This post originally appeared on the UofT Students for Life blog.
I’m not usually a fan of any pro-life arguments that focus on potentiality, because it tends to obscure the fact that from the moment of conception we’re dealing with actual life (and just potential growth)… but that caveat aside, this new ad from CatholicVote.org is amazing (via AmP):
This is the second ad they’ve produced (here’s the first). Can’t wait to see what else they come up with.
3 thoughts on “Life — Imagine the Potential”
I find the ad a bit disingenuous (actually, make that flat out deceptive) in the way it implies that each of the people shown was saved from the clutches of abortion by adoption.
I can’t believe I put in this much research, but here it is —
John Lennon was raised by his aunt Mimi but visited frequently with his mother. His aunt merely offered a better home life. Not adopted.
Nelson Mandela was “adopted” when he was 8 years old and his father died of tuberculosis.
Babe Ruth: Sent to reform school at age 7 and the school was given custody.
Jamie Foxx: Adopted at 7 months.
Bill Clinton was left with his grandparents as an infant, but his mom returned a few years later, and he was adopted by his stepfather later.
Nancy Reagan: Raised at times by her aunt, but the “adoption” was by her stepfather after he married her mother.
Jack Nickolson: Raised by his grandparents, who wanted their daughter to pursue her career.
JRR Tolkein: Found a guardian in the church following his mother’s death around age 12.
Tim McGraw: Not even close to adopted. Raised by his mother and stepfather.
Faith Hill, Sarah McClaughlan, Dave Thomas, Steve Jobs, Darryl “DMC” McDaniels: Adopted.
Jesse Jackson: Adopted by his stepfather after he married his mother.
Newt Gingrich: Ditto.
Willie Nelson: Not adopted. Period.
Eleanor Roosevelt: Raised by her grandmother after her mother and father died when she was 8 and 10, respectively.
My point? Meh. Just that it’s a completely dishonest ad. Less than half of the people mentioned were adopted outside of their family. Few, if any, suffered through orphanage or foster care systems.
If the ad is supposed to be making the case for adoption as a pro-life choice, they really ought to focus on stories in which abortion was actually the alternative to adoption.
by the way — the details above are based on wikipedia research. i’m sure at least one of them is wrong, but don’t let that obscure the point… the ad is dishonest.
Fair point. I’m not surprised, I doubted they were all cases of adoption from birth instead of abortion.
I think the point of the ad is to counter the notion that adoption — or having to be “adopted” by someone other than your natural parents for some period of your childhood — is a viable alternative to abortion, as some are quite skeptical of it. A sort of argument that, adoption, giving up a child, is not the end of the world, but a real gift that allows life to reach its full “potential,” rather than be needlessly cut off.
Personally, I don’t think the adoption issue gets to the heart of the debate (“what is the unborn?”).
But yeah… “If the ad is supposed to be making the case for adoption as a pro-life choice, they really ought to focus on stories in which abortion was actually the alternative to adoption.”
Agreed. At the very least, all of the borderline cases may likely distract from the point they’re trying to make.