The hanging girl environmental ad
Over the weekend I posted a despicable video by environmentalists showing school children among others being blown up for refusing to go along with the greenie global warming agenda.
Now an ad by ACT-Responsible.org featured at Cannes in 2009 has been spotted at Treehugger.com, leading it off in a slideshow of “the coolest environmental advertising”…
Here’s the pdf, in case you want to see an enlarged view of a hanging girl. Treehugger writes:
According to Creative Director Fred Claviere, it was a hard choice to use an image this provocative. But in his own words: “We have to make people react…it was simply too urgent to not use it.”
I get that environmentalists feel so strongly about (pseudo) human-caused catastrophic global warming they think they must ratchet up their warnings.
But the thing is they don’t like children to begin with. They think children are the problem. They push for people not to have children. They push to kill preborn children.
There is no difference between suctioning and dismembering preborn children and detonating and hanging postborn children. They can’t support the former and claim to oppose the latter.
They’re disingenuous, to say the least. They use both born and preborn children as pawns for their agenda.
[HT: Erick Erickson at RedState.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This is in poor taste, to say the least.
But not all environmentalists are pro-abortion, even though it seems that way sometimes. While I wouldn’t describe myself as a “greenie,” i do care about the earth and its residents (human and non-human) I recycle and try to do what I can to be responsible with the earth’s resources.
I had a friend (the same one who had coffee thrown in her face at an abortion mill) who was very pro-environment and once went with her husband to a green rally. She had on a prolife button and was asked by one hostile person: “what are you doing here?”
Phillymiss – that’s probably because so many environmentalists seem to believe the only way to save the planet is to kill the humans. Or at least the “excess” and “unnecessary” ones…
“There is no difference between suctioning and dismembering preborn children and detonating and hanging postborn children. They can’t support the former and claim to oppose the latter.”
Really? No difference? One is legal and one is illegal, that’s once difference. Millions of Americans support the right to do one, and no one really supports the right to do the other. So, perhaps one can support the former and claim to pppose the latter.
Maybe you meant to say “It’s hard to understand how one can support abortion and yet oppose the murder of postborn children.”
Contemptible and sick! Some libs will stop at nothing in attempting to advance an agenda.
i’d think the prolife movement with their use of bloody chopped up fetuses would appreciate the use of disturbing imagery combining children and death to get a message across.
Hi Sophi.
It isn’t so much the image as it is the message. When we show “bloody chopped up fetuses” we are saying “look at this! This is what is going on, and it needs to stop.” In the case at hand, it seems that the environmental people are saying “look at this! This isn’t what is going on, and it needs to start.” Our use of the images is to convey the message “don’t kill people.” Seemingly, their use of the images is to convey the message “kill people.”
Hal – we’re not the ones holding two dichotomous views of justice.
Look – here’s your statement about Jill’s remarks – intended to clarify:
“It’s hard to understand how one can support abortion and yet oppose the murder of postborn children.”
Now let’s take it one step further:
“It’s hard to understand how one can support abortion – the legalized murder of an innocent unborn child – and yet oppose the murder of postborn children.”
For sake of discussion murder is “the intentional killing of an innocent human being”.
A child is a child whether it is born or unborn. The prima facie differences are environment and level of biological development. Should it be legal to murder someone based on those differences?
If not – then why would rephrasing a claim make any difference to the moral argument?
hal @9:48am: “One is legal and one is illegal, that’s once difference. Millions of Americans support the right to do one, and no one really supports the right to do the other.”
So law makes right? Slavery was once legal, and many Americans once supported it. Surely you wouldn’t defend slavery simply because the law allowed it.
Bobby Bambino
October 7th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Seemingly, their use of the images is to convey the message “kill people.”
I actually don’t see that as their message – it’s one of “we are hurting future generations by our actions (or inaction) to control climate change today.”
At best that’s a neutral claim (setting aside the AGW evidence ) but the deeper question is – why be concerned? Is the motivation truly about protecting future generations or about power today?
If it’s not about self-empowerment today, then why discriminate when it comes to future generations through abortion-choice?
“I actually don’t see that as their message – it’s one of we are hurting future generations by our actions (or inaction) to control climate change today. ”
Okay, that’s interesting then… if that is the message, then yeah it is quite graphic, but that would at least make sense and be a cause that (in theory) anyone could support.
So……….children hanging in an ad is good, great, fine with you proaborts?
You like this ad? You think it’s cool?
Evil always overplays its hand.
Hal,
What do you think of the ad?
The ad could have shown any adult male/female of any race, creed or religion and it would still be despicable…
BUT the fact that they “chose” a little girl…shows their true color and “concern/attitude” towards women (both the very young and the very old).
Stop the reproduction of the human race by killing the women first.
I saw this on the ‘net at another site yesterday. Really cannot understand the use of a child, especially a female child fastened in a noose. This is what PETA does and if your organization does it, then you’ll be as reviled as PETA.
I am surprised they haven’t teamed up with PP yet and put out dual ads that say Protect the environment! Have an abortion! I think that isn’t far away. After all, its us dirty people that are ruining the Earth dontcha know!
Woe to those who call Evil, Good and Good, Evil.
bobbie,
the message i get from these ads is “this is what’s going on, and this is where it’ll lead.” in other words, “lets deal with climate change now, ’cause if we don’t our kids won’t survive.”
maybe that’s ’cause i’m aware (regardless of the accuracy of my understanding) that we have limited resources, and that climate change will make those more scarce. so the life and death aspect that’s being hyperbole in those ads seems obvious to me.
i also don’t think about killing children. (or stopping people from doing so.) mostly because that’s not the framing i have for the abortion debate.
“the message i get from these ads is “this is what’s going on, and this is where it’ll lead.” in other words, “lets deal with climate change now, ’cause if we don’t our kids won’t survive.””
Yeah. Chris pointed this out to me, and I suppose that that is plausible. Possibly a misinterpretation of the ad on my part.
Wow.
The jury is still out on this. I’ll have to digest it. Erm, I actually have to agree with those who say, “It’s disturbing but meant to wake you up.” In that sense, it is like the abortion pictures. Wake up. We have to change, period. We cannot afford to live like this anymore.
And please don’t make any comments about global warming being a scam. What is it seriously going to take?
1) photos of aborted fetuses are evidence of actual events
2) photoshopped images of hanging children is propoganda that represents no actual event or imminent event.
Pro-aborts, see the difference? Evidence, Propoganda. Got it? So, since it’s so good that they use free speech to accuse people of hanging children when they turn on their air conditioner, why protest when pro-lifers use actual photographic evidence of real children, murdered for the ‘crime’ of being alive?? (and I’m not even going to get riled up about how green it is to flush abortion drugs into our water tables.)
“Pro-aborts, see the difference? Evidence, Propoganda. Got it?”
Got it! I’ll go talk with James O’Keefe and ask him to explain it further.
First – I am no eco-nut job.
Second – This ad is pretty stupid.
Lastly – They are trying to make the statement that by not doing anything about our environment we are killing our children’s future and the iceberg is a ticking clock. I disagree but to take it to a “left-wing culture of death” conspiracy level is a bit over the top even for you guys.
Maybe Biggz you would like to do a little research into the subject. Many affluent, influential people have certainly been working the agenda that killing off unwanted humans will solve the ecological problems humans face. This agenda has been going on since early in the 20th century based on a lie perpetrated in the 19th century. I’m not going to re-do the research for you, you won’t believe a bunch of quotes anyway. Look for yourself, dig and you will find.
And mp, what would James O’Keefe have to do with the price of beans? I wasn’t referring to him in any way at all.
Ninek – I have heard about this line of thought but it’s WAY outside of the mainstream and has NOTHING to do with Pro-Choice or Women’s Rights groups. There are people out there that think we humans are farm cattle put here for study and consumption by higher alien races…
Global warming is happening, just like it did in the 70’s. It is caused by the sun and its solar cycles. Humans had nothing to do with it. Less than 3% of all the CO2 that this planet releases into the atmosphere is caused by humans. The other 97% comes from forest fires and volcanic activity. It has nothing to do with humans or our population on this planet. Al Gore was a second string politician and is just making money anyway he can after having his job stolen by Bush jr. back in 2000.
I agree that the ad is trying to say that if we don’t stop climate change people will die. On the other hand, environmentalists also say that in order to stop climate change, people must die! So which is it?
Still, no matter how you look at it, it’s a really stupid ad and a very poor way to get their point across.
Carla, I think the ad is disturbing, but of course it’s meant to be. I guess I”m okay with it. Certainly makes a point.
Chris: “A child is a child whether it is born or unborn. The prima facie differences are environment and level of biological development. Should it be legal to murder someone based on those differences?”
That’s the question. I don’t think the answer is as obvious as your question implies. I’m willing to keep an open mind, but so far I’m not convinced.
“mp, what would James O’Keefe have to do with the price of beans? I wasn’t referring to him in any way at all.”
Agreed. James O’Keefe has nothing to do with the price of beans. But, you weren’t talking about the price of beans; you were talking about the difference between “evidence” and “propaganda.”
James O’Keefe is an expert on that subject.
This ad is so sick! Is it really that far from abortion to this ad. Children are expendable if we need to sell an idea or go to college or stay in our jobs. Just imagine your own child in the noose. All political ideologies need to stop using children to push their agendas.
sophi:
“i’d think the prolife movement with their use of bloody chopped up fetuses would appreciate the use of disturbing imagery combining children and death to get a message across”
Thank you, sophi, for bringing this up. As you surely know the pictures of unborn babies brutally dismembered are REAL. The imagery of innocent little girls in nooses is a ploy, an UNREAL situation that posits an unprovable theory of global warming (or is it climate change?) (or is it global climate disruption?) as though it is man made, factual, and proven. If those who made the ad were really so interested in protecting innocent life we invite them to become involved in the pro-life movement.
Pro-lifers are involved in the REAL struggle of protecting the same innocent life that the ad purports to speak to. Unlike the situation portrayed in the ad the problem of brutally dismembering REAL unborn children is something that is happening in the here and now.
Phillymiss October 7th, 2010 at 9:33 am
”But not all environmentalists are pro-abortion, even though it seems that way sometimes.
I had a friend (the same one who had coffee thrown in her face at an abortion mill) who was very pro-environment and once went with her husband to a green rally.
She had on a prolife button and was asked by one hostile person: “what are you doing here?”
============================================================
filly,
Seems like even the eviron-mental folks see pro-lifers as illegitimate interlopers in their midst.
The stereotype is a generalization but it is not false.
You would probably have a difficult time finding enough prolifers at a greenpeace conference for a game of bridge.
I read somewhere that the blood of the innocent pollutes the land and that there only one way to cleanse the land of this pollution.
Fortunately, that was written well before Jesus was conceived.
There are now two ways to cleanse the land.
hal October 7th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Millions of Americans support the right to do one, and no one really supports the right to do the other.
==============================================================
Hal,
Google ‘Peter Singer’
He is not alone in the advocation of infanticide to clean up the gene pool.
Most Americans would not agree with mr. singer, but some do and most of them are progressive liberal humanists.
Forgive me if someone else already pointed this out but this young girl is not yet hanging.
She has hangman’s noose around her neck and she is standing on a block of ice.
[This idea has been plagarized from a recent movie.]
The subtle message is that global warming will accelerate the melting of the ice and by extension all who do not receive and believe the ‘gospel of global warming’ will hasten/be complicit in her death.
‘You carbon guzzzling greenhouse gas emitting murderers.
You are the ones, by your very apathy and indifference, ‘pushing the button’.’
‘
[guilt, Guilt, GUILT!]
“No pressure, your choice.”
[It is called manipulation. The humanists have made god in their own image and declared there is no god and therefore no evil. They only deceive themselves and the ‘deceiver’ , the ‘bent one’, delights in the ease with which they are manipulated.]
Ken, there can be evil without a god.
Biggz wrote: “Al Gore was a second string politician..” I don’t believe it, but this is the second time I’ve agreed with you, lol!
hal said: Ken, there can be evil without a god.
I’d like to see the logic/rationale behind your claim.
Hal,
Let us assume for the sake of folly that there is no ‘god’/’gods’.
But first we have to define ‘god’.
Your turn.
Hal,
I would suggest it is almost ‘evolutionary’ to say there is no ‘dog’, if there is not an agreed upon an definition of what a ‘dog’ is .
You could easily overlook a ‘dog’, especailly a poodle or chihuahua, if there is not some sort of objective standard with which to measure and compare any suspected ‘dogs’.
Ken, I don’t have to define what you mean by the word “god.” The word has no meaning to me, expect as the way you would use the term to consider Zeus.
“progressive liberal humanist”
What exactly does that mean?
Do you drop words in a bag, shake them up, and string them together when you empty the bag?
Seriously. What the [expletive] is a “progressive liberal humanist,” aside from someone who doesn’t see the world precisely as you do?
progressive: wanting the world to become more humane and just.
Liberal, in ther words of John F. Kennedy”someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions…someone who cares about the welfare of the people”
Humanist: A secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making.
Not such a bad thing to be called, really.
Hal,
I am pleased to see that you use a dictionary.
Is it an online version, like wikipedia, that morphs to accomodate popular cuture?
Or
Is it a hard copy with holes rubbed in it from the constant revisions?
John F. Kennedy would be a labeled a conservative by todays ‘progressives’.
John F. Kennedy was proably NOT a humanist.
Who knows, John F. Kennedy might even be a ‘pro-lifer’ if he were alive today, but if he were alive and he were pro-life he would probably identify himself as a Reagan democrat and the progressive democRATS would receive him as warmly as Senator Joe Lieberman.
Progressive
a : one that is progressive
b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action
Judging from the reaction of the americian electorate the ‘political changes’ wrought by b o and his progressive comrades are not viewed as ‘moderate’ or an ‘improvement’.
That is why ‘progressives’ resort to calling them ‘reactionary’ or ‘counter revolutionary’, crimes which are still punishabe by imprisonment or even execution in the remaining humanist bastions of N. Korea, Cuba or China or american college campuses or b o’s inner circle of advisers.
Liberals may or may not care about the welfare of others.
What sets them apart is they believe they have some sort of devine right to use my money to placate their conscience and they want to use the power and force of government to implement their humanistic philosphy in every sphere of our society.
Humanists have their own sacrosanct dogma which is a result of basking in the non-existent rays of their own intellect.
They are every bit as zealous and proselyzing as any quran thumpin jihadist and no less intolerant of of people who disagree with their misunderstanding of their ‘gospel’.
[Warning: Ciff Claven moment. It is a little known fact that the Greek word that is translated gospel was a secular ‘political’ term before it was associtated with the christian religion. When a potentate was embarking on a tour of his kingdom he would send a herald ahead of him to annouce his coming and all the benefits that would accompany him or conversley all the negative consequences in store for those who would dain to oppose him.]
hal October 8th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Ken, I don’t have to define what you mean by the word “god.” The word has no meaning to me, expect as the way you would use the term to consider Zeus.
=============================================================
Hal,
You and I are both well aware you are not required to do anything.
But the word ‘god’ has to have some meaning to you even if you reject the concept, just as good and evil have some meaning in your understanding.
Good and evil are concepts but they are not visible. We can see ‘evidence’ of them but we cannot see them.
I am sure you do NOT believe in ‘sasquatch’, but I bet you could describe what a ‘bigfoot’ would like if he existed. Living in the northwest, the local urban mythologogy would have provided you with that information.
Ken, I could probably do a fairly good job of defining what you mean by the word “God” and what people who believed in Zeus meant when they used the word “God.” Defining the word doesn’t help us establish His existence.
This ad is poorly done, perhaps. The point, however, is as others have pointed out – the damage done by climate change, should it evince, is tantamount to slow suicide. Indeed, should climate change result in large-scale disruptions of rainfall patterns, coastal flooding and more severe hurricanes/etc., we’ll certainly be looking at a huge problem.
Further, I’ve certainly never seen any serious suggestion that people be killed (putting abortion aside) to reduce population and resource usage; rather, the contention that I have seen is that population growth is quite unsustainable, and in time resources like food and water will become problems, leading to famine and war. Those things will reduce populations all by themselves, which is what greens have been warning about all along. The forces of nature and environment can only be manipulated so much, you know.