Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Actress In Diaper Tv Ads Is An Abortion Activist  
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 11
Posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6893 times:



I know it's a very serious and passionate subject, but I'm sorry this story is just too, ironic?

"Florencia Peña, known in Argentina for being a publicity face for the north american brand Huggies diapers, threw her support for an abortion bill in a column she wrote for the newspaperTiempo Argentino, and has been supportive of the campaign for women's right to choose for some time, while also being spokeswoman for the Kimberley-Clark company's diaper brand."

"An internet campaign urging consumers to boycott Huggies has quickly taken grass roots hold, forcing the multinational to scramble a statement distancing themselves from Peña's now public position.''

''In light of recent statements made by Ms. Florencia Peña in relation to the sensitive issue of abortion, Kimberley-Clark Argentina makes clear her views are strictly her own and do not in any way speak for our company or it's brands''.


http://www.mdzol.com/mdz/nota/227989...a-un-trabajo-por-apoyar-el-aborto/


Kinda like supporting cryogenic chambers, while doubling as a casket salesperson? 

[Edited 2010-08-02 15:08:17]


My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2738 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6856 times:

I don't have a problem with it. Hell, she supports FREE CHOICE which also means that many women will CHOOSE to have the baby. And those babies will need Huggies. What's the big deal.

Oh, and when she was faced with "the choice" she chose to have the baby. The headline translates as "Pregnancy makes me feel like a sexy woman".



User currently offlinegreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3084 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6857 times:

Not really just because you support. Womens choice dwoes not mean you do not like or want kids. I cannot and do not see how or why the two are even connected.

Gs



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6845 times:

I don't understand why this is so ironic?

I support a womans right to choose what they want to do with their bodies, however I have 4 kids and neither my wife or I would ever consider abortion. Just because people don't think the government should be able to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies does not mean we are some kind of crazy baby killers! Don't let the propaganda from the right cloud your mind too much!



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1961 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6812 times:

Shakes head at the thought that supporting a woman's right to choose means that you dislike babies.

*SHAKE*


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6772 times:

Why is this an issue? Can't a woman have kids but still want to keep abortion legal? Some women want to have that choice. It is a choice. Not manditory. Non-issue, if you ask me.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6730 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 3):
Don't let the propaganda from the right cloud your mind too much!

Interesting point there. I do wonder how history will judge this when the cloud of right v left lifts, and the stink of religion evaporates from the "issue"...

And yes, it is Ironic, in the most classical sense, especially if she is being compensated both for the advert and the publication of the article in question.


User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6730 times:

Well Kimberley-Clark thinks it might, because every indication is that she will be ''fired'' from the adds. She won't miss the income though.

I personally am against abortion (yet I'm in favor of gay and polygamist marriages, and leisurely about drug laws, figure me out)... I guess it would be wrong to fire her for her views, I would not support that.

That's the ''beauty'' about this case, if they fire her people will cry freedom of expression, if she were to stay the company faces a backlash. For sure it won't be anything they would have to worry about as a company globally, but in the local market they could be hurt.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7189 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6717 times:

Good for her. I'll be buggered if I can see the the problem with that.

User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10027 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6704 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 3):
I don't understand why this is so ironic?

Because it's not.

It boils down to a fact that a person in an advertisement has a view that he/she has expressed outside of that advertisement.

It seems that OTHER people got a hold of that fact, and decided to boycott the advertised product because of it.

Quoting Derico (Reply 7):
Well Kimberley-Clark thinks it might, because every indication is that she will be ''fired'' from the adds. She won't miss the income though.

I would guess that Kimberley-Clark is distancing itself from her due to the boycott, not specifically due to her views. However, I can't read Spanish, so don't know exactly what the article says about it.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6684 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 6):
And yes, it is Ironic, in the most classical sense, especially if she is being compensated both for the advert and the publication of the article in question.

What is ironic about any of it? Why can't a person who supports a womans right to choose what she does with her body advertise a product for children? It is just a pathetic attempt to cause trouble, and a really bad one at that. I don't think many people are stupid enough to believe the trash they are trying to put out.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6676 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 10):
Why can't a person who supports a womans right to choose what she does with her body advertise a product for children?

They can. But I mean it's a rather odd position to place your employer in given that the product is not just only for children but almost exclusively associated with newborns and infants.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39885 posts, RR: 74
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6657 times:

Kimberley-Clark should seriously consider Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.
He is anti-abortion AND he wears diapers.




Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10027 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6641 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Derico (Reply 11):
But I mean it's a rather odd position to place your employer in given that the product is not just only for children but almost exclusively associated with newborns and infants.

Even though she's had a kid???

Like I said in my earlier post, I doubt the employer would have cared one bit had there not been talk of a boycott.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21627 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6637 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 1):
Hell, she supports FREE CHOICE which also means that many women will CHOOSE to have the baby. And those babies will need Huggies. What's the big deal.

Pretty much sums it up.

Just because you support abortion does not mean you support aborting all babies.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6625 times:

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 13):

Even though she's had a kid???

Like I said in my earlier post, I doubt the employer would have cared one bit had there not been talk of a boycott.

Quite likely, I guess. It still is odd that you would sponsor a product that is the symbol of taking responsibility, when in my opinion abortion absolves women of any responsibility for their actions (which is my opposition of it in practical terms). While I oppose it morally and many do, I woudn't be against it based on my moral values. I'm just not in favor of making a certain group of people not live up to their duties, when everyone else (at least in law), has to for their behavior.



[Edited 2010-08-02 21:45:19]


My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineAeroflot001 From Argentina, joined Oct 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6608 times:

Quoting Derico (Thread starter):

I know it's a very serious and passionate subject, but I'm sorry this story is just too, ironic?

Im 99 percent sure but isnt this the actress from la ninera and Casados con hijos with Guillermo Francella. Im in Baires right now so this may come out on the news tommorow.


User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6597 times:

Quoting Derico (Thread starter):
but I'm sorry this story is just too, ironic?

And that's a bit like saying that it's ironic that a spokesperson for a car company is be against drunk driving.

No, it's not ironic, unless you believe that people who support a woman's right to choose also want to kill babies.

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6439 times:

That's why I oppose abortion in practical terms, because of the absolving of responsibility.

The analogy with the car salesman would be more fitting if he sold cars and was in beer or liquor adds. But there is the difference with modern abortion laws: there are no consequences outlined legally. I just find that unfair. The guy selling cars can support softer drinking laws, but if he drinks and something happens, society will still make him own up.

I have the ''right'' to drink as much as I wish. I don't have the right to then get in a machine during it's effects. Nor do I have the right for everyone to pay for my transportation (though they might) every time I get drunk, and if they don't, Idon't gain the right to drive and cause an accident. The law would never justify my lack of ''mobility'' as an excuse to go around my responsibilities as a citizen for my actions. If I cause an accident or worse while intoxicated, I will pay the consequences.

I have the right to have sex promiscuosly and without protection, but if I father children, I better pay for the entire 18+ years of their development. If not and the law catches up to me, I will pay the consequences. I go one step further... I should also be castrated.

If people smoke, and then they cannot enter a bar or to watch a movie, that's a consequence. They can't use any excuse to permit themselves to smoke in the interior of many locales. When they develop all kinds of health problems, that's the consequence they sow. And I'm opposed to society paying for their healthcare. Same if you do other drugs (which I think should be legal).

In my worldview, there should be as much individual freedom as possible, as long as you are an adult and accept that for every behavior you are the owner of it's outcome.

..Yet if a woman is promiscous and uses no protection, and ends up withchild, she is allowed to run away from responsibility? Where are the consequences there?? Not fair. That's my problem. Men, women, and everyone in between should have equal rights and duties for their behaviors and choices. Otherwise ''some are more equal than others''.

I would be for a modern abortion law if it also included a change in civil law in which that men do not have to pay for their children, alimony or divide his side of the assets, if the woman initiates divorce.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6421 times:

Quoting Derico (Reply 11):
They can. But I mean it's a rather odd position to place your employer in given that the product is not just only for children but almost exclusively associated with newborns and infants.

So what if its for newborns and infants? Again I am completely for free choice and I have had 4 newborns, I know this will shock you, I didn't kill any of them. They are healthy, smart, happy kids today and their Mom and I love them very much.
Is it really that hard to believe that someone who doesn't want the government telling woman what they can and cannot do with their body would love his/her kids and not want to kill them!!! GET REAL!

Quoting Derico (Reply 15):
I'm just not in favor of making a certain group of people not live up to their duties, when everyone else (at least in law), has to for their behavior.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!!! What duties are those that you are so worried about? You actually remind me of my little kids, they throw a huge fit if one gets something the other doesn't, even if it isn't of any use to the other kid!

Why are you so worried about someone getting something you can't have? And by the way, just so you know, a man is just as responsible for making a child as a woman. The man is also responsible for supporting that child in every way for the next 18+ years.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10027 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6388 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Derico (Reply 18):
..Yet if a woman is promiscous and uses no protection, and ends up withchild, she is allowed to run away from responsibility? Where are the consequences there?? Not fair. That's my problem.

So you'd rather have someone who is potentially a very unprepared and unfit mother raise a child? Keep in mind, there's really no way to force someone to be a good parent.

Sometimes, it could be the responsible thing to do to admit that you are woefully unprepared to have a child.

Quoting Derico (Reply 18):
Men, women, and everyone in between should have equal rights and duties for their behaviors and choices. Otherwise ''some are more equal than others''.

As soon as men can give birth, then we can make everything surrounding childbirth equal. After all, men are just as responsible as women for having protected sex....But they don't have to carry a baby for 9 months.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6238 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):

Just because you support abortion does not mean you support aborting all babies.

I understand that people say this a lot, but it doesn't really square. If the argument is so in favor of "choice" why then is there never any mention or effort of simply being responsible and avoiding the need for a choice? The only logical conclusion is that this "choice" is the outcome of a society that is too far gone in its quest for entitlement.

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 19):

Is it really that hard to believe that someone who doesn't want the government telling woman what they can and cannot do with their body would love his/her kids and not want to kill them!!!

Bad argument. I can use parts of my body to physically assault, maim, or kill another human being. And I can just about assure you that "it's my body, I can do what I want with it" will not keep me from some serious prison time.

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 19):
And by the way, just so you know, a man is just as responsible for making a child as a woman.

Is that why you get 0% say in whether or not a child is aborted? I know that's not a central part of the debate, certainly not enough to base a choice of one side over the other. But it has long been a sticking point that you have one individual making a choice that effects two more, in addition to herself...

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 20):
But they don't have to carry a baby for 9 months.

And apparently neither do women. Point?

As for the add, yes, it's clearly playing both sides of a pretty narrow street. But I've seen far worse, so that's all kind of whatever...


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7189 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6202 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 21):
why then is there never any mention or effort of simply being responsible and avoiding the need for a choice?

Let's say there's 7 billion people on the planet...Let's say that equals 4 billion adults making babies (lets ignore the 13yo mums for a second)....add in a few assumptions like if condoms have a 98% success rate & 100% fertility and half the adult population is female and potentially child bearing, and that 5% of those 2 billion are unsuitable mothers (though it's probably much higher) that makes 40 000 000 potential 'accidents' a year (presuming that everyone has sex once a year... ). Of that number that means 2 million children a year that would be born to complete dead weights to humanity and 38 million kids born to loving stable families. 20% of those kids to loving families who can't afford to feed/clothe/house the kid that makes 7.6million kids a year subjected to poverty and ill health That's 9.6 million a year that society ends up paying for in the long run..... That doesn't sound responsible to me.

As we know the numbers are entirely theoretical, but used as an exercise to show that life doesn't fit into boxes and that all options should be available in the knowledge that some people will choose them, and others won't based on what is right for their individual needs.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10027 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6168 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 21):
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 20):
But they don't have to carry a baby for 9 months.

And apparently neither do women. Point?

Here:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 20):
As soon as men can give birth, then we can make everything surrounding childbirth equal.

How do you make something fair and equal when it's inherently unfair and unequal?

And if abortion was illegal, then yes, a woman would have to carry a baby for 9 months.

For many things, it makes perfect sense to say "you have to live with the consequences of your actions". But do we really want to "punish" someone who accidentally got pregnant by forcing them to raise the child? Sure, we could say "that'll teach them!" But we'd be wrong quite often, and another child would be raised in a household that was ill-prepared and uncaring. And that is really not fair to the child.

Look, I don't like abortion. It's something to be avoided as much as possible. But I do think it can be the better (and more responsible) option in some cases.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21627 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6151 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 21):
If the argument is so in favor of "choice" why then is there never any mention or effort of simply being responsible and avoiding the need for a choice?

I think you'll find that the vast majority of pro-choice people do support that sort of thing, and encourage women to avoid having to make the choice whether to have an abortion or not. But when push comes to shove, they do support that choice being available.

This is in contrast to many in the anti-abortion crowd, who would rather see everyone held to their own religious standards, and it's not surprising that such a strategy isn't as effective at preventing women becoming pregnant when they are not at all capable of being proper parents.

Who is really being more responsible?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
25 wn700driver : By eliminating superfluous options Ahhh. Who said anything about punishing anyone? Honestly, to me this is no more a women's rights issue than illega
26 vikkyvik : I did. It's just an argument you see pretty often (not just about abortion - about many major and minor decisions): "be prepared to deal with the con
27 JJJ : So right. When a woman seeks abortion usually there's a very good reason. She might be a teenager, or a drug user, or a single person working long ho
28 wn700driver : I know that there's no fair way out of that particular concern. Whichever path is chosen, there is the better than likely probability that either the
29 vikkyvik : Correct, you didn't say that. I was commenting more generally. Trust me, I agree wholeheartedly with this decision being based on the child, not the
30 Aesma : Well, you can look at other countries where this has happened. France had a law legalizing abortion in 1975 (not a court's decision, however there wa
31 wn700driver : Religion is indeed a huge part of the problem with this. The fantasy that teenagers somehow won't have sex or that adults will just wait till marriag
32 rolfen : Women have the right to abort, since its their body. But abortion is wrong, and they should know this.
33 dl021 : Well, to answer the above all with a couple of sentences. The people who find this ironic do so because in their eyes abortion is the termination of
34 vikkyvik : But it's not deeper than that. She's a freaking actress. She did a freaking diaper commercial. She supports abortion. That last sentence is completel
35 dl021 : If your personal life involves trampling the civil rights of others, shouldn't that make an impact on how one perceives you employers? Why would they
36 vikkyvik : Did the actress in question make abortion look majestic through her diaper commercial (not sure how she could have achieved that)? If not, then I don
37 Aesma : Late-term abortions are far from the majority (where allowed, I mean), and personally I'm against it (unless the child has a medical condition). The
38 Post contains images dl021 : Well, since you live in California I'll let you off the hook for being conflicted, but to be fair I'd say there's a big difference between having a l
39 vikkyvik : Much appreciated! True - and I don't mean to compare the two in their scope. It was just the most prevalent example to come to mind. I understand tha
40 Post contains images Aesma : You could see it as smart on the contrary, with the premise that a wanted children will get the best care, hence the "high-end" diapers, instead of th
41 Derico : No, if a woman has more power over a future child over a man (because she carries it), then that should carry all the way to adulthood. In today's la
42 Aesma : I agree with the fact that society shouldn't punish men who don't want to be fathers, just like it shouldn't punish women who don't. However I disagre
43 Derico : Exactly. I don't want to sound like I'm a mysogenist, but lets keep it real. Women are extremely manipulative these days, mainly because of these leg
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
End Of An Era - In My Life, That Is posted Thu May 18 2006 01:27:09 by Redngold
When There Is An Unexpected Girl In Your Apartment posted Thu Mar 1 2001 08:26:25 by XFSUgimpLB41X
In Your Opinion, What Is The Best PC Music Manager posted Fri Jul 30 2010 09:11:39 by Derico
What Is An Elected Officials' Duty? posted Wed Dec 30 2009 05:58:57 by Gatorfan
What Is An American? The Quintessential List. posted Thu Sep 11 2008 00:52:26 by LOT767-300ER
Who Is An American? posted Thu Aug 7 2008 10:48:31 by DC10extender
An Hdmi Is An Hdmi? How True? posted Wed Jan 2 2008 08:54:52 by Mirrodie
This Can Happen In Live TV - Sweden... posted Tue Sep 25 2007 10:25:40 by Bofredrik
This Woman Is An Artist! posted Fri Jun 15 2007 23:27:02 by RootsAir
Who Here Is An Atheist? posted Tue Mar 20 2007 12:28:58 by QANTASFOREVER