Pro-Life Activists Push for “Graphic But Truthful” Abortion Ad During Superbowl

photo of pro-life cartoon pictures photographs

Last year’s pro-life Superbowl advertisement was enough to offend the pro-choice community. And really, if you think about it, it wasn’t the worst that it could be. So, of course, there are plans for just that: something epically worse. Because what better way to reach an audience of millions than the only time we ever want to watch television for the commercials?

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek does not think there is one. And, in turn, is quite excited about the prospect of  ”a 30 second Superbowl ad showing the graphic reality of abortion.”

In her opinion, the release of the advertisement would be fantastic:

…pro-life activists like me would be ecstatic, if such a word can be used to describe fulfillment of a passion to see a …

… multitude of people face the truth about abortion. Activists believe that only by understanding the reality of abortion will the culture be wholeheartedly persuaded against it.

I didn’t want to pass judgement on what this woman considered the “reality of abortion” before I explored the website that she writes for. And, well, let’s just say that other articles on it include “The ‘gay-ing’ of America: How perversion is packaged, perfumed, and gift wrapped – and sold to us!” She also has a blog called “Pro-Life Pulse” that has a terrifying sonogram picture of a fully formed fetus with a halo on their head saying “He’s on his way.”

So alright.  I can only imagine that this advertisement that’s being concocted for the Superbowl is going to be some ridiculous representation of an extremely rare, extremely late term abortion to garner some sort of visceral reaction from its audience. I’m not saying that late term abortions do not happen, because they do (and I still believe that it should be up to the individual carrying the fetus to determine if they terminate the pregnancy at that point), but the majority of abortions are performed before there is any significant fetal development.

What I’m really wondering, though – because this woman is smart, and must know the true reality about most abortions, i.e., that there is no potential for the fetus to be “born alive,” as she is quoted as saying on her website – is what the people behind this ad and those supporting it think they’re going to accomplish with it. They can show a doctored image of a “baby” on television, but all that’s going to do is gross out frat boys, cause a bunch of controversy amongst pro-choice activists, and not really change anyone’s minds about anything. Because the people that believe that what they are portraying is truly factual will continue believing that, and people who do not believe that will continue to think that it is not factual and will merely get angry.

Meanwhile,  parents will get pissed that their children just saw some gory shit on television (as if we need more of that, right?), and just tell them to ignore it.

So really, this whole campaign for a “graphic abortion Superbowl ad” is counter-productive to what these pro-lifers want to do, in my opinion. But go ahead guys. Really. Have fun continuously making yourselves seem uneducated and ridiculous.

You Might Also Like ...

11 thoughts on “Pro-Life Activists Push for “Graphic But Truthful” Abortion Ad During Superbowl

  1. “Ecstatic” is right, these people really do get some sort of sick orgasmic pleasure from broadcasting images of chopped up fetuses to the general public.

    • No kidding! For as often as they like to fling about pictures of fully-sized babies bathing in ketchup and calling it a genuine normal abortion, you’d think they get off on it or something.
      Also, I just want to point out that you’ve beaten me to the comments to say exactly what I had intended to say. Bitch! ;)

  2. I don’t think watching a video of an abortion to make people stop having abortions is going to be any more effective than watching all those plastic surgery shows would make people stop having plastic surgery (and if you’ve ever seen one of those shows they are absolutely disgusting).
    If this doesn’t make sense I’m sorry I am so damn sick and dizzy that I can’t think. Sorry.

    • I think tumors look icky, but that doesn’t mean that I think people with tumors should be condemned. I also think childbirth looks disgusting and sticky and that newborn babies are quite possibly the most slimy gross things on earth; I should start a campaign against childbirth! With graphic pictures!

  3. It’s stupid that they are resorting to cheap emotional tactics that if people have a brain will prove counter-productive to the cause they say they are working for. But it’s also stupid when people who disagree with them resort to cheap emotional tactics and speculate that they’re getting “sick orgasmic pleasure” from their broadcasts.

    Stop being idiots everyone.

    • I’m not being an “idiot”. She herself mentioned the words “ecstatic” and “passionate”. Are either of those normal adjectives to use when you’re discussing an abortion?

    • Kai is pro-life, but I don’t think SHE gets sick orgasmic pleasure from showing graphic images of abortion. Sooo…….why would it be that I think these people are crazies and Kai is not? Could it be that Kai does not use the word “ecstatic” when describing abortion photos?

      • My thinking exactly. I respect that there is a diversity of opinions on this issue. I respect people that are pro-life. I do not respect this kind of ridiculous publicity whoring. These people are doing more to cheapen the concept of “life” they claim to be advocating for than the pro-choice movement ever could. Holding an opinion is fine. So is expressing that opinion. Forcing it on the masses through grotesque images, guilt-tripping and harassment is not.

      • Whoa, How did I get in here? :)
        While hardly ecstatic, I am a fan of truth over tact, and I think more people should see photos of many different things. It’s too easy to gloss over something when you don’t have the reality of it.
        But it is true that there is no incredible pleasure and ecstasy about it.

  4. What exactly is this ad even going to look like? Are they going to show the bloody fetus “tissue”? Or a woman with her leg in stirrups having it done? I can’t imagine they’ll show a post 1st trimester abortion because those are illegal except with serious extenuating circumstances so this leads me to wonder if the people proposing this ad have ever seen a 3- month fetus. It barely looks human and is no bigger than a strawberry. It’s scary how many people believe they look just like a regular baby only teeny tiny. Nope. Most abortions in the US were carried out before 10 weeks of gestation (2004). I’m not saying that just because something isn’t cute we shouldn’t save it but honestly, after looking at the pictures of 10 week fetus, it makes it a lot harder to believe that it is truly a fully formed life-form and that abortion now would be murder. I think for many people it won’t be a deterrent at all. It might even de-stigmatize the whole thing. Also, isn’t the Super Bowl given like a G or PG rating? How could the censors let something like that be shown on TV in the middle of the day? I mean, they freaked the F out over a nipple not so long ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>