Abortion debates have been a hot topic for years now. There have been countless protests, conflicts, etc. over this topic and people are definitely not afraid of sharing their opinion. To be honest, why would they be? Many people are passionate about this issue because the question of having control over one’s own body comes into play. There are definitely valid arguments for both sides and one opinion that has presented itself is the solution of defunding planned parenthood in order to essentially defund abortion guidance. This bumper sticker shown above represents the idea to defund planned parenthood and does so in a clear and concise way. I’m not saying that I agree with the message to any extent, but it should be acknowledged that the sticker absolutely gets to the point very fast.

The argument is certainly not detailed and presents no reasons why planned parenthood should be defunded. My initial understanding of the bumper sticker was that whoever was behind this statement wanted planned parenthood defunded because then they would not be able to give people information on abortions. But, thinking about it in more detail, the bumper sticker could have a variety of meanings which could be confusing for other viewers. The people behind this may want planned parenthood defunded so that they can’t share information about adoption anymore. Some people think adoption is wrong and that all parents should keep their children no matter what the situation. 

There’s a myriad of ideologies that this bumper sticker addresses, considering that there are 2 sides to this argument if not more, but one commonplace that can really apply to the vast majority is pregnancy. The majority of people have the ability to either impregnate someone or become pregnant, therefore this debate about abortion really forces most people to think about what they would do if they found themselves in a situation with an unplanned pregnancy.

Overall, I don’t think this message is clear about exactly what it wants accomplished but it certainly does address something that affects the majority of people.

On November, 19, 1863 President Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address in the hopes that it would help to unite the people, bringing them together for a higher purpose (rmc.library.cornell.edu). Essentially, the civil war had been going on for a while and as a result of the fighting, there were so many horrendous deaths that people were getting distracted. Their focus was being pulled away from the real reasons why they should be fighting. Given in the middle of the Civil War time period, the Gettysburg Address was delivered at the exact right moment. So many people were traumatized by the brutalities of war and the address ended up shifting their focus from thinking they were fighting just to kill other people, to thinking they were fighting for the higher purpose of uniting the country. The soldiers’ mindset was altered to fighting for a moral purpose rather than mindlessly killing the opposing side.

The kairos in the Address was more subtle than other kairotic examples. Lincoln did tak

e advantage of an opportunity, but the window for this opportunity was open for a while longer than other examples of Kairos. Take for example Colin Kaepernick. He had to make a split second decision to kneel or stand up during the national anthem to make a statement. Lincoln had the opportunity to give the Union army one last push before the battle between Robert E. Lee and the Army of the Potomac. Seizing the opportunity, Lincoln gave the address. Considering that the Gettysburg Address can be considered the single most important turning point identified during the Civil War, Lincoln’s kairotic appeals were extremely effective. Again, the soldiers now realized they were fighting for a higher moral purpose, giving them motivation to push through the war, resulting in the Confederates essentially losing the war.

 In addition to inspiring the Union soldiers, Lincoln also encouraged urgency by reminding the people of the on-going national crisis. Their nation was divided and just having gained independence from Britain, Lincoln reminds them of the embarrassment they’ll feel if the nation’s crisis is not solved. Personally, I’m not motivated by this address simply because it was a completely different one from which I find myself in today. Yes, the United States is a nation that often becomes divided on political issues, but I cannot say that I am motivated to unite our country simply because of the present situation.

We’ve all seen some awful ads in our time. Maybe ones that had racist undertones, ones that were just a little too provocative for our taste, or ones that were just so disconnected from the product that it seemed like the ad was a parody of what the real ad was supposed to be. One of my personal favorites was the Pepsi Max ad that I saw featured in a m

eme. It was funny, had nothing to do with the actual drink, and left me questioning “what just happened,” and “I wonder how much money was wasted on making this!” Although some terrible ads are so bad they make us laugh, some are downright offensive, and should have never made it past the advertising team at companies.

In 2010, Calvin Klein released an ad for their jeans. The ad, featuring four people (three men, one woman), includes one horrendous scene suggesting rape, one and half pairs of actual jeans, and three extremely offensive messages. Clearly, the advertisement was supposed to be about jeans. But, only one full pair of jeans can be seen in the ad, and the person wearing them is evidently forcing another male in the ad to engage in some kind of sexual act with a female. The fact that the first male has his hand entangled in the woman’s hair with his arm taut, and his other hand clearly pushing the second male onto the woman suggests some kind of sexual coercion. In addition to this horrifying innuendo, the ad also sends the messages that 1. To appeal to an audience in order to sell a product, models need to take their clothes off and act in a provocative way 2. Forcing people to do things that they’re not comfortable with is okay and 3. Women are inferior. 

If Calvin Klein had thought that they could appeal to a target audience with having fully clothed models, they probably would have done that rather than running the risk of getting criticism for a provocative ad. The fact that companies feel the need to publish provocative ads in order to sell a product is seriously horrifying but hardly unexpected. The ad also suggests that forcing people to commit sexual acts is okay. If people are experiencing some kind of abuse especially sexual, viewing this ad normalizes coerced sexual acts. People may fall under the impression that what they’re going through is not out of the ordinary because it’s in a public ad. This thought process could ultimately prevent people from coming forward about experienced abuse. Lastly, the ad points to women as inferior. First, Lara Stone is positioned underneath two males. The model is wearing little to nothing and also positioned to have her head on another male’s lap, putting her in a compromised position. In addition, she has a look of distress with her mouth open and her hand, with her shoulders raised, pushing against the male on top of her. By placing the female model nearly naked and in a compromised position, with her head being pulled back by her hair and a male on top of her, the ad suggests that this woman is inferior to the three other males in the advertisement.

These messages and the underlying theme of sexual coercion makes this ad arguably awful.