Weekend question: How do photos of aborted babies and a graphic environmental video compare?
The environmental 10:10:10 campaign is using October 10, 2010, as a day to launch an initiative asking the world to cut down on carbon usage by 10% a year to avert perceived man made global warming.
To that end organizers yesterday released a “highly explosive short film,” laughed The Guardian, which has so hugely backfired they (unsuccessfully) scrambled to remove it from the Internet that same day along with issuing an apology. (See video on page 2.)
The short was the blown-up brain child of “Britain’s top comedy screenwriter Richard Curtis” (pictured right), according to The Guardian, who wrote the Bridget Jones movies, the Mr. Bean movies, Notting Hill, and Four Weddings and a Funeral, to name just some.
Americans will briefly recognize The X Files‘ Gillian Anderson at the end, before she is detonated for daring to say she’s done quite enough to promote 10:10.
And that is the strange message of this video, entitled “10:10 – No pressure”: Go green with everything you’ve got or we’ll kill you – and your kids. Here ’tis. WARNING: Graphically violent.
Environmentalists are so far removed from reality they think a video showing children being blown up for opposing their propaganda is funny. BTW, smug, self-important actress Ellen Page is also a 10:10 supporter.
Moderator Chris, when alerting me of this video wrote:
The greens look like they’ve gone insane – but the big thing is it only reveals what they’ve actually been promoting via their eugenic madness. They’re okay with depicting people being blown up – but object to the reality of abortion with true pictures?
So what is the difference between the graphic displays in this video and pro-lifers showing graphic photos/video of aborted babies? Are there any similarities to be drawn from public reaction?
[HT: moderator Chris]
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.
On another site I compared this to the “superhero for choice” cartoon. Very creepy.
Funnily enough, I didn’t like any of the movies Richard Curtis wrote…
Who in their right mind would ever think such a video is remotely appropriate? Eco-terrorism, indeed. They would’ve done better to show actual photos of real environmental consequences (e.g., photos of the oil spill).
This stunt is a classic demo of eco fascism. We need to name the movement after this. The 10:10 movement. They have pulled down the video and then paid strong complelements to all that helped in production.
So what is the difference between the graphic displays in this video and pro-lifers showing graphic photos/video of aborted babies?
We’re showing something graphic that has already happened, not making up some future killing in a disgusting failed attempt at humor. Environmentalists do things “our way” when they show images of oil-coated pelicans, for example. That’s totally legitimate. But this… I mean, wow, how could anyone possibly think this was a good idea?
Don’t think for a minute this isn’t a thinly veiled attempt to threaten folks into implementing their agenda. They’re sick and evil.
It shows they are so disconnected from reality, they can’t tell what’s humorous and what’s incredibly offensive.
What I find disturbing is a quote from the child actor in the Guardian :
Of course he means that as an actor – but if he’s truly sincere about what he believes, then how is that attitude any different than what a suicide bombing terrorist thinks?
Here’s a serious question to consider – if these people cannot discern the impact a movie might have with regard to reality – then why should their judgement about the environment be taken seriously?
Suppose they had suggested that to cut carbon emissions, people should commit suicide. Then instead of their blowing up people who refuse to follow their will – those who really did choose not to “make the sacrifice for the planet”, they would be showing real meaningful action on their part. And the non-sacrificial would be the only ones standing at the end.
Oh – that might not be as funny?
They’re nuts.
There is NO difference…..in the humanists solution to their imagined problem of overpopulation.
Kill the children, sooner rather than later, but either way kill them before they mulitiply.
Few, if any of the humanists who promote this barbarism are willing to practice the gospel they preach and eliminate themselves, but they are quick to sacrifice even their own children.
Their next target of choice is the elderly and the chronically ill, except for themselves. They will cannibalize the healthy to prolong their lives because in their estimation they are essential.
Photos of real murdered preborn children are not for shock value, they simply are what they are.
Anyone can see that this is a torn up little person. And there’s no denying responsibility for that fact.
You have to be seriously twisted to advocate their line of logic,
that your life is theirs to take if you don’t fit in to the plan.
Sounds familiar,doesn’t it…….
Remember, it was just a (sick, twisted, threatening) “joke”.
Ready, Fire, Aim.
Kind of reminds me of the subtle pressure exerted by companies on their employees when they are conducting the annual United Way fund raising campaign.
I have to confess I laughed when the teacher said, “Now everbody please remember to read chapters five and six on volcanos and glaciation…except Phillip and Tracy of course.”
My new rhetorical comment to liberal humanists when I challenge them to first practice on themselves what they preach to others: ‘No pressure, your choice.’
Another point.
Volcanos probably contributed to or even caused the ice age which produced the glaciers. As I recall from my science classes the temperature has to ‘decrease’ to produce ice. So how does decreasing ’man made’ carbon emissions prevent global warming?
Volcanos and other natural geologic forces still account for much more carbon emissions than all of man’s activities on the planet and even with the two combined we have not entered another ice age.
“So what is the difference between the graphic displays in this video and pro-lifers showing graphic photos/video of aborted babies?”
The people behind the environmental video won’t lie and pretend that the images they’re depicting are actually real people being literally blown up.
Don’t feed the troll, folks…
Paladin – one doesn’t have to – she’s drunk on both the kool-aid and the video.
:) There is that.
There’s a huge difference between photographing the effect of something that happened and engaging in fantasies about blowing up people who disagree with you.
Wow. I suspect that the whole stunt was deliberate–including pulling the video and “apologizing.” They probably thought they would generate more buzz among the public this way than if they simply put up a less offensive video that remained up. And for them, the ends justify the means.
Of course, the difference as others said is they are using fake images and graphic abortion photos are real.
One thing I think this reveals is that the radical environmental movement does not truly see human life as special in comparison to the rest of the world. We are just one more “thing” on a planet of many things. They can entertain the idea that it’s better to kill someone for not being “green” than let them live because they see human life as a sort of parasitic competition with the rest of the living world. Except, only humans can be morally guilty of not caring about the rest of the planet. So, in a sense, from their point of view, we are actually the worst of the living world. Only we (on their view) can intentionally disregard having appropriate concern for how our actions affect the planet, so, it is up to us to cull ourselves, for only we can do that as well (selecting out for extermination those among us who do not appropriately care about “green” causes).
Their expressed lack of concern for the value of human life means I can never support them, even though I care about the environment too. It seems every cause, even the best ones, have a branch of their movement that supports violence. Even if I like the cause, I can’t support these people who want violence.
I like to live green when I can, and I recycle and all that. But these people suck.
The comment above was written before I actually viewed the thing. I was surprised they showed the blowing up of kids in the classroom. Geepers, is nothing sacred anymore? After that, I moved the page down and only listened to it. I could still tell from the sound that people were being blown up for refusing to join in this 10-10 thing. “No pressure.” Yeah right! These people really suck, big time. I hope the whole thing blows up in their faces (pun intended) and they end up being the most unpopular group on the planet. How could they be so clueless about what is and is not appropriate?
What’s the name of this group again? Everybody, let’s boycott them for their lack of concern for human life.
I am feeling very, very angry right now.
Hi there Scott!
On 10/10 I will keep my car running all day, turn on all the lights, turn on the air conditioner, turn on the heat, open my windows, and dump all of my used oil in the local stream down the street.
There seems to be a serious lack of understanding in here about British humor. This is a very “Monty Python” kind of add and it is intended to be funny. VW did an ad like this not too long ago as well as others. No matter what type of knock knock joke you make there will be some people who you offend.
The intent of this ad is to be funny, nothing more. Those staged and false signs you guys hold up are not funny nor are they intended to be. The only purpose those signs serve is to give little children nightmares. That why they were held up by “Pro-Lifers” at the opening of Shrek 3 in front of a huge line of children. The group holding those signs were quoted as saying “if children saw them and asked their parents about them then they did there job”… I guess its gods work to scare children… Shameful! Us adults already know what an abortion is and do not need your grotesque representation in order to shock us. There has been much talk by other “Pro-Life” groups of dropping those signs all together because it only hurts your argument to offend everyone. It’s hard to “Sidewalk Counsel” someone while they are trying to shade their children’s eyes from your signs so they are not up screaming all night. Holding up a giant close up picture of a woman giving birth would give children nightmares too, but Pro-Choice people don’t do that, and that would be a strong argument for birth control for young girls…
The signs are gross and staged for effect. This ad is just British humor and if you cannot see that you need to watch more British T.V. and not BBC America because it’s watered down for the USA. Watch BBC 2 or 4 or even just catch a few episodes of Top Gear. It’s hard to understand the British sense of humor without considering the effect of the blitzkrieg and the clean up after the war was over. It was in the late 70’s that this type of humor really took off in Britain as the older generation who fought in WWII gave way to the next generation who were sent off to the countryside during the war and came home afterward to find their homes and people they knew destroyed.
I tried to keep in mind while watching this video that it was a British video, and British humor is a little different from American humor. That being said, I got that it was supposed to funny, but turned out to be a, well, fail. The message- take care of our Mother- is important and you can have fun with it, but this was just…unintentionally cringeworthy. Global warming is a crisis with a solution- we can laugh and be merry while improving the situation…but first we have to take the problem seriously. This didn’t help.
But I will fight to reduce my carbon emission! At least it informed me of this movement… :)
But please make another video.
Bigzz, although I’m Australian, I grew up watching British humour like The Goodies, Monty Python, Kenny Everett, Yes Minister, Spike Milligan, etc. to a far greater extent than probably most Americans. I found the video totally evil, not just because of the type of humour, but the underlying message about free speech. And so do many others around the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsritzu1og
This is a FAIL on so many levels. Never mind that the connection between increased carbon dioxide and increased temperature has never been explained, nor is anybody pointing out that slightly warmer temperatures (if things were getting warmer) are actually GOOD for life. Life does not thrive in Antarctica or Siberia, but strangely it does in the tropics.
The environmentalists put the MENTAL back into that word – they clearly hate the human race and are stuck in an echo chamber where dissent is ‘tolerated’ – “no pressure” – by a big red button. Sick.
The intent of this ad is to be funny, nothing more.
Hilarious.
Biggz. If you go here
http://www.abortionno.org/index.php/abortion_pictures/
you can read the verification signed by an abortionist and the abortion photographer that the pictures are at the correct gestational age and are not tampered with from the original slides. The organisation refuses to give the photographs away for use unless people sign saying that they will not alter the pictures in any way.
Biggz October 2nd, 2010 at 6:09 pm
There seems to be a serious lack of understanding in here about British humor. This is a very “Monty Python” kind of add and it is intended to be funny. VW did an ad like this not too long ago as well as others. No matter what type of knock knock joke you make there will be some people who you offend.
==============================================================
Biggotz,
In the VW ad the Jew hating terrorist inadvertently blew himself up instead of his intended victims, some of whom would have been children.
I understand British humor. I appreciate good humor even when it is my ox that is being gored. I even laughed when the teacher said, “except Phillip and Tracey, of course.”
What you and the 10:10 folks have in common is, as progressive humanists, you see killing people, particulary children, as a acceptable, even desirable, solution to perceived problems.
If someone disagrees with you then you presume they are too stupid to understand your blathering. We understand perfectly well what you are about, we just do not agree with your opionions or your preferrd course of action.
You are woefully and willfully ignorant if you believe the graphic photos of dead and dismemember prenatal children are photo shopped fakes.
There is no humor intended when they are on display.
But folks like you protest just as vociferously when you see photos and videos of intact prenatal children.
When you go to a friends or relatives house, or your coworkers cubicle and happen to see a ultrasound photo of their prenatal child or grandchild do you chastise them.
If the abortion photos are not real and there is nothing horrifying about the “procedure” at all, why are so many abortionists quitting their profitable jobs?
“In fact, with the exception of communism, we can think of few other movements from which so many activists have defected to the opposition.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/mugged-ultrasound
Remarkable.
Biggotz,
Not quite a thousand words here but I believe even you will get the picture.
Under oath in July 1997, abortionist Leroy Carhart comments on how he performs late term abortions. Here he is questioned by his attorney:
Question: Are there times when you don’t remove the [human] fetus intact?
Carhart: Yes, sir.
Question: Can you tell me about that, when that occurs?
Carhart: That occurs when the tissue fragments, or frequently when you rupture the membranes, an arm will spontaneously prolapse through the oz. I think most…statistically the most common presentation, we talk about the forehead or the skull being first. We talked about the feet being first, but I think in probably the great majority of terminations, it’s what they world call a transverse lie, so really you’re looking at a side profile of a curved [human] fetus. When the patient…the uterus is already starting to contract and they are starting to miscarry, when you rupture the waters, usually something prolapses through the uterine, through the cervical os, not always, but very often an extremity will.
Question: What do you do then?
Carhart: My normal course would be to dismember that extremity and then go back and try to take the [human] fetus out either foot or skull first, whatever end I can get to first.
Question: How do you go about dismembering that extremity?
Carhart: Just traction and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get a hold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the [human] fetus, pulling down on it through the os, using the internal os as your counter-traction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be. Sometimes you will get one leg and you can’t get the other leg out.
Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the [human] fetus still alive?
Carhart: Yes
Question: Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the [human] fetus?
Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.
Question: And then what happens next after you remove the arm? You then try to remove the rest of the [human] fetus?
Carhart: Then I would go back and attempt to either bring the feet down or bring the skull down, or even sometimes you bring the other arm down and remove that also and then get the feet down.
Question: At what point is the [human] fetus…does the [human] fetus die during that process?
Carhart: I don’t really know. I know that the [human] fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.
I found the video very disturbing. People are getting killed IRL by suicide bombers, and they thought this would be funny? These people are sick.
Taking the ads at face value for a moment, I wonder how 10% carbon emissions reduction will occur with the child taking a vacation by train, or the couple of guys cycling to their weekly sports practice. Just asking.
No difference. The motive of both is to shock people and change their behavior through that shock.
Thanks Europeanprolifer for your link to the excellent article.
Reminds me of my ditty
Prochoice means choosing:
Cervical Dilation
Curette Mutilation
Vacuum Cannulation
Suction Evacuation
Fetal Parts Observation
Garbage Incineration
Women deserve better than abortion (choosing to kill their unborn babies)
God save this nation and the world.
Heard a missionary to India say 1 million unborn female babies are aborted in India every year and if that is not horrible enough 1 million babies girls are suffocated at birth. Talk about devaluing human life, unleashing a culture of death and the spirit of destruction. Wow! So much for “sexual freedom” and “reproductive choice”. Reminds me that BHO voted in the Il Senate not once, not twice but three times against BAIPA to guarantee that every woman that wants a dead baby would get one. If you cannot kill them inside of the womb, then kill them outside of the womb. It is not that big of a stretch. Sick! Straight from the pit of hell.
Ex-GOP are you trying to justify the level of violence in the video or are you shocked by it?
In my opinion, there’s a significant difference between the two sides’ efforts. Pro-lifers are attempting to “out” the violence done to women and babies. These ecologists appear to be saying (with a smile yet) “do what I say or we’ll kill you”. Yes, both are using shock, but one (Pro-life) is already real, the other (eco/green) is threatening, looming. There’s a big difference between pointing out someone is doing violence and glibly stating change your ways or we kill you. The fact that it was pulled the first day indicates realworld reaction wasn’t fully comprehended by these activists or their ad agency.
Prolifer – I actually thought the “violence” was a little silly. To call it “graphic” was slightly laughable if you ask me. It wasn’t well done – it wasn’t graphic – just looked like a tomato truck rolled over!
What I was trying to do was answer the question: “So what is the difference between the graphic displays in this video and pro-lifers showing graphic photos/video of aborted babies? Are there any similarities to be drawn from public reaction?”
In both cases, the parties showing the images are trying to shock their audience into a belief – so that is why I said they are pretty much the exact same thing.
The ‘truth’ may be shocking.
But just because the truth is shocking, does not mean the motivation for presenting it is ‘shock value’.
The ‘truth’ will set you free, but it will probably anger you first if you have labored under or embraced an illusion, deception or lie.
‘None is so quick to anger as a fool confronted with her/his folly.’
Personally I prefer the photos, sonograms, and videos of live and intact prenatal children over the images of the human embryos/fetuses who have been ‘choiced’.
But both are equally the truth.
I agree with some of your comments, Ex-GOP voter, but by all means the purpose of the add was silliness and the purpose of photos of abortion are education. Ideally. I doubt that they’re staged- we know that that’s what fetuses look like after all- you can tell that from a sonogram.
I didn’t find this advertisement too graphic, just an attempt at humor that fell flat. Well, thinking about it, I can sort of see the humor in it. Perhaps my problem is that it was done too much: I wasn’t surprised the first time someone was “whacked” and in each scenario after, it became repetitive. I still like the message: cut back on carbon emissions. I’ve made my plan. I already use energy efficient light bulbs, cloth bags, use cold water when washing clothes, and recycle plastic bottles (well, I plan on getting them to the recycling bin sometime soon…). And I next plan on purchasing recycled paper, recycling paper, and decided that 10/10 is my cut-off date from all junk food, processed food, and will be my mother’s cut-off date for coffee grown where rainforests are killed. Coffee that is grown responsibly is called “shade grown” because no trees are cut down.
Here’s a list of “shade-grown” coffee brands
So I would say that my criticisms the first time around were too harsh, and that I only am harsh because my criticisms aren’t political so much as artistic (I’m particular about quality). Anyway: LONG LIVE THE EARTH MOTHER. :D
Where I live Vannah, coffee plantations took over from tobacco plantations. The land had already been cleared. It had never been full rainforest, just fringe growth areas – not that that’s an excuse.
We are lucky to be able to buy direct from the farm shops (kind of like the wine industry has small cellars established by some growers) so it’s boutique and the range is extraordinary.
We’ve been following the same energy regime as you for several years now, it’s not at all hard. Louvred windows and multiple french doors and ceiling fans rather than air-conditioning. We even have a water misting system set up along the side which catches the breeze.
Long live Mother Earth!
Actually,
It should be,
All praise to God the Creator
who made the ‘mother’ earth, and the sun, and the moon, and the planets, and the 10 trillion billion stars, and life with all its complexity…
…seems a bit daft to stop at the earth, even leaving aside the fact that it can’t create, only sustain.
Are you seeking a response Mark? Or did you just say that in all innocence? :-)
Mark Rabich,
I agree.
~ ~ ~
cranium,
Can one believe in “her” and God the Creator simultaneously?
Possibly Janet. I think that ‘mother earth’ is a fairly ethereal term used to describe the whole concept of the natural environment and it’s interplays. That’s good enough for some, myself included. It’s all about balance in the universe. The earth can and does ‘create’.
Others seem to need more, hence the psychological embodiment of an entity or deity who stands above/apart from the natural environment. This concept puts the deity/s in control of all creation.
I do not believe in that concept.
Ex-GOP Voter
No difference. The motive of both is to shock people and change their behavior through that shock.
I agree 100%
Don’t think for one second that I am one of those “Green People”. Yes Global Warming does exist and can be proved scientifically, it’s the cause I have a problem with. That however is another argument.
Like I said it was British humor “and not a terribly good bit” and yes a bit of a fail. However this was intended from the start to be funny and there are no such intensions in relation to those signs.
AS far as the signs go, like I have said many times before, quarters are not a medical instrument, they were placed in the picture on purpose to make a point. THAT IS A STAGED PICTURE!
Biggz – A quarter was used as a gauge to measure the size of the baby. That is no more staged than using anything else to gauge the size of an object for a photograph. I’ll bet even you have done that.
As for that video, it was wreckless. I don’t see how even a Brit could find humor in what looks to me like what happens when a suicide bomber blows up.
Oh, you mean the quarters? They are, I can infer, to help determine size of the fetus and also, yes, to add more emotion (like it was necessary…). The quarters are supposed to represent this country, which is supposed to represent freedom and equality and soical justice. It’s in a way to make a statement. But hopefully it gets people thinking- thinking about women, children, poverty, misogyny, and so on and so forth. When I see those pictures, I want to go out an plant a tree actually- to see life growing and remind myself that things will be okay.
Oh sure they are only there to show size…. They are not there to make a point about abortion and money…. sure cuz it’s not like they could have used ANYTHING else to measure by… a dead fetus draped over American money but there not political point to that picture lol RIGHT! Like I said Staged Pictures for political effect.
“Staged Pictures for political effect.”
Right, even if that was 100% true, pro-lifers need to be embarrassed about wanting to change the political climate to be completely pro-life or something…
Vannah: I suppose the quarters could have been used to invoke emotion, but for me, it’s all about the babies size. The fact that something so tiny could be so completely formed, although still developing.
Biggs & Mark: It doesn’t matter if the statement is political or not. And yes, our goal is to change the political climate. It’s working too! Embarrassed Mark? I’m not :)
Not the least bit funny or cute.