they should see what is inside them as something other than human? That only works with barren leftist women who fear children.
They've lost that issue thoroughly.
Let me add that they are fighting the very way the human brain works. If I custom order a car, I don't call it "a collection of parts that could be assembled into a vehicle." No. I order a car. Ditto on a computer, a tailored suit or the installation of a floor. We look at the end work in progress and see it as the end product. So even if we saw a baby as a collection of cells until it can X, we still think in terms of "baby," and we imagine it completed and fully functioning.
So asking us to see a baby as a fetus until it hits the floor in the hospital simply flies in the face of human nature.
All that said, by the way, the needle isn't moving on abortion anymore in this country. The public has reached a consensus -- legal but regulated not to be easy -- and they are done arguing about it, though they will punish anyone who tries to break the consensus.
Andrew,
If you look at most Western countries, the laws are abortion abortion heavily restricted somewhere after 10-20 weeks.
—France: 12 weeks
—Germany: 12 weeks, w/ a waiting period and consultation against an abortion
—Norway: 18 weeks, but after 10 weeks it requires approval from a government commission.
—Sweden: 18 weeks
—Belgium: 12 weeks, w/ six day waiting period
—Switzerland: First Trimester
—Luxembourg: First trimester, w/ 6 day waiting period and consultations w/ 2 doctors.
—Netherlands: 20 weeks (most liberal I found in Europe)
Each of them includes exceptions after the limit for health of the mother.
That is because most of those were decided by the electorate and/or their representatives. Ours was decided by 5 judges in 1973 (Roe v. Wade) and again in 1992 (Casey v. Planned Parenthood).
And that is what the GOP is technically pushing; a ban on abortion after 20 weeks, when the infant becomes capable of feeling pain. Though their rhetoric muddles this.
The biggest rollback on abortion in the US at the federal level since Roe v. Wade was the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the ensuing court case Gonzalez v. Carhart.
Andrew,
"No one carries a fetus. No one calls it that. They are babies. They are humanized. They are seen as little growing humans. In fact, could you imagine how creepy it would be for women be told they should see what is inside them as something other than human? That only works with barren leftist women who fear children."
You are right. I know of one minor celebrity on twitter is trying to refer to her unborn child as a "fetus". Comes off weird.
I just thought the ad was harmless silliness.
Most women aborting babies are perfectly aware that babies are human, which is why they are having the abortion. For such people babies represent both a personal failure and tremendous potential responsibilities and costs.
I remember I once had a boss (who was married with a couple kids) who unsolicited told me about how she had had an abortion when she was young because she was in a shaky place and she didn't feel she could then handle a baby. She explained that was why she supported the right to an abortion.
I think if she as that confident in her decision she wouldn't have confessed it to me, but I kept that thought to myself because we weren't that close and she didn't seem to be asking my opinion.
I'm not saying that the parents being in a bad place is a valid reason to end a child's life, but those are the reasons pregnant women tend to have.
Ultimately its mothers rather than governments that decide the rate of abortion (as I've pointed out countless times Latin America has the sorts of anti-abortion laws that America's big government social conservatives dream of but they have a much higher rate of abortion than the US because while legislators have been convinced abortion is unacceptable in all circumstances, many woman haven't).
Happily, the rate of abortion in the US (and unfortunately pregnancy) has been declining for many years, so clearly women have gotten better about either abstinence or birth control.
Kit, Those other countries just reinforce the idea that the public wants it legal, but restricted. That seems to be the consensus. As the left used to say (but never meant because this was only a sales pitch and what they really wanted was "unfettered"): "safe, legal and rare."
The problem is that the GOP fringe, like their counterparts in the feminist movement, doesn't like the consensus and openly pushes for a total ban. The public will not tolerate that any more than they will they will tolerate unfettered.
Anthony, I think that's right. Outside of a few doctrinaire feminists, I would guess that most women who have an abortion see it as a baby, but have for one reason or another decided they cannot carry the baby.
let me say, that whole Puppymonkeybaby thing was just way toO creepy. The ad people saw that it was trending and they think they have another "Hamburglar" plush animal sales opportunity. Sadly, they may have seen the numbers and didn't read the comments...everyone thought it was creepy and disturbing.
As for the Doritos ad. That was the first one I saw. I thought it was funny. I really don't know why that guy was doing in the examining room eating a huge bag of Doritos, but whatevs.
But when NARAL immediately went on the "How dare Doritos try and humanize babies" rampage, now, THAT was funny. Do they even listen to themselves or is it just an auto-response mechanism set to "OUTRAGE"?
"Those other countries just reinforce the idea that the public wants it legal, but restricted. That seems to be the consensus."
Pretty much. But US law does not match the consensus.
Bev,
"The ad people saw that it was trending and they think they have another "Hamburglar" plush animal sales opportunity. Sadly, they may have seen the numbers and didn't read the comments...everyone thought it was creepy and disturbing."
For some reason that would not surprise me in the least.
At the end of the day, it was NARAL who tried to push the needle this round, and it is their side that will suffer.
I fully believe that one day, people will look back on abortion the same way people today look back on slavery.
"I fully believe that one day, people will look back on abortion the same way people today look back on slavery."
One can only hope.
By the way, I think the most the GOP should stick to right now would be a national 20 weeks ban or third trimester ban combined w/ a defunding of Planned Parenthood.
And defunding Planned Parenthood should be pushed as a cost-saving measure to reduce the deficit along with a series of other cuts, not as an anti-abortion measure.
Bev, Tyranmax,
It was a premier example in the category of "What the hell were they thinking?!"
tryanmax, I agree. This is an issue that whoever is doing the pushing draws the anger, and in this case, it's NARAL.
Kit, Something I've learned recently about Planned Parenthood is that the conservative attacks aren't working because a huge number of people see Planned Parenthood as the only place they can get a lot of (non-abortion) medical services. They do a lot with contraceptives and even some work with helping poor/middle-low class women get pregnant. As long as they are the primary game in town for those services, they will have a lot of support.
If you want to kill PP, I would recommend getting those services offered elsewhere first.
Kit, it's too late now, since the GOP singled out Planned Parenthood by name for defunding, but the way they ought to go is to tailor some general-sounding legislation so that it only (or primarily) affects PP.
This could absolutely go on the back of public outcry directed specifically at PP, but the GOP needs to be able to say that they won't single out a particular entity for ideological reasons, but they must ensure that the sort of thing that has raised concern doesn't continue to happen.
Of course, the left's retort will be that the legislation is aimed at PP--which it is--but at that point they look like the paranoids believing a general bill is aimed specifically at them.
"And defunding Planned Parenthood should be pushed as a cost-saving measure to reduce the deficit along with a series of other cuts, not as an anti-abortion measure."
Frnakly, PP should refuse to take funds from any government entity. They could easily make up the short-fall with a massive fundraising campaign and they could extricate themselves from the legitimate taxpayer complainants who prefer that their tax dollars not go to fund abortions even though PP swears on a stack of Bibles that they don't do that.
But then they swear that they have never sold baby body parts, but swear they will never do it again.
tryanmax, That's definitely the problem. By politicizing PP by naming them as the target, the issue becomes political and people see it in those terms. At the point, if the goal really is to stop funding, then the best solution is to cut funding through some accounting mechanism that no one can follow and don't talk about doing it. But I suspect the real goal is to score political points whether they get it shut down or not.
Bev, I'm not sure why groups like that won't dump the government funding. It could well be that they can't survive without it. Or they might just be lazy or greedy. Or they could be taking it to keep that camels nose under the tent. Not sure.
No Girl Scout Cookies, that's how I'm helping de-fund Planned Parenthood. Yup, that's me, windmill tilter.
>>Do they even listen to themselves or is it just an auto-response mechanism set to "OUTRAGE"? >>
Welcome to Michael Moore's leftys ... and Ann Coulter's rightys.
Eric, I'm boycotting Girl Scout cookies because they cost so fricken much now!!
Yep, outrage sells among a certain set whether it makes any sense or not.
You can either make homemade thin mints with melting chocolate, mint flavor, and Ritz crackers, or you can just buy some Keebler grasshoppers.
Puppymonkeybaby is an abomination and both the character and the creator should both be burned at the stake.
I thought the Doritos baby ad was on par with the rest of their commercials. A little chuckle.
The ad I'm most disturbed and they keep playing it is the Pius err Prius bank robbing, car chase ad. In what universe would it be appropriate to make these guys into heroes? And sure they can drive a long time but when do they eat or drink or pee? Why are the cops too stupid to put out tire spikes?
Bet you guys wouldn't boycott Boy Scout cookies no matter how much they cost! 8-P
Bev, I don't think I would even eat a Boy Scout cookie.
Koshcat, The Prius ad was wrong on so many levels. I agree are entirely with your criticism. Add to that, that it doesn't fit the brand in any way (the brand is: "Buy a Prius, get a smuggie, act holier than thou about saving the planet.") It felt like a lie too in that it suggests a level of power, speed and fuel economy that just don't exist in the car. So to me, it came across as a totally fake fantasy had by an idiot who neither understands cars, the police or the public... you know, a New York City ad agency.
Keebler grasshoppers you say?
For some reason the Boy Scouts sell popcorn, as if anybody ever got excited for popcorn. What they ought to sell is that random "Gifts for Dad" crap that you find near the back of Kohl's and Target any time a gift-giving holiday approaches. Does anybody really need a whiskey decanter with a built-in flashlight and drill-bit assortment? No. Does every guy want one once he sees it? Yes! It's a golden opportunity.
I was wondering what Boy Scout sell.
And who WOULDN'T want a whiskey decanter with a built in flashlight and an assortment of drill bits! I am sure many minutes of marketing research went into that combination.
Btw, Christians are starting to set up pregnancy crisis centers to help pregnant, single mothers.
Andrew,
No one is ever going to secretly take Planned Parenthood down because Planned Parenthood is rivaled only by Obamacare and gun control on Republicans' list of least favorite things. Politicians who don't like money or favorable coverage would adopt your strategy, but the number of such people is vanishingly small.
I fully expect the Republicans to defund it if they win everything. The only interesting question is how far past that they go. More yellow tape would be the easiest, politically safest measure, but they could go quite a bit beyond that if the yellow tape proves ineffective.
Kit,
Crisis pregnancy centers are old hat (they vastly outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics in the US). What is recent and interesting is increasing government support for them (the biggest example being Texas) in the form of both money and making the centers required stops for women seeking abortions.
Anthony, Kit, Andrew, et al.
What Anthony says is true. Planned Parenthood could vanish tomorrow and the availability of women's care would not meaningfully diminish. [LINK] The issue is really a branding/marketing one on both sides.
Planned Parenthood has successfully set themselves in the minds of millions as the only game in town. It's true they are the single largest provider of women's health services, but they are the lone brand in a market dominated by private labels, so to speak. If congress went after Green Giant, people might be similarly outraged, even though most people buy Kroger brand vegetables. And that's owing mainly to the fact that Planned Parenthood has about $220 million annual to spend on brand awareness, community engagement, education, lobbying and advocacy. The smaller outfits--of which there are legion--can't compete.
On the other side, the faith-based clinics don't do themselves many favors. For one, they tend to lead with being pro-life, anti-abortion, and religion, religion, religion instead of leading with what is supposed to be their core: reproductive care. I'm not saying religious health providers should stuff it, but they should put care and service on the home page and the faith stuff on the "about" page. Furthermore, they should unite under a single name in an effort to become nationally recognized. If just 700 clinics have the same sign out front, they can automatically claim to be bigger than Planned Parenthood.
That said, I imagine the bulk of the clinics out there are attached to a hospital or other medical facility. These are the private labels that will probably always be in the greatest numbers and most commonly used but overlooked when anybody talks about the subject.
Sorry, a broken link in the last post: LINK
P.S. "Kroger" is just a stand-in for any private label.
Anthony, I think "destroy Planned Parenthood" is one of those rope-a-dope things politicians use for fundraising, but which they know will never happen. It's an easy, safe boogeyman you can use to shadowbox against to show your bona fides on the issue of abortion.
It's what the NRA is to the left.
tryanmax, Interestingly, the hospital I use here is a religious institution. St. Francis. They have crucifixes in all the rooms, they have a mass that they put on their television channel each day, and they offer a quick prayer over the intercom each day at some point. BUT beyond that, you would never know. They ask if you want a priest to visit you, but if you say no, that's it. There's no attempt to impose on you. And the result is that no one seems to mind or complain. They hire Jews, Muslims and atheists and I've never felt the least bit pressured. It's there if you want it, but there's no sense that you are obligated to do it. That lets them be very popular in town with everyone and without anyone complaining that they are religious.
Unfortunately, once you get into something like abortion, the politics of it becomes sharper (or is perceived to be sharper because of the activists) and people try to avoid "those people." And really, if you think about it, it makes sense. If you are weighing the idea of an abortion, would you really want to go so people you see on the news foaming at the mouth about how evil you are? It's guilt by association which hurts the more reasonable people you are talking about.
In terms of branding, I should point out that many of the apolitical women I've come to know see Planned Parenthood as a sex-related medical provider. They easily separate the services they are after from the abortion services, even though most of them are personally pro-life. So I think there is a disconnect on the image between how the GOP faithful see PP and how average young women see it. If the GOP really wants to wipe out PP, they need to find a way to change that image.
OT - It has just been announced that Harper Lee has passed away...
I don't know much about Harper Lee as a person or about her other work but to Kill a Mockingbird was an incredible novel.
She published one book - To Kill A Mockingbird. Last fall another book - Go Set A Watchman - was published some say without her permission. TKAM was derived from a flashback scene within "Watchman" that the publishers thought would make a better story for the time. Uh, yeah, something tells me they were right...
Trump crushed everyone in SC with 33% of the vote. Rubio and Cruz tied for second, Bush a distant 4th. Carson brings up the rear. Things are looking good for Hillary.
Depressing and unnerving news, Anthony. Now I'm really getting worried that the Republicans are going to turn a near-sure victory into a 2008-grade disaster because too many people got suckered by Trump. I just don't know what else to say right now...
- Daniel
Bush has suspended his campaign. Neither Carson nor Kasich are...fools.
I think Carson's initial reason for running was 'Why not?' but nowadays he seems to be motivated by a desire to get even with Ted Cruz for the Iowa thing.
Post a Comment