Cui bono, abortion?

Actor Mehcad Brooks made this ad for the Center for Reproductive Rights, celebrating the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and legalized abortion.  What do we learn from this video?

In classical legal theory, a major method of analysis of a case, a policy, or a crime is to ask the question, “Cui bono?”  “To whose good?”  That is, “who benefits?”  (The person who benefits the most from a crime may be a prime suspect.  Whether a proposed government program benefits the general public or a political crony tells us much about its value.)  Here we see who benefits from legalized abortion:  Men who want to have sex with women with no consequences, or, as Mehcad says here, “no limits.”  No need to get married, no need to take care of  a child, no need to even pay child support.   Sexual paradise for men–what for women?  what for the man’s own sons and daughters that he wants to abort?

I have heard that polls of women getting an abortion show that a vast number–a majority, I heard–say, “I wanted to keep the baby, but my boyfriend/husband talked me into getting an abortion.”  (I can’t find the source.  If anyone knows it, please let me know in the comments.)  So much for “pro-choice.”  So much for feminism.

HT:  Joanna Hensley

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Tom Hering

    What do we learn from this video? We learn that some men are happy they won’t get stuck with the kids they create.

  • Tom Hering

    Oops. I forgot to “read more” before commenting. Dr. Veith already made the point.

  • Tony Phelps

    The whole tone of the video literally betrays a lust for death.

  • MarkB

    I find it disturbing that a black actor would go on record in support of abortion on demand. It has been a catastrophe for the black community and is even called genocide by some because of the disproportionate rate of abortion of black children. Here are some quotes from an article that was linked to by the Cyberbretheran BLOG.

    “Black genocide.

    That’s Clenard Childress’s term for abortion in America and its pervasive effects in the last generation, especially in the Black community. The statistics are outrageous. One in four African Americans conceived in the last forty years have been cut down by the “black genocide” of legal abortion.
    A decade ago Childress founded a website by and for African Americans (blackgenocide.org) “to expose the disproportionate amount of Black babies destroyed by the abortion industry. For every two African American women that get pregnant, one will choose to abort.”

    The article is at: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/mlk-s-dream-and-the-nightmare-of-black-genocide

  • Orianna Laun

    We learn that even legal dismemberment of babies in utero can be sexy. We learn that we can show disdain for babies by repeated use of the word “baby.” The whole thing is replete with irony to the extent that with a little thought on what it actually says, it can become an argument for the opposition.

  • Mary

    http://www.stopforcedabortions.org/forced.htm
    In a national study of women, 64% of those who aborted felt pressured to do so by others.1 This pressure can become violent.2 65% suffered symptoms of trauma.1 In the year following an abortion, suicide rates are 6-7 times higher.3

  • Patrick Kyle

    Wow. What an in your face mockery of those who are against abortion. Also does nothing to dispel ugly stereotypes.
    As to “Sexual paradise for men–what for women? ” It is for them, just like the men, a removal of one of the consequences for unrestrained sexuality (read that promiscuity)

  • sg

    Creepy jerks love abortion because it allows them to use women for sex and avoid paying child support.

  • Julian

    Hits close to home. I know someone personally whose baby daddy was pressuring her to get an abortion because “he already had two girls”. Unless she was having a boy. Thankfully, she’s keeping the baby. My wife and I were considering anything possible to convince her not to abort, such as adopting the baby ourselves.

  • Dr Luther in the 21st Century

    Ugh, Would it be ok for me to slug him for being a creep and a poor excuse of a man? Please let me. This video is just sick and shows how deprave the pro-abortion side truly is.

    The sacrifice of children to the god of selfindulgence cannot end soon enough.

  • http://www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    The Left sees abortion as a sex issue. The Right sees abortion as a life issue. As always, the Left finds the Right incomprehensible. Whenever a Pro-lifer states her position, the Pro-choicer thinks that the Pro-lifer is lying, “You say you care about human life, but you’re really just trying to stop me from having fun.” Conservatives think that Liberals are wrong. For Liberals, Conservatives MUST has an anterior motive, and are therefore disingenuine. This frees the Liberal from engaging the Conservatives ideas. Every argument is at its core an argument ad hominum.

  • Abby

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/01/pro-whatever-the-situation-is/#comments
    Todd @39

    Waiting to hear from Todd. Since Margaret Sanger’s ideas are old and dead. (Really?!)

    I still think Dr Veith’s descriptive title works best — pro-death. Why can’t they just say it like it is? Follow their leader. Right now I’m dealing with a sister-in-law who is rabidly pro-death — beginning from her first abortion and now with the treatment of her mother who has Alzeihmers. Assisted suicide. These things don’t just swirl about us in the media — they come right into your home. They’re not just “words” — people are looking for anyway they can to murder legally and “get away” with it. It doesn’t matter who you are. My sister-in-law was brought up in the church (silent though they were on issues), and of course hasn’t attended most of her life. She still keeps it near the edge of her life though, for when “her time comes.” I absolutely do not see how a church-going Christian can in any way sanction anything to do with the “pro-choice” side. “Thou shalt have no other gods.”

  • http://pekoponian.blogspot.com pekoponian

    The title of this video should be, “Nausea”. It made me want to vomit.

  • Jon

    OK, first, so what happened to “men get no say at all on abortion”?

    And B, is it at all possible that this guy is doing this in a cynical fashion–to highlight just how crass and depraved that worldview really is? That would be the only way I could put the best construction on it.

  • Abby

    @14 Part B

    “. . .made this ad for the Center for Reproductive Rights, celebrating the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and legalized abortion.”

    “. . .is it at all possible that this guy is doing this in a cynical fashion–to highlight just how crass and depraved that worldview really is?” Ah, No.

  • SKPeterson

    Jon @ 14 – It does look like something straight off of The Onion doesn’t it? And who is Mehcad Brooks anyway? Never heard of him.

  • Paul Reed

    @Pastor Spomer

    I feel your pain, sir. I’ve gotten into arguments with pro-abortion-choice people online, and it’s like I’m talking Greek to them. Not only do they see unborn babies as expendable, they don’t even believe that we’re truly concerned about them. They believe we have an ulterior motive. Having said that, we don’t help our cause when we state women who have illegal abortions don’t deserve prison. That undermines everything negative we say about abortion. No matter what you’ve said about abortion, what people hear is this, “Abortion is bad, but it’s not like anything like killing a born child.”

  • Abby

    @16 “who is Mehcad Brooks anyway?”
    “The Background: “To celebrate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade we didn’t buy a ruby,” says the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Instead [the Center] asked asked Mehcad Brooks of the USA Network’s “Necessary Roughness” and HBO’s “True Blood” to prepare a special video message just for you.”

  • Jon

    @18 So, if they truly did ask this guy to “prepare a special message,” is it not possible that he used the opportunity to put one over on the Center, and they just don’t see the dripping sarcasm?

  • Wattmi

    Disgusting. I found it revolting how he equated Roe v Wade with his wife/lover. If abortion is sexy then I am content with being ugly.

  • DonS

    I thought it was a spoof of some sort as well. It is hard to view that video and think that the guy doing it is on the level — and that he is celebrating the death of over 50 million Americans since 1973. But, sadly, it seems to be genuine, and he is just that much of a pig.

    We are living in an age of very hardened hearts.

  • Abby

    “. . .is it not possible that he used the opportunity to put one over on the Center” No, they would have fired him. And, if he were really opposing them — knowing their agenda — why would he consent to do it? He has to know he is helping their cause. And, if only one young girl out there has an abortion because of his ad, would he not feel horrible about that? You absolutely cannot participate in this agenda if you don’t agree with it. Sometimes I wish I could be young and naiive again. But that would only be a burying my head in the sand.

  • Ellen

    Please don’t take this the wrong way, but if it weren’t for the seriously sad and terrible subject matter I could only scoff at this because the whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. “Mm, Mm, Mm, Mm…Mm.” Really?? Is there someone out there who finds that sexy?

  • Julian

    Meh, a cad.

    (Sorry, couldn’t help myself.)

  • fws

    it felt like parody or something from the Onion.
    We should be careful to select and respond to the best and most reasoned and most virtuous-sounding arguments of those we disagree with and oppose.

    This vídeo does not qualify as that on any level.

  • tODD

    I get the trope they’re aiming for here. But honestly, who approved this copy? As Orianna mentioned (@5), the repetition of the word “baby” — while, yes, certainly part of the trope they’re going for — really does seem awful. And you’d think that someone trying to put a good spin on abortion would not intentionally employ imagery that brings to mind the grotesque nature of abortions, with words like “never make it”, or “trying to tear us apart, take you away”. Yes, baby, someone is trying to tear you apart and take you away, and that’s what this man is celebrating. But as tone-deaf as all that was — even for a pro-choice ad — I do wonder if they at least intentionally put these words into the script: “No, no, no, no, baby.”

  • Leslie4

    I found it hard to believe that this was not a parody. All I could see was a leering, letcherous guy, willing to ‘fight’ so that a woman could have a surgical procedure to keep his freedom. Frankly, I think it helps the pro-life side more than anything.

  • tODD

    Curiously, the recent YouTube comments on that video are entirely opposed to the video. And the votes on it are overwhelmingly negative. In such a situation, I’d expect the group to disable comments, or possibly even take down the video. But they haven’t. Which almost makes me wonder if they’re intentionally garnering opposition. Because that makes for better fundraising, I guess.

    Of course, this is the same group that put out a pro-choice video called, and I am not making this up, Fundamental Human Rights, that asks you to ponder: what if you could “stop a terrible injustice from happening in one woman’s life”? And Meryl Streep joins in, asking what if you could “change the lives … for millions of women”. I mean, wow. The recent comments on that video are also uniformly negative.

  • CRB

    Now, where or where did I put my copy of Ann Coulter’s, “Godless”? Hmm…?

  • fjsteve

    Wow, what the?!?! This video is really odd. sg made a comment about “creepy jerks”. I think that about sums up how this guy is coming across. As someone else said, repeating the word “baby”, using terms like “tear us apart”. I can’t imagine even the staunchest Pro-Choice would not see this as disturbing and completely counter-productive.

  • Grace

    My husband and I attented the burial of over 16,000 unborn infants back in the late 80′s in Los Angeles.

    The sight of six hearsts , driving to the grave site, with six coffins containing the little bodies of over 16,000 unborn infants incased within, is something we will never forget. As the coffins were taken from the hearsts , wheeled side by side, there was a silence I can’t forget. That memory is itched in our minds and heart never to be forgotten

    Abortion and Genocide

    By Gregg Cunningham

    The July 3, 1984 Los Angeles Times reported:

    More than 16,000 fetuses stored by Los Angeles County since they were found in a repossessed shipping bin in 1982 cannot be given burial as human remains, the state Court of Appeals has ruled.

    The Los Angeles Herald, on July 10, 1984, editorialized:

    Truth is, the pro-abortion litigants — and the Court of Appeals — wouldn’ t be satisfied with even a non-sectarian burial. They object to the fetuses being buried at all [favoring instead, incineration as medical waste], because that would seem to support anti-abortionists’ claims that the fetuses are, or were, human beings.”

    http://blowthetrumpet.org/WhyAbortionisGenocide.htm

    The infants bodies were not incinerated, they were buried with respect. God must have wept at the hatred that caused those who did such a hidious thing. It was a bright sunny day -

  • Booklover

    That was the most repulsive thing I’ve seen in a long time.

  • Abby
  • Abby

    @4

  • Pingback: Finding and seeing Richard III


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X