Snack-Happy Doritos Baby . . . May Give Cultural Clue About End Of Abortion, Even If Candidates Dither

By DEXTER DUGGAN

A strong clue about the future of permissive abortion in the United States probably occurred two days before the February 9 New Hampshire primary election, the second stop on the 2016 presidential candidates’ pilgrimage to receive the voters’ verdicts.
Whether the voters end up being misled by certain hopefuls’ pro-life pledges, the bigger cultural clue on abortion occurred during the typically memorable commercials for Super Bowl 50 on February 7. A preborn baby on ultrasound supposedly grabbed for Doritos snack chips.
Some of the most effective commercials may highlight a surprising, improbable turn in common, everyday life — something startlingly unexpected when you just order pizza, or fix the kids’ breakfast.
This time, the common, everyday event was going to the ultrasound office to get one of those routine scientific looks — unimaginable 50 years ago — of the living baby in the womb.
Indeed, the event had become so commonplace that Dad oafishly munched away on his Doritos chips while the technician provided the image inside Mom. The commercial pivoted on the baby being so wowed by the snack that he wanted to get born and grab some for himself.
No one thinks preborn babies actually do this. But everyone knows what preborn babies do do. And wanting to be aborted into shredded flesh isn’t on the little ones’ wish lists.
Going for a prenatal ultrasound probably still isn’t as common as ordering pizza, but just about every American realizes what’s involved — seeing the recognizable infant doing another busy day in inner space while waiting to emerge into the outer.
No ultrasound watcher thinks they’re looking at “the woman’s body” when they see a completely distinct little body, with its own body parts, who even may be the opposite sex than Mom. However, pro-abortion warriorettes still assert that the only issue is “a woman controlling her own body.”
Grimly unwilling to grant that abortion is even involved in an abortion, extremists like Democrat Hillary Clinton and her fellas insist at high decibel that the only ideas we’re allowed to have are, like, “women deciding their own health care.” How can Clinton be so proud and assertive of something she’s so ashamed even to specify?
The abortionists’ strident, false mantras from back when Richard Nixon was president wore out long ago. The only things that keep them going in any way are equally wizened media, legal, and medical establishments that complain about and evade the facts — as NARAL did when attacking the innocent Doritos commercial for “humanizing fetuses” — rather than dealing with them. The public knows better already.
One day these lies of the law must end, perhaps simply by collapsing on themselves, like a rotted-out old tree topples.
Albeit there’s a different moral dimension, perhaps massive legalized abortion finally will crash down like the business enterprise of someone who had made wooden wagon wheels with iron rims. The line of work simply becomes unsupportable in the reality of life, and it’s retired from the scene.
Advertisers don’t hope to make money by offending potential and actual customers. Doritos’ ad designers presumably were just looking for a memorable laugh from familiar life, not thinking, “How can we infuriate the radical pro-abortionists at NARAL?”
The New York Post editorially observed about the commercial that if the “fetuses” aren’t human, “abortion wouldn’t be controversial. . . .
“Makes you suspect NARAL would ban real sonograms, if it could,” the New York paper added. “After all, they ‘humanize the fetus,’ too.”
In whatever way the legally ignorant structure of massive abortion comes to an end, voters still have an obligation to try to hurry its demise along. Discerning that path hasn’t seemed easy for some prominent pro-life figures in this election season, who have made very different choices for endorsements.
Iconic conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, a dedicated pro-lifer, for instance, endorsed Donald Trump. Citing the fact that he’s so wealthy, Schlafly said Trump wouldn’t need to have his hand out to the moneybags guys, promising to do their bidding.
On the other hand, Marco Rubio won endorsements from such pro-lifers as Rick Santorum, Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.), and Abby Johnson. But abortion survivor Gianna Jessen tweeted on February 6 that she wasn’t a Rubio fan after another woman tweeted that Rubio “has the best stance on pro-life.”
In the unfortunately calculating world of politics, Rubio may have concluded he needed to express strongly pro-life views in order to attract support, to compensate for where he knew he was losing voters on his untrustworthy background on border protection.
As political strategist Brian Kennedy said on February 10, the morning after the New Hampshire primary that Rubio convincingly lost, “Rubio is wrong on the animating issue of the day,” illegal immigration.
Kennedy was a guest on syndicated conservative radio host Bill Bennett’s Morning in America program.
Ted Cruz appeared to deserve credit for upholding solid, honest conservative principles and pro-life beliefs. He even opposed the supposedly untouchable ethanol program in Iowa, which got Cruz denounced by the state’s Republican governor but didn’t prevent the Texan from winning the Iowa caucuses on February 1.
Sometimes getting past a façade is revealing.
Trump presents an image of a brash, impatient billionaire who takes no guff. However, backstage on the night of the February 6 New Hampshire debate, he appeared to show a genuine concern for foe Ben Carson, MD, when Carson apparently didn’t hear his name called to come on stage.
As other GOP candidates walked past Carson to their lecterns on stage, a patient-looking Trump came up and stood next to Carson to show a little empathy. An article posted February 7 at the liberal U.K. Guardian said:
“The third candidate called, Donald Trump, gave off a maternal, caring attitude as he seemed to feel Carson’s pain. He spoke what looked like reassuring words to Carson and gently touched his arm.”
It wasn’t as if the Guardian article was trying to make excuses for Carson or Trump, for it irresponsibly suggested Carson had stage fright or was sedated. However, the video accompanying the story showed Trump had none of the bluster people may expect of his persona when this unscripted moment arrived, and he behaved with some admirable courtesy.
Still, pro-lifers may be right to be concerned about the depth of Trump’s pro-life knowledge or convictions.
Shortly before the Iowa caucuses, CNN posted on January 26 that when a reporter asked what penalties Trump supported for women who have abortions or doctors who do them, the real-estate mogul replied, “I just don’t want to talk about that right now. Everybody knows my views, and I think my views are very plain.”
That’s the sort of reporter’s question any experienced pro-lifer quickly would want to correct, explaining that the pro-life movement wants to help women who’ve been aborted, not punish them. Think of all the outreaches and healing programs that pro-lifers have developed for these victims of the abortion industry.
However, that was the sort of question pro-abortionists want to plant, trying to make women fear that as soon as their babies’ lives receive legal protection, the women will be hauled to jail.
Is it possible Trump didn’t even know what his pro-life supporters expected him to say, so he ducked a response?
No sooner had the New Hampshire primary results come in than analysts issued their confident predictions of where the Republican race is headed at the next stop February 20 in South Carolina. Among them: Granite State winner Trump is best-positioned. Second-place finisher John Kasich has nowhere to go. Third-placer Cruz has the upper hand.
It’s useful to recall that confident expectations have been disappointed throughout history, certainly including in recent decades of U.S. presidential politics.
The wildly successful Ronald Reagan was regarded as a certain presidential loser in 1980. Democrat Bill Clinton was willing to get into the 1992 presidential race when more senior Democrats thought the climb was too steep against Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush. John McCain and Mitt Romney seemed to think they were owed a victory that they had no secure strategy to attain.
And Hillary Clinton twice has assumed herself to be the coronation-worthy Democrat nominee, although she was thwarted by Barack Obama in 2008 and perhaps will be this year.

A Flame-Thrower

No doubt the outspoken Trump began winning enthusiastic support from the moment of his jumping into the race last year because he voiced voters’ widespread disgust with the ever-worse betrayals worked by the professional political class. But aside from his words, is Trump really much different from the New York donor class he seems to resemble in other ways?
On February 7, the “Opportunity Lives” blog site noted that at the New Hampshire debate, when asked if he’s a conservative, Trump didn’t sound like someone who lived and breathed the ideals.
“Trump’s answer wasn’t wrong or an obvious fumble,” the blog commented. “It was simply uninspiring and not worthy of his front-runner status. He gave a very Merriam-Websterish answer to a question that will determine whether he can consolidate the Republican Party around his candidacy.”
The blog contrasted this with the full-throated hymn of conservatism that Sen. Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) provided when asked on a separate program by interviewer Chuck Todd.
A New Hampshire woman who’d just voted for Trump told conservative radio talk host Laura Ingraham on February 10, “He is just what we’ve been waiting for. He’s a flamethrower.” She went on to enumerate his winning qualities.
A little earlier, on February 1, the National Journal’s liberal Ron Fournier, writing “Angry Voters Aren’t Going Away,” warned that worse than Trump winning would be an establishment candidate winning who tries to keep the old ways, thereby causing even more anger.
But what if it turns out that Trump is an establishment candidate himself, carefully disguised to try to keep the game going even after voters declared they won’t tolerate any more of it?
Now that should cause an explosion that leaves A-bombs in the dust.