This sounds like a terrific way to take the middle 60% or so of the nation without strong feelings on abortion and make them hate pro-lifers passionately.

I agree.  Though there are times when showing the graphic reality of abortion is appropriate if not necessary, this is not one of those times.  You’d probably turn off more people by selecting this particular venue than you’d win converts.

I think there’s already a ton of non-family friendly ads on during the Superbowl.  And I do support awareness of what abortion really is.  However I do think that even as a huge pro-life advocate I would feel pretty upset if my child happened to be exposed to that sort of graphic viewing under those circumstances regardless of what it represents.  while this sort of graphic ad will most definitely start conversations in households the conversations would likely be more of anger and frustration at the pro-life community for such poor judgment rather then opening eyes to the reality of abortion.  I think more babies could be saved by an add geared at young women and men with an angle of hope, support, and encouragement for them to fight for their child’s life. Or something that gets people thinking and talking rather then prompting them to shut off their tv.  There is certainly a time for raw truth, but I really think this way of going about it would turn more people away from pro-life thoughts then it would draw them in. I mean look at how much of a fuss the pro-choice movement put up for the Tebow ad and how awesome was it when after all the public fuss and protests made by pro-choicers, the add was totally family friendly, non threatening, and publicly acceptable all while getting the message across. Bottom line:  What is the “good” you want to come from an ad (in this case save babies I assume and encourage people to support those at risk) and will this accomplish that?....I don’t know….I tend to think not as much as a different approach.

Here are Missy’s ads http://divine-ripples.blogspot.com/2010/10/videos-dc-candidate-missy-smiths-ads-is.html

FYI, the Arch. of Wash DC is having a discussing about voting for pro-choice folks at http://blog.adw.org/2010/11/the-the-role-of-the-clergy-in-elections-limits-and-principles/#comments

You may want to weigh in.

That’s way too heavy-handed of a message to play during the Superbowl.  It would be more likely to upset people and stereotype pro-lifers as aggressive zealots than anything else.

I’m imagining an abolitionist in the 1800’s showing this picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Slavetrade2.jpg and someone saying, “Don’t show that! It will upset people!”

I am already upset with the commercials they show for the Super Bowl which for many is a family event. Pictures of dead babies is completely inappropriate when children will be watching. I think its important to see the reality of abortion, but I would be upset if that was sprung on my children. THey would be very traumatized by that.

Well, if Super Bore ads can have the heavy-handedness of lesbian sex and pornography (Go Daddy Commercials) then why not the truth of the horrors of the sexual license culture? The truth is that babies are being slaughtered wholesale by the millions. Why should a ridiculous sport be considered more important than that?  Who on earth could justify the death of babies as being less important, or too harsh to talk about, than a football game? Kids get bombarded with sex, its high time they get bombarded with consequences and reality too. I’m sick of the attitude of “maybe they’ll hate us”.  BALONEY. They already do. Jesus said we will be hated, as He was hated. Its about time we start following Him.

As someone who had to have a D&C due to a missed miscarriage, I would be profoundly upset to have pictures of aborted children on my TV while my family watches the SuperBowl.  It’s not just the “target” audience that you’re going to hit.  It’s going to be some of us who have had miscarriages and maybe had to have D&Cs; for legitimate reasons, and who experience deep pain seeing those images because our children’s deceased bodies went through that surgical procedure so that we could stay alive. 

I strongly strongly object to these images being used without a disclaimer that these images may be disturbing, particularly to anyone who has had a miscarriage, stillbirth or infant loss.  There’s a place for confronting people with the truth, but not without warning those of us who are the collateral damage from images like that being shown.

I think we owe to the dead babies and the ones who will be killed to support this.

If ONE baby is saved, it’ll be worth it.

Remember, it was during the graphic discussion of partial birth abortion that many who were pro-abortion or lukewarm became pro-life.

What is more scandalous and damaging, truth or lies?

Sexually provocative ads on tv during the superbowl send poisonous messages to viewers (including children), much more devious and damaging than the images of the truth of abortion, however, disturbing.

If you want to destroy evil bring it into the light: enough of euphemism concerning abortion and the unwillingness to look this evil head on for what it is.

I really feel that showing graphic, disturbing pictures of corpses is counterproductive.  Rather, let’s show beautiful pictures of babies developing alive in the womb, perhaps with a reminder, at the end, that abortion kills babies just like these.

I understand your point, but it was not images of beautiful black children sitting in school that helped to end segregation, but images of snarling German shepherd dogs held by white policemen close to black children as they walked to school which won the sympathy of viewers.

Father Frank Pavone says American won’t end abortion until it SEES abortion. I believe he is correct.

I think it’s really sad that it has come to this, but too many people are in stubborn denial.  They must see the truth.  Perhaps the ad could have a 5-second notice at the beginning to people know what’s coming.

It’s interesting that people object to the use of graphic images on the basis that they are unproductive.  The evidence shows exactly the opposite.  The use of graphic images is not only effective, it is one of the most powerful forms of evangelization that we have to convert people to being pro-life. 

I have yet to see or hear about a child that was traumatized or damaged because they were exposed to a graphic image of an aborted baby.  Truth is, they are not traumatized by these images and the reason why is simple.  Children are exposed to much worse images on TV and the internet on a regular basis.  They have become deadened to the harshness of life at an early age.  Showing images of aborted babies does not effect them any more or less. 

I say, show the images as much as possible, as often as possible at every venue you can find.  Pro-lifers should not be concerned with offending children, we should be concerned about people that allow the injustice of what these images represent to continue.

Hmmmm…. I think I would have to see the ad first.  There’s probably decent ways to do this, or even show footage of funerals for aborted babies…  But what would I want shown if I had been aborted. I’d probably be okay with graphic images in that case.  The ads could be graphic or shocking and still be effective if they are done well.

I say do NOT run the ad.  I am pro-life, but I also screen our TV watching.  We do watch part of the Super Bowl and I have not been happy about some of the inappropriate commercials that they air.  I do think showing dead anything could scandalize someone.

“If ONE baby is saved, it’ll be worth it.”

 
Sorry, this is confused thinking. You have to look at BOTH sides of the ledger. Suppose that 5 percent of people who see the commercial become more pro-life as a result, while 35 percent of the people who see the commercial become disgusted at pro-lifers and thus become LESS pro-life. You might save a few babies on the one end, but lose more babies on the other end. A Super Bowl commercial is not a Hail Mary pass with a single outcome.

Let’s take one step back: use the idea that by recruiting a presidential candidate, you have the leeway to put up any message you want (and the candidate is willing to support).  Now, what’s going to be your most effective approach?  How straightforward and honest can you be without alienating more people than you win over?  Did the hard core feminists lose support when they over-reacted to the Tim Tebow commercial?  One more word of caution: Jesus said “Blessed are the meek”, not “Blessed are the in-your-face.”

Abortion is a horrific thing, and I do believe showing the actual results is a good thing, but with intelligence. Television is a medium where people of all ages gather, and because of the graphic nature of aborted children, it should not be done without warning. Positive advertisements will have a much better reception. Such is the current work being done on the Pier 39 project by the Survivors. http://www.jillstanek.com/2010/11/san-franciscos-pier-39-a-different-sort-of-of-pro-life-picket/

I believe this type of commerical would do more harm than good. Show the babies and mothers saved from abortions by the pro life movement. Tell their story. The story of life.

Positive ads are more benificial to the Pro-Life movement - Ads for Rachel’s Vinyard or Silent No More like the ones produced for EWTN that show help available for women who have suffered because of their abortion, or even showing the new 4D Sonagrams of the growing baby in the womb would do more for the Pro-Life cause. That being said, One ad that should be made is one showing where the aborted babies are taken to places where they are then used for make up and lotions etc… People should be made aware of these things also. - Pray, Pray, Pray, and then Pray some more.

As catholics, we have a duty to preserve the innocence of our children. Can you imagine a young child 3 or 4 or 6 seeing a graphic image of an aborted baby? Are we really doing the work of God to expose innocence to such evil. Are we not hurting their tender souls?
I am against abortion, but I am even more against spoiling the innocence of our children. We need to find a better way to communicate our pro life message. How can we communicate life by showing death?
Maybe a better approach would be to show a happy baby playing with a ball and everyone will be so happy and then the screen goes black…and text comes on screen saying….With abortion, this baby would not be here.

This would protray what we lose due to abortion as opposed to resorting to shock media. We are Pro life then let us show life and living.

Shock value is the wave we are riding now, how about commercials showing accountability.Relationship responsibilities,a guy missing out of college ball- maybe NFL could have been there but….. What families? aren’t too many marriages surviving these days, not much for the young to live by as an example. Show people from broken homes what a real family looks likes, instead of beer buds around the set. A son asks dad about the game as the rest of the family watches together. A dad playing with his kids during half time. A mom football buff showing a tackle on dad. Keep it family oriented, we don’t see that often enough.

Catholics are so weak-kneed!

No wonder 53 million babies are aborted and more to come.

I am confused by the writers who consider the super bowl a family event?  I love football, but I see it for what it is.  It is a barbaric sport where men, some of them over 300 pounds and who for the most part are not well educated, run as fast as they can and crash into one another.  As a former football player, I can tell you the intent was to knock the snot out of the other guy.  It is violent, aggressive, and requires we engage only the lowest level of our human nature.  Yes, there is some strategy and some knowledge required, but at the end of the day, it is a violent game.  Add to that the soft core pornography which is shown throughout the evening during the commercials and occasionally during the half time entertainment and I am not sure where “this is good my children” comes into play.  Again, I love football, still watch it.  Just trying to point out the reality here. 

People are repulsed by those commercials, because they are repulsive, and they force them to step out of the little fairy tale world that they have immersed themselves in.  I don’t think it’s a bad idea at all.  I have worked with teens who have seen pictures and videos.  Teens who were adamantly pro choice.  Forced to deal with the reality they actually changed their position.  Many people really don’t know the truth.  They have no idea what really happens during an abortion.  I am in favor of the commercials.

Many of the ads are already barbaric.

Adding another one shouldn’t be harmful.  Aborting babies goes right in with glorification of violence and extramarital sex.

While I see both sides of the argument for and against this running during this time, please don’t use the argument that it will take away the “innocence” of young children who may see it during a family event.  Anyone who has watched the Super Bowl in recent years should clearly see that the commercials are not all family friendly and many are certainly not appropriate for young children.  If corrupting young children is a concern, flip the channel during the commercials.

We have 6 young children aged 4-14.All have seen the images of aborted children.It didn’t upset them in the way all are claiming.They are more horrified that people out there murder their babies in the first place and ask why?They all do not see any reason to murder babies and that is what they say they are,not indoctrination or anything!
The real truth needs to be shown.Television here in Germany regulaly shows dead bodies on the news but they wouldn’t show an aborted baby!

Why don’t they do like they are doing in England and use ultrasounds in their ads?  I reposted that wonderful ad on my Facebook page and am very excited about it.  (See Tim Drake’s recent blog).

I am all for a solid, tasteful Respect Life ad during the Super Bowl. Showing a graphic ad with aborted babies will, in general, hurt rather than help our cause.

As I have been reading the posts, my mind and heart has changed, not that my thoughts erlier were wrong, just both kinds of ads should appear. We are Pro-Life, show what life means - we are against the murder of innocent human beings, show what that murder entails, and we are Pro-Mercy of God, show ads for Rachel’s Vinard and Silent No More. AND Pray, Pray, Pray and Pray some more!  God Bless

My kids (age 6 to 13) know that 1 out of 3 of their classmates nationwide ended up like those babies in the pictures and ads- mangled, headless, bloody, and DEAD.

They tell that to adults who think abortion is a “good” thing.

My children have seen picture of aborted babies and know the evil of the deed.

We need a new generation of Catholics that is willing to recognize evil where it is- in the sexually explicit and suggestive ads and in those who would use abortion to cover up their recreational sex.

This is a good blog topic!

I would not stop the lady from putting these ads on. If the pro-abort crowd, along with many lukewarm Christians fought the Tebow ad, do you think they’ll let this get on?

There is a reason they don’t want it- it shines the light on their deeds done in private. And we let it go on.

I feel there is no one correct answer. In reading the posts I sort of agree with each side.  I think we need to do it and see what the results are w/the public, if it decreases abortions or brings other politicians or other people to our anti abortion stance, that it is good.
However, if it backfires, when we change our tactics.
I have 4 granddaughters ranging from 11 to 20 years old and 3 grandsons from 4 to 20, I have already sent the older ones pictures of aborted babies and never heard a word :-( sad. 
I constantly try to keep them aware of how babies are dying, all I can do it pray, pray as one of the comments advise.

The very title of this blog entry exemplifies the low-brow, sophomoric status of NCReg.

Graphic images such as you speak of, especially when taking people unawares while their children may be present is very offensive to me although I am staunchly pro-life. I am not a child and I find these types of pictures very very very disturbing. I would not take part in this kind of tactic.  It offends against purity and is disrespectful of the babies and their bodies.  I am not sure it has a place anywhere-surely there is a more Christ-like approach to the hearts of pro-choicers.  The argument that the commercials are already offensive to children does not have any relevance on whether or not to show these particular ads because our model is Christ not some advertiser. As Christians we are held to Christ’s standard. I know that saving lives is the goal here and much is at stake so we should be very careful not to hurt the cause.

While many would be offended - at least they will be more informed than they are now.  It WON’T change a pro-lifer into a pro-aborter.
If you don’t say something because (pick your reason/excuse) then it won’t be heard and a person will not even be given the chance to accept or reject.  It may be rejected at the moment of the presentation, but it can’t be taken away from the mind.  It WILL cause people to think, which is what is so very necessary.  I say show the truth!
No one who sees it will suffer more pain than the child who went through it.

I’m inclined to believe this approach will cause more backlash that will lead to more backlash—and pigionhole the right for life movement as the zannies, radicals verus makin it mainstream!  I’m far more a proponent of the Tim Tebow and mother approach or using Andrea’ Boccelli story.

Excellent point, Therese- no one will be more offended or feel more pain than the aborted child.

Showing aborted babies during the Superbowl would be extremely disrespectful of the parents letting their children watch the show.  Such an uncaring, thoughtless act would portray the pro-life people as mean and heartless.  Instead, show the commercial at 10 p.m. when only adults should be watching.

Two wrongs do not make a right! Graphic ads are inappropriate. How can we complain about graphic ads and then use them? Is that not hypocrisy? Christ told us we would be hated for following Him—not for posting graphic ads. What graffiti did He use to make His point? NONE!

Why do we always worry about something being appropriate for family viewing when it shows the reality of evil? however, sex, violence and any other anti-social and sick behavior is tolerated and even extolled.

When the woman was about to be stoned, Christ took a stick and drew graffiti in the dirt.  This caused the tormentors to disperse.  God
was not concerned about hurting their feelings.  He got right in their
face and evil was thwarted.  We should do no less.

Sounds like a harsh and angry approach . . . our Holy Father’s recent comments on the Church’s participation in the “new media” shed great light on our responsibility as Catholics:

“Only love is worthy of belief and turns out to be credible,” Pope Benedict XVI recently told participants of a meeting hosted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.
Often the Gospel message is presented to people in a way that is “not so effective or engaging,” he said.

“The Church wants to engage in dialogue with everyone, but in order to communicate in a way that is fruitful and effective, “it is necessary to be on the same wavelength in friendly and sincere settings,” he said.

May we all be lights for Christ as we seek ways to protect the most innocent among us, His beloved unborn.

Sounds like a harsh and angry approach . . . our Holy Father’s recent comments on the Church’s participation in the “new media” shed great light on our responsibility as Catholics: “Only love is worthy of belief and turns out to be credible,” Pope Benedict XVI recently told participants of a meeting hosted by the Pontifical Council for Culture. Often the Gospel message is presented to people in a way that is “not so effective or engaging,” he said.
“The Church wants to engage in dialogue with everyone, but in order to communicate in a way that is fruitful and effective, “it is necessary to be on the same wavelength in friendly and sincere settings,” he said. May we all be lights for Christ as we seek ways to protect the most innocent among us, His beloved unborn.

I do not know….  I know it SOUNDS harsh, but is not the reality of abortion harsh?  I think the ads might be effective, but I DO also think that there needs to be a disclaimer in the beginning to give families a chance to get young or sensitive eyes out of the viewing area….....    There was a lot of hoopla last year about the Pam Tebow ad, and I think it was a perfectly lovely ad, but it was too touchy-feely to make a dent into hearts that have been long hardened and desensitized to the reality of abortion…...  It is VERY sad, but I think the only chance we have of waking these people up is to show them the fruits of their labors…... 

Anyway, is not `Admonish the Sinner` one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy.  YES, of course, we should do so charitably, but IMHO I believe that this is the height of charity to these poor lost souls…..

That being said, if my 4 kids were in the room, and I was not given time to get them out of the room, I would be quite stressed….  The babies would likely not get it, the 7 and 10 year olds would probably cry for a week….  There MUST be a warning - like on roller coaster rides for pregnant women :)

Just my two cents worth….  I could be wrong :)

Our truly great Pope Benedict never said that because
a carrot is often better than a stick that we should
never use our Faith in a direct assault to counter-
act the direct assault on the precious unborn.  50
million innocent human lives (and counting) killed by
the relentless devil-driven pro-choice (death?) cult
deserve a better legacy than a friendly smile.

I think they would reach their same goal if they showed ultrasound pictures!

I am opposed to abortion to the very core of my being. While I agree with the need for people to see abortion for what it is, this is a foolish idea. Like many previous attempts of this kind, it only succeeds in converting thousands while turning away millions.

Who says that jousting on blogs doesn’t change minds?!

I’ve mulled this over, and I think Patti’s idea is EXCEPTIONAL.

Showing ultrasounds of a live baby - or twins! with scientific facts about being genetically complete at conception and heartbeat at 3 wks. is the high road.

BUT- it’s amazing the FLACK that this would get. Pro-aborts and the lukewarm are afraid of baby pictures- live or dead.

I agree with Patti and liseux…...

From what I can recall, there are ultrasound images on buses in England and they seem to have somewhat of an impact….  Also, I know the pro-death team is disturbed about the Christmas ad showing Jesus as an ultrasound image…. 

Then again, sometimes, you do need to shock sense into people…..  I am SO glad I am not the one who needs to make that decision…..

Preface the ad with the line: “LOOK WHAT THE ABORTIONISTS HAVE DONE” ABORTION DOES NOT HAPPEN BY ITSELF. Pornography got into our culture because it is practised. Point the fingers let them cringe Hell is very hot this time of year.

I agree with Paul Zummo:  If anyone knows anything about avid game watchers, they either won’t like it, or won’t even notice it. Their attention is on the game to see if their favorite team will win. They could care less about what is being advertized (abortion or chocolate candy) At half time, it is “what’s to eat” or the bathroom for kids .  I do not think a ball game is the place for such an ad. (waste of money)  I do approve of graphic ads, which shows the truth and they are appropriate anywhere else.
P.S. I am an avid pro-lifer.