Just saw anti-abortion ad on CNN (equates abortion to missing children)

I just saw this new anti-abortion spot on CNN.

It starts out,

"If you were born after 1973, about 1/3 of your relatives and friends are missing." Graphic is of children getting off of school bus, and kids just start fading out.

Then they saw that 1/3 of all children born since 1973 are missing because they have been murdered by abortion.

The ad is from virtuemedia.org I can't bring myself to go there and see if you can eat up their bandwidth by viewing the ad on-line.

It just strikes me that if the left produced some equally inflammatory commercials, such as showing graphic pictures of Iraqi civilian war dead, or of U.S. children with asthma or cancer from Bush's environmental deregulation, the networks would say they are 'too controversial' to air. But this ad is fine.

(IMHO the best way to make the environment the top level issue it should be is to talk about and show 'cancer clusters' of children and tie it to environmental pollution. Most people are vaguely aware of the link, but it has not been driven home in the context of the political dialog of the environment. Get people to stop thinking of environmental issues as 'pristine wilderness and wetlands' and start thinking of them as their kitchen sink tap and the air in their back yard.)

inclusion at UCC was deemed inappropriate for the airwaves by a couple of networks.

and the hypocrisy.

People wonder why the right is doing so well. It's because they are not afraid to be ruthless and hit hard below the belt.

I know some of the networks, like CBS, did refuse to show it.

In fact, they showed it repeatedly as part of news segments. I'm just pointing out a larger trend across networks rather than pointing out the hypocrisy of a single one. I'm fascinated that the UCC ad generated controversy while this one apparently has not. Or at least not yet.

a ban on gay marriage and the ad showed a gay couple when explaining why they refused to air it.

:wtf:

So what does that have to do with why a network wouldn't show an ad? That was one of the most bizarre parts of that entire controversy.

They turned down an ad from The Human Rights Campaign because it was "too controversial."

And now they air THIS??

On edit:
Excuse me, it was a Log Cabin Republican ad:

CNN Refuses Log Cabin Ad

Citing image of Fred Phelps with hate sign, cable news channel declines to run spot

By DUNCAN OSBORNE

The Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) are crying foul after CNN, the 24-hour news channel, refused to run an ad produced by the gay Republican group. CNN said that an image in the ad of Fred Phelps, the Kansas preacher, holding two signs reading “God Hates Fags” was inappropriate.

“What they said was that the final frame, the frame that shows Fred Phelps, was quote too controversial,” said Christopher Barron, LCR’s political director. “Our position is that is like saying we are happy to air the Super Bowl we just won’t air the fourth quarter.”

http://gaycitynews.com/gcn_337/cnnrefuseslogcabin.html

Also, taxpayers cleaning up corporate environmental messes and paying for health related illnesses is not exactly free market capitalism. Bobby Kennedy takes that approach as well. "socialized corporate costs" can go in alot of directions and is the way we need to go. Although we also need to continue to drive home the point that we are part of the eco-system and if the environment dies, we die.

That CNN commercial, you're right on that too.

The right-wing certainly doesn't want to provide any welfare for them.

And if anyone ever challenges you on that, this retired social worker will back you up.

is a very good one. Everyone despises the cancer monster - even the Repubs.

What about an ad that shows some "sportsmen" out hunting or fishing but as they walk around the game and fish are fading into nothing, with the woods becoming quiet (no birds, no rabbits, no food web) -- then show in brash colors the big industry polluters dumping upstream or plumes from smokestacks.

Everyone is vaguely aware that polluting hurts us all - some just have trouble connecting the dots.

and into the urban and suburban areas where most people live and work and spend most of their time.

It's true that wildlife are disappearing, but that is still a remote consideration...anything that ties environmental concerns to conservation issues (forests, wetlands, endangered species) is going to seem remote and less important than if those issues were shown to be immediate and a real danger right here right now - not out in some forest.

I think environmental activists should take a moderate anti-conservation stance, to strongly dissociate environmental issues from conservation issues. Something along the lines of, "screw the pristine wilderness, let the endangered species die, but for chirssake don't poison my family's air and water!"

As long as people think it's about having nice campgrounds, they will not really think it's worth making a major issue and will not push for stronger regulations.

You understand the environmental issues better than I.

I think what I was getting at was some kind of appeal to show the "Sportsmen for Bush" and "Anglers for Bush" that the conservation effort affects them, too. Someone must think that that group is a powerful voting bloc, or there wouldn't be all those "sportsmen" bumper stickers out there. Plus I was absolutely astonished the other day to learn that there's a new channel on cable OLN (outdoor living something) that does nothing but show hunting and fishing 24/7.

...cause more harm than good because they allow people to think of the environment in remote terms.

There is a voting bloc of sportsman and hunters, but (IMHO) they tend to disregard the environmental issues in favor of being allowed to drive their ATVs thru wilderness areas.

If those folks are going to be reached, they need to be shown that their children could be harmed by eating the game they shoot because those game have eaten poisons and are carrying them in their bodies.

But really, I think the NRA/pro-gun bloc is more pro-gun than pro-sportsman/hunting. They are mostly into their guns as self-defense against criminals or some future oppressive government. Hunting is secondary or not a concern to most of these gun-voters (hence the total failure of Kerry's goose hunting photo op to swing any gun voters).

1973? The ones who died from complications due to illegal abortions.

to a near future of people starving and out of work due to over-population.

Ever notice how many anti-choice people are anti-sex education, which if done properly, would help reduce unwanted pregnancies... Just as they are anti-welfare and other social systems for unwanted children. They are not pro-life, they are pro-birth. I suppose it makes for more fodder for the wars and drafts if those unwanted kids are born...

In fact, I can barely tolerate watching any t.v. news!

Sorry, but this just doesn't surprise me ... :shrug:

Hmm.

One lesson we should have learned from this election (regardless of fraud or other issues) is that a large chunk of the population votes based on their hearts rather than their minds. This is where we have to fight the battle. Perhaps over time we can persuade some to think about issues logically but in the meantime we must win elections and that means appealing to emotion.

I remember reading a very clever piece about a Republican needing to be reminded of all the good things the labor and progressive movements had brought into his or her life--all the benefits we take for granted (40 hour work week, health insurance, OSHA, etc.). That piece could be made into a compelling commercial (kind of following him or her through his or her day with historical footage) and backed up with billboard advertising.

Can you imagine how much all those kids would cost the federal budget and they don’t want to pay taxes and care for the ones that are here now.

Those kids that would have been born in '73 to '86 would all be draft age. That's enough troops to bring 'democracy' to a few more oil-rich countries.

This is crap, and not because of the hypocrisy of it, but it is an INSULT to all those people out there that are missing children! How dare they compare those people's loss to abortion?! How fucking warped! This is just another attack by the militant Christian Taliban!

I hadn't thought of this, but yes that's another reason the ad is so twisted and wrong and propagandistic and INFURIATING.

Once again, the RW gets air-time, creating a false reality; potential beings stopped at the level of being a simple mass of cells are more important that the women who wish to have some control over their lives and should not be forced to suffer and bear unwanted children. The consant spurious link that the abortion-criminalizers try to highlight, equating abortion with irresponsible sex-crazed girls is such a destructive LIE.

:nuke: arrrggg!! I'm not sure if I'm even talking clearly, I'm so angry. :mad:

I'm so glad I don't watch TV.

Why aren't people writing letters to CNN? That's what I usually see people here do when some kind of egregious RW social-control issue gets special favor.

This is unbelievable.
Next, they'll be airing ads demonizing women who choose to use birth control or who choose to have a career rather than stay home and breed.

And how about some truth about overpopulation. If we don't choose to limit family size, outside factors will do it for us (war, disease, crime, natural disasters, resource depletion, pollution)...Oh I forgot, outside factors already ARE doing it for us.

I agree with another poster who said most people don't think with their head, they go with emotion. Well, there are plenty of issues that liberals stand for that are very emotion-laden, but because RW owns all the media, "our" issues get buried. ("Our" issues really are EVERYONE's issues, because they're not just social conservative propaganda or nostalgia for a mythical Leave It To Beaver world--no, "Our" issues are more immediate; life or death, justice, legal, job, environmental protections, rights over our bodies,........)

Even longer lines at the movies, bank, grocery store, etc...

Sometimes one can only counter the ridiculous with the absurd