Help Me Figure This Out
Rating: 5.00

Many of you have seen Eric Metaxas's BreakPoint commentary and Gina's blog post about the "Hey, baby" ad celebrating "Roe's" 40th anniversary. (Though the ad was pulled from YouTube, another group put it up here.)

Now, rewind a few months to another shocking video, where a young lady coyly tells the audience that their "first time" should be with the president. Sure -- it was about voting. But it had a lot of innuendos about something else. People were in disbelief after that one, too.

Gina already posted on this ad, as did Anne Morse. I am not repeating those posts -- but I want to go farther. I want to ask you: Please help me understand the audience.

Both of these ads were done by large organizations that had lots of money -- the Center for Reproductive Rights and the Obama reelection campaign, respectively. These organizations are made up of smart people. They do not spend that kind of money unless they know their audience. They also have to know the ad will work with that audience, in large numbers. Can someone please explain that audience to me?

It is an audience for whom sex is only a game? Well, to many, they may play it that way, but is that something to celebrate? Is it one in which people LIKE being victims of non-commitment? The most baffling part, alluded to in both ads, is the idea that a girl or a young woman cannot hope to find a man who will give her more commitment than a thrill on Election Day, or 40 years of promises with the abortions that make it "fun." And then these ads celebrate that. Joie de vivre!

I cannot figure this out. Help!


Total: 23 << Previous Page     Next Page >>
Oh Dear
At least you have much in common with Mr. Knightley, Sir Quod ... electronics not being one of them.
w"Mr. Knightley (have you finished with him and Emma yet?)"

Not so far, Milady M, but I have learned a great deal in the process. In particular, I've discovered that throwing the volume across the room in disgust at the scheming of a title character works fine with a hardback or paperback, but with an ebook or phone, not so much.

So I have you to thank, my dear, for this insight. ;-)
Of course you can define "innate goodness" in the Catholic sense that the mere state of existence is an inate goodness.
And I have long held that anyone who believes in the goodness of humans is not a historian.
Carol, I've long held that anyone who believes in the innate goodness of humans never had a toddler.
You're right, Lee, my kids are a bit young for Spidey's movies. I remember watching the first one when Jessica was still a wee babe horribly interrupting my sleep each and every night. Friends had asked us if Todd played the lead in the movie, but I informed them that Todd is much better looking.

And please don't put me into a "if she loves Jane Austen she must not like..." box! Sheesh, I grew up body surfing in CA, married a man who was born on skis, whom (ah, Eric Metaxes, are you proud of my use of "whom" on Bonhoeffer's birthday?) I now chase down runs, and have been known to sail across oceans with said husband. Poor Miss Jane didn't have such opportunities, but she certainly had bountiful intelligence which penetrated human behavior and motivation. She gave us excellent characters such as Mr. Knightley (have you finished with him and Emma yet?) who would certainly have a thing or two or three to add to this current discussion.

What's interesting about comparing Spiderman to Jesus - our ultimate superhero - is that Spidey can only react to criminal behavior while Jesus can change the hearts of criminals.
Thanks, dear friend, for your typically excellent insights and remarks.

Re your comment, “Alan's original question and your insightful answer both seem to presume a willful "agenda of sin" in their conscious minds, and THAT is where I disagree. I don't think it's conscious or willfull or an "agenda" at all. I think they are simply "floating on the surface" of life, doing "what comes naturally".

You and I are actually in agreement. In my remarks of January 29, 2013 1:48 PM, I stated, “it happens in great measure, I believe, at the subliminal, the subconsious level.”

More proof you and I are kindred spirits.

Now that I've just told LeeQuad what a "daughter of encouragement" I am, I'd like to offer a negative thought on your original post.
I don't disagree with a single word you wrote! That's exactly what they seem to think and feel in some deep, dark part of themselves. That's what their "fruit" says about them.
However, I'm concerned that you may be giving them too much credit. Alan's original question and your insightful answer both seem to presume a willful "agenda of sin" in their conscious minds, and THAT is where I disagree. I don't think it's conscious or willfull or an "agenda" at all. I think they are simply "floating on the surface" of life, doing "what comes naturally". Consider the following example.
As a young mother, herself raised according to Dr. Spock, I found that I did not have to teach my child to do wrong. As soon as my daughter could crawl, she'd pull herself up to a standing position using a piece of furniture (or, my leg), and walk along till she ran out of furniture. Then she'd crawl on her hands and knees to another piece of furniture, and walk around it. Invariably, she headed for the coffee table. I did not believe in "baby-proofing", but in teaching her what she could play with and what not. We had several confrontations before one fateful day when she pulled herself up to the coffee table, reached for a glass vase, and looked at me. I said "no" in a very stern voice, and she took her hand away. Within seconds, she looked me dead in the eye and reached out and grabbed the vase! Why she thought I wouldn't punish her, I still don't know. I managed to reclaim the vase before she broke it and hurt herself, but I was devastated that my sweet, beautiful, darling baby had DEFIED me!
That one incident taught me a lot--about my daughter, about myself, about the world in general. As Jason said, we are all damaged goods! We are not "bad", but we do bad things because we desire the "thing". As a priest said once, "No one would commit sin if it didn't look desirable!"
I think that makes sense, Alan. People thought they wanted to be rid of objective truth and its restrictive nature. What they didn't realize is that there's a real sense of security and stability that is sorely missed in a moral wild west.
Wow - great discussion
I am certainly glad to see all the comments here and the great discussion. I read your replies and did some more thinking as well. Have been thinking a lot about postmodernism in relation to this article. I am no expert on the subject (but did do two years of graduate work on German Lit - classical and modern). One of the things I have always seen in postmodernism is the tendency to throw out rationally-conflicting images and messages with the sub-message that somehow, a more rational meaning is down there. But you have to dig and read between the lines to find it. Sometimes it is like playing the "opposites-day" game, popular in grade schools now. In other words, you communicate one thing, but really mean the opposite. Could these ads even be a postmodern cry for help? A plea that somehow, somewhere, Commitment might emerge out of the chaos, even while "celebrating" the darkness? It is similar to Francis Schaeffer and his "line of despair" theory. That, once society moves past absolutes and rational, Greek-rhetoric-style point-counterpoint - to the entirely subjective and relativistic world of meaning, people move below a line of despair. After that, the voices become voices from the chaos, and the messages have little "rational" meaning, but instead have sub-meanings that have to be extrapolated - often the opposite of what they seem to be saying. Am I making any sense, or merely letting my cobwebs show?
Of course, if we expect perfect or consistently upright behavior from our heroes, we're setting ourselves up for disappointment. They're made of the same flesh and blood that we are. Many a soldier has, at very low moments, fallen into the arms of someone he should have stayed away from. I don't think he forfeited his hero status as much as showed that even the best of us fail badly in one way or other, making our black-and-white assessments of people a shaky proposition.
Ah, you're right, Ellen. And I don't think Spiderman's actual dad (per the "reboot" movie) said anything so memorable.

But - aren't your kids still a little young for . . .? And I thought your tastes ran more to Jane Austin . . .? I guess I need to re-think my prejudices.

Hmmm. In the comics movies, Iron Man is the only one who sleeps around, it's not portrayed in a positive light, and it seems to be a habit he drops after becoming a superhero. James Bond is certainly a movie hero with loose sexual morals, but other cinematic examples aren't springing immediately to mind for me, while the counterexamples are numerous. Maybe "Heros Are Faithful In Everything" would be a worthwhile message.
Lee, it wasn't Spiderman's dad, it was his uncle.
I'm glad Kelvin brought up the environment, which is one area where I've heard some conservatives being very unfair to liberals. When conservatives try to implement an agenda, they don't have a problem advocating it on moral grounds. But if the left does the same thing, too many on the right say things like, "You're just trying to bring about a Utopia here on earth," or, "You're trying to enforce good behavior." I unsubscribed to T.M. Moore's Viewpoint newsletter because he was particularly bad about this.

By and large, however, Lee's point rings true. Liberalism doesn't seem to require a lot, other than political correctness.
Part of the problem is that Americans have a hard time understanding the difference between the three categories of "legal", "honorable" and "moral". It is "legal" for the guy with the ex-girlfriend not to provide for his child. It is not honorable or moral.
Fred! Good to See You Again!
As I write this I'm going through the links you shared. Thanks, my dear friend and brother. God bless you, and God bless us all as we seek to counter the evil that is fast becoming as bold and blatant as any demon of hell could ever wish.

And let me take this occasion to shamelessly promote my most recent piece on abortion over in the Features section of BreakPoint ---
It's titled: “Brilliant Darkness: The Rationale by Which Biblical Christianity has Justified 40 Years of Abortion Apathy”. Would be very interested in your feedback.

Blessings, bro.
Touché, Kelvin. I live in Oregon; it's difficult for a fish to think about water.

But even environmentalism has a strong enforcement mentality, from community pressure to participate in recycling all the way to punishment of polluters. So it's not entirely an individual commitment.

And in that regard, I think you're on to something: liberals have cast the abortion issue (and even moreso the sex without marriage issue) as a personal, individual choice that affects no one else. Conservatives have to some extent played along, focusing on the individual baby. Sometimes we hear stories of fathers who discovered after the fact that their child was aborted; rarely do we hear about the impact of a woman's "choice" (free, or coerced by an abortionist) on an extended family, a community, or a nation. Yet we do hear all of that for environmental choices like recycling and pollution.

So either Donne was right about no man being an island entire of itself, or he was wrong. Was Spiderman's dad correct that with great power (personal freedom to act as you please without government interference) comes great responsibility (self restraint), or wasn't he? Maybe Alan's baffled by the schizophrenia of the Left.

Fred, you're absolutely right. I was shocked into silence, but simultaneously not surprised, to recently hear a black man say of his ex-girlfriend "She slept with me when she knew I was married, so when she got pregnant, it was her problem." That man (and I use the term after pausing to think about it) was moving frequently from hotel to hotel to avoid paying child support to his ex-girlfriend, and alimony to his ex-wife. And he saw nothing wrong in any of his behavior, except that he wasn't doing a very good job of avoiding all the consequences. Happy 40th, Baby. (There is heavy irony indeed in that last word.)
Liberal Commitments
Lee, there are indeed issues for which liberalism demands a personal, individual commitment. Environmentalism is certainly one--recycling isn't just a good idea (which, for the record, I believe it is), it's a moral issue, and failure to recycle/compost/reuse/reduce waste/etc. is an expression of immorality from their perspective.
@ Rolley Haggard

All I'll add is that some abortion supporters are so warped in their thinking they believe God approves their behavior. MSNBC reporter Toure comes to mind:

I understand after reading the Bible that the behavior of Toure and the guy in the Roe ad is typical if you're not saved. But emotionally I feel like throwing up.

And as a Black man, I'm even more disgusting by how far my community has fallen. Over 40 years ago, Black people pushing for abortion would be unthinkable because of the redeeming impact of the Black church's pro-life stance on larger culture. These clips from the excellent pro-life documentary, Maafa 21, explains this further:

However, ever since the Black church began ignoring or condoning the Black genocide of abortion, it has resulted in the moral and social collapse we see today.

This is tragic beyond words.
Total: 23 << Previous Page     Next Page >>

BreakPoint Blog