I'll say this very slowly...

Doritos had an ad during the Super Bowl that has the pro-aborts in a snit.

It humorously portrayed an unborn child as having a personality.

I don't think anybody really thinks that fetuses crave Doritos. That is not the problem. Nor was the ad in any sense political. Doritos was simply hawking their produced by means of a cute and clever ad. They were not trying to make any sort of an argument about abortion or anything else.

So what is the issue? Why are pro-abortion folks in such high dudgeon over this ad? Well, it seems that, in the bizarre world of the Left, the ad is an affront because it "humanizes the fetus."

Here is the ad:



Ok. I'll say this very slowly.

When a man and a woman cooperate in order to reproduce, very quickly cell-division and the expression of genetic potential begins. This is a process which does not stop until death. The process has a name. It's called "life."

Yes, folks. While some arbitrarily decide that life doesn't really begin until Little Blobby is implanted in the wall of the uterus, by any generally accepted description of life in any other context it begins at conception. If you want to make special rules for this one situation in order to help your argument and   insist that it has to be implanted in the wall of the uterus to be "alive," the point is not worth a lengthy argument for most purposes, because that happens so quickly.

But here's the thing. Call it a "fetus" if you want. Go ahead. I won't insist on "baby;"fetus" is, after all,   the correct medical term, at least after implantation. And if you want to argue that "baby" is emotionally loaded, fine, I won't insist on it.

But that fetus- that living fetus- is not a kangaroo fetus. It is not a wombat fetus. It is not a meerkat fetus. it is a human fetus. Human. Get it? Once cannot "humanize the fetus," because on any showing the fetus is, in fact, by its very definition already human. That's a given. A human fetus cannot be anything other than human. And as we've already seen, it's a human who is alive. Thus, by definition, abortion is the taking of a human life.

The pro-aborts can't deal with that because it destroys their entire argument. It prohibits euphemisms like "termination of pregnancy" and "product of conception." It even defeats the rhetorical purpose of being technically correct and refusing to use the word "baby" to describe a fetus or a blastocyst. This is, without any possible question, a being. It exists.

It is a living being, certainly after implantation by any definition of "life." And it is, without any possibility of rational contradiction, human. Put those words together, and you have "living human being." And that's the thing the pro-aborts want so desperately not to acknowledge, The issue under debate is whether or not the lives of all living human beings are sacred, and ought to be protected by the law, or whether there are exceptions- living human beings who have no inherent right to live.

The entire Leftist body of argument is nothing more or less than a desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging the actual question under debate. That is why they are reduced to complaining that the Doritos ad "humanizes" what is by any definition already human. If they concede that they are conceding that they are really arguing that some living human beings are disposable and  can and even should be killed at the convenience of others who differ from them only in that the degree of the process of genetic expression is further along.

That is the question at issue in the abortion debate, which would end rather quickly if the pro-aborts were honest about what they are saying.

The issue is not whether the fetus is human. It is. That is a matter of unchallengeable scientific fact. The issue is not whether the fetus is alive. That, too, is a matter of unchallengeable scientific fact. And by any definition applied to any other organism, it's true even before implantation. The question is not whether the fetus is a living human being. That is beyond honest and rational challenge. Certainly it cannot be a question of whether the fetus- or blastocyst, or whatever- exists.

The question is whether there is "life unworthy of life;" whether some human lives are worth more than others. And once that particular line- the line which the pro-aborts admit that they've crossed only at the price of losing the debate among decent people- there is no going back.

Once it is admitted that there are any human lives that are not sacred, the only question is what other human lives shouldn't be regarded as sacred, either. It is no longer axiomatic that decent human beings cherish all human life. Perhaps the elderly are next. Or the mentally challenged. Or you. It all becomes subjective- and whether it is permissible for the matter of which human lives we value and which we do not should be allowed to be subjective is what the abortion debate is all about.

What the pro-aborts are upset about is that the Doritos ad- even without meaning to-   confronts us with that fact.